Romans 9 from a free will prespective

[Carbon]

The proof is in that verse. If the elect cannot be lost, why would God ever say that He is not willing that any elect be lost? The answer is that He wouldn't because that would be oxymoronic. Therefore, either the elect can be lost, or God is not speaking about the elect in that verse.

Well now you have something to chew on for a while. It’s really not that difficult to see. As you chew, remember. Context.

 

[JIM]

You need to elaborate more than just giving half answers.

You believe you are elect then. Your problem is to do with the Bible talking about election. The Reformed position says God chooses (that is, elects) people before the foundation of the world (before time came into existence) not because of anything they did or do but for His own glory. This is literally exactly what the Bible teaches. What else can it mean?

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Foreknowledge is not predestination. Foreknowledge is knowledge of what they were going to do.

 

[Carbon]

It is the Reformed concept of God's election that I reject.

Yes we know.

You adhere to the humanist position

 

[Carbon]

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Foreknowledge is not predestination. Foreknowledge is knowledge of what they were going to do.

Foreknowledge? Are you sure you want to bring that up? That’s one of the most silly arguments ever. Oops

But that’s up to you.

 

[JIM]

Yes we know.

You adhere to the humanist position

No, I adhere to the meaning of God's foreknowledge.

 

[Carbon]

No, I adhere to the meaning of God's foreknowledge.

 

[ReverendRV]

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Foreknowledge is not predestination. Foreknowledge is knowledge of what they were going to do.

Amen...

But a Sound Systematic Theology allows this Verse to modify the Meaning of your Verse...

So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
Romans 9:16 NKJV

Right?

 

[JIM]

Foreknowledge? Are you sure you want to bring that up? That’s one of the most silly arguments ever. Oops

But that’s up to you.

That the reformed view that foreknowledge and predestination are the same thing? Talk about the silliest argument ever.

 

[Carbon]

That the reformed view that foreknowledge and predestination are the same thing?

You obviously don’t know the reformed view.

Talk about the silliest argument ever.

Jim,
I am glad you are here. Really I am. I enjoy debating these things as I hope you do.
We can debate your take on foreknowledge if you desire, it’s good to get the simple elementary things out of the way and move on to better things.

I been over this before but will debate it again.

Hope this helps

 

[JIM]

So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
Romans 9:16 NKJV

Romans 9:16 is not a statement about salvation of anyone. It is about God's use of people in the here and now. That should be apparent from the discussion of Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh. There is nothing in that entire chapter about saving or not saving any of them. It is about how God used them to bring about his purpose here on earth. That entire chapter is about God's choosing Israel temporally to bring about His purpose without any obligation to save any of them.

 

[Carbon]

Romans 9:16 is not a statement about salvation of anyone. It is about God's use of people in the here and now. That should be apparent from the discussion of Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh. There is nothing in that entire chapter about saving or not saving any of them. It is about how God used them to bring about his purpose here on earth. That entire chapter is about God's choosing Israel temporally to bring about His purpose without any obligation to save any of them.

Great example of how someone can take one verse and make it mean what they like.

Oh those itching ears,

Hope this helps

 

[ReverendRV]

Romans 9:16 is not a statement about salvation of anyone. It is about God's use of people in the here and now. That should be apparent from the discussion of Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh. There is nothing in that entire chapter about saving or not saving any of them. It is about how God used them to bring about his purpose here on earth. That entire chapter is about God's choosing Israel temporally to bring about His purpose without any obligation to save any of them.

I was expecting you to say this...

So let's say that Romans 9 is about Election to Service. Would you agree that Saint Paul's conclusion then, is that Election is not of him who Wills?

Remember; it's me you are talking to...

 

[Carbon]

@JIM

And you show a great example with Romans 9:16 of how to take things out of context to support a man made doctrine.

Just for he-has, throw in verses 14-15.

Oops

 

[JIM]

Great example of how someone can take one verse and make it mean what they like.

Oh those itching ears,

Hope this helps

No, It is about how someone can take an entire chapter and make it mean what they like. The itching ears are those of the Reformed.

 

[Carbon]

No, It is about how someone can take an entire chapter and make it mean what they like.

Oh?

The itching ears are those of the Reformed.

That you have to prove.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Romans 9:16 is not a statement about salvation of anyone. It is about God's use of people in the here and now. That should be apparent from the discussion of Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh. There is nothing in that entire chapter about saving or not saving any of them. It is about how God used them to bring about his purpose here on earth. That entire chapter is about God's choosing Israel temporally to bring about His purpose without any obligation to save any of them.

Romans 8 and 9 are all about salvation. It's hard to miss. Unless you read it with preconceptions based on a worldview or belief system you hold to. In that case it is like looking at everything with tinted coloured glasses on that also make the world appear upside down.

 

[JIM]

@JIM

And you show a great example with Romans 9:16 of how to take things out of context to support a man made doctrine.

Just for he-has, throw in verses 14-15.

Oops

Verses 14-15 tells us that God was not obligated to save either of them, no matter that He used them for His own purpose. It doesn't say that He either saved or condemned either.

That message was repeated for the case of Pharaoh.

 

[Carbon]

Verses 14-15 tells us that God was not obligated to save either of them, no matter that He used them for His own purpose. It doesn't say that He either saved or condemned either.

That message was repeated for the case of Pharaoh.

Nice try. But no cigar.

Do you want to throw in things like this now and then? Or do you want to debate it?

 

[JIM]

Romans 8 and 9 are all about salvation. It's hard to miss. Unless you read it with preconceptions based on a worldview or belief system you hold to. In that case it is like looking at everything with tinted coloured glasses on that also make the world appear upside down.

Chapter 9 is about who God used to bring the message and the plan of salvation to us. Paul's message is the rebuttal to the Jews thinking that God must save them because Israel was His chosen nation.

 

[JIM]

Nice try. But no cigar.

Do you want to throw in things like this now and then? Or do you want to debate it?

Do you mean things like "Nice try, but no cigar"?