• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

To you it has been given to know...

And P.S. yes you are. Your worse than any enemy. You present yourself as friend and brother when your anything but.

You owe everybody here an apology, you owe them all one.
Hey Hazel. it is ok. You inviting him here and the way he posts, is no reflection on you. No need for you or @XrzrX to leave. We enjoy debating our position and scripturally supporting and defining it. It is on XrzrX that he won't respond in kind ---and telling , that scripture won't support his position unless he only uses a scripture completely isolated from ALL context.

We are used to being treated badly and our doctrines slandered (and slander is what it is, because they are always stated incorrectly and refuse correction). We won't let the slander and inflammatory language continue, but it is good training for us to tamp down the emotions he arouses and stick to the scriptural facts.

Hopefully @XrzrX will get with the program and respond fairly to our posts, dealing with what we say head on. Not with opinion of exegeted scripture and honest, sound commentary. It would be very good for him too. The discussions could be lively and profitable instead of the pure devisiveness that he brings into it.
 
You're being overly emotional, but, as I am actually a Christian... I'll happily leave the forum if you wish. If I've become a stumbling block to you then that would be best.

Anything I say you will use against these people.

However, I don't care if you stay but I do care if you're verbally abusive to people here. It's just that simple, your being verbally abusive and it reflects on me.

I probably don't have the same sensibilities you do, clearly. My cultural background is more honor-bound, probably for real, than yours.

All I want is for the people here to be treated as the brethren they are: members of the Body of Christ. They deserve the respect of brothers and sisters who have God's Holy Spirit.

I'm simply willing to put my body between them and abuse if need be. I just don't have the same sensibilities as other people.

Stay if you can treat others with respect (actual respect), please go if you cannot. That's my personal request is all. Nothing to do with the forum, they wouldn't ask, because they are better than me.
 
It's clearly not a troll, and the fact such a simple question could be viewed as one defies logic. This is what happens in these contentious doctrinal divides, people can't see clearly. It's not a trick question! Asked why He taught in parables, He said "so that SEEING they may not SEE..". Now, this Calvinist "demure" is exhausting... and like Mormons and RCs and any number of error bearers, you Deny... what you believe. ANY iteration of Calvinist holds that the unregenerate Cannot 'see'. and this passage Destroys that. Again, we need a 5K page philosophy thesis to 'jargon' our way out of it. The onus is hardly on me to explain this contradiction.
Third time I have asked. You are still not defining the contradiction. People who do not answer questions when asked while claiming sincerity are trolling. You say that is not you but I do not read an answer to the question asked.
ANY iteration of Calvinist holds that the unregenerate Cannot 'see'.
I told you: no strawmen.

The text in question, not Calvinism, states they could see. They could see but not understand. Any Cal who says they cannot see has misrepresented his own doctrine AND the text in question. You, @XrzrX, are not gaining any ground by disputing someone mistaking their own soteriology. I will gladly join you as a monergist and point with you to the text and tell me Calvinist colleague to mind the text!

That does not change the fact the text states they cannot perceive or understand. That is the point you must address, and you are not doing so. You cannot claim there is a contradiction and not explain what it is you perceive is the contradiction. You cannot cite someone else's argument and think anyone else shares that specific point of view (this is now the second time you've made that mistake). You cannot ignore questions and think anyone will respect you. Answer the question asked and move the discussion forward. I have already addressed the fact God can do whatever he likes with sinners and neither you nor I have any grounds for protest. Jesus stated the Jews to whom he was speaking (teaching in parables) could not perceive or understand. Monergists agree.

Given that the text in question plainly states the audience is never perceiving and never understanding, what specifically is it that you think is the contradiction?



Now that the problem has occurred, let me also add some commentary for everyone's benefit. I've been arguing soteriology for 40+ years, and I started out Arminian, not monergist. Over the decades I have found the two most frequently occurring problems and the two most egregious problems are 1) Arms and Cal often get their own doctrine wrong, and 2) Arms and Cal often get their counterparts' doctrine wrong. You've already committed the second greatest problem. You say you're a Provisionist, so I wonder how well you know what Flowers actually teaches because a lot of Provisionists don't (and a lot of self-styled Arminians think they are Arms when they're not. More importantly, you had better be able to get Calvinism correct or everything you post will be strawmen. You cannot rely on the reputed former Cal, Leighton Flowers, because he chronically misrepresents Calvinism and teaches those misrepresentations to his followers. If you come into a Cal-heavy forum and rag on Cals with Flowers' arguments you just look foolish and won't accomplish anything. I am betting that if you have the ability to take this conversation one point at a time, examine scripture as written, and use your ability to reason through the two then you and I will agree, and you'll be persuaded to monergism. If, on the other hand, your allegiance is to the doctrine ver scripture then just say so now and save us all a lot of time, effort, and cyberspace.


What, specifically, is it that you think is a contradiction?


.
 
P.S. It's "Do to others As You Would Have them do to you.." Lk 6:31/Mt 7:12.. not as 'they've done'.
Either way you've failed. Yo have not treated anyone here as you would have us do to you....... unless you want us misrepresenting your beliefs, ridiculing them, and avoiding any op-relevant inquiries you post. Let us know if that's your desire. I won't participate with that but some might. They'll give you what you want. Until then.....


Please explain to me the contradiction you've claimed exists.



.
 
I believe your umbrage is not completely unfounded since my delivery is imperfect, even if in good faith. I apologize for undue offense, I'm certainly one of God's most unpolished stones. That said, as I've said, Calvinism tests the boundaries of my patience. My desire is to conduct myself with the same civility as I would with say, Mormonism or JW, or RCs. RCs being the closest analogy, in that it's considered by mainstream to not be "heresy" or "anathema", and so, the 'goal' is to find reconciliation.. not absolute irreconcilable division. Of course, we know well it's irreconcilable.. yet, Church Inc. is willing to feign, which.. I cannot see as other than a lie. Similarly, like RC, Calvinism claims the 'same Gospel'.. presenting that doctrinal reconciliation is somehow possible.. however, this narrow definition of what amounts to 'heresy' is arguably lacking, in that even a proper definition of the Gospel, which has an improper doctrine of Atonement.. is no Gospel at all, and therefore 'another gospel'. A real Gospel, presented as "unavailable" to "certain people" is NOT the Gospel. It's a stumbling block, and an enemy to the Gospel. A more insidious wolf than any flagrantly "definitionally false gospel". So yes, it's a dire struggle for me to be 'civil' in the face of such a destructive set of doctrines. But, I don't make the rules.. and so, try my best to do to others as I would have done to me.. and that demands the assumption of good faith, patience and the understanding you feel hasn't been given. So yes, I always try to be better, and do better. Point taken.
Of course, as I hope you are aware, your whole statement here assumes that 'your' Gospel is altogether without error, lacking nothing, and altogether comprehensible —in fact, apparently, even, as I hear you, comprehensible to the non-elect.
 
It's clearly not a troll, and the fact such a simple question could be viewed as one defies logic. This is what happens in these contentious doctrinal divides, people can't see clearly. It's not a trick question! Asked why He taught in parables, He said "so that SEEING they may not SEE..". Now, this Calvinist "demure" is exhausting... and like Mormons and RCs and any number of error bearers, you Deny... what you believe. ANY iteration of Calvinist holds that the unregenerate Cannot 'see'. and this passage Destroys that. Again, we need a 5K page philosophy thesis to 'jargon' our way out of it. The onus is hardly on me to explain this contradiction.
In spite of how @Josheb framed it, he's not asking you to explain the contradiction. He's asking you to explain how it is a contradiction. I.e., why do you say there is a contradiction —what is your reasoning for saying so? Where, precisely is the contradiction? How does the one thing contradict the other? How many ways can I say this?
 
Last edited:
"God obfuscates the message SO THAT the blind will not see and the deaf will not hear." I mean, that's the end of the discussion.
Of course. Where did I say different?

Where's the problem, then?
 
If that were true, all would believe and be saved. There wouldn't be any outside the kingdom.
You can open your bible and what Jesus stated is clear for all to read. Was something hidden? Were His explanations of His parables not stated?
I didn't state all would believe in the truth.


All are born into this world with the weakness of the flesh commonly referred to as the sinful nature. But nobody is born into this world with a corrupt mind. One may grow into that, but nobody starts that way. Satan sows the weeds. Children tend to believe what their parents teach them whether they are mistaken are not. Such as Santa. Or Christ Jesus Or other faiths. In order to hold to the testimony of Jesus the Spirit would need to be involved. Children tend to be humble as well rather than arrogant and conceited. Again, one may grow into that, but nobody starts that way. Satan sows the weeds.

If fact Jesus stated
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
 
Weren't the Disciples also Jews; and it was given to them to Understand?
It was Gods set purpose for Jesus to be rejected and crucified. That has nothing to do with the gentiles nor any who claim to be jews afterwards. Not all Israel are Isreal but were any gentiles, Isreal beforehand? Nobody comes to Jesus unless the Father enables them. Thats why Jews who were His disciples walked away from Him when His teaching of Him being the living bread who came down from heaven that one may eat and never die was too hard for them to accept.

God grants repentance that leads to the knowledge of the truth. (grace)
God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. (grace and resistance)
God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith. (grace)
God delights in those who fear Him. (favor)

Jesus stated My house will be full. So, when the full number of gentiles come in and His house is full to His satisfaction then the end will come.
 
.....were any gentiles, Isreal beforehand?
Yes.

The word "Israel" means "God perseveres." The word "Israel" was applied long before (centuries before) the nation-state Israel ever existed. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all Babylonian. They were Hebrews from the Eber region in Chaldea, which is in Babylon. Numerous others are included among Israel, those in whom God worked who were not genetically descendants of Jacob's (the first person named Israel). Many other were included in the covenant relationship even though we do not know anything about their salvific state (Jashobeam the Hakmonite, Eleazar the Ahohite, Uriah the Hittite, etc.). In the NT we find Gentiles coming to Christ prior to Calvary (the Canaanite woman, Cornelius, the Centurion, etc.) Temporally speaking, they may not yet have been saved by Calvary but eternally speaking their eternal disposition had already bee decided.
 
You can open your bible and what Jesus stated is clear for all to read. Was something hidden? Were His explanations of His parables not stated?
I didn't state all would believe in the truth.


All are born into this world with the weakness of the flesh commonly referred to as the sinful nature. But nobody is born into this world with a corrupt mind. One may grow into that, but nobody starts that way. Satan sows the weeds. Children tend to believe what their parents teach them whether they are mistaken are not. Such as Santa. Or Christ Jesus Or other faiths. In order to hold to the testimony of Jesus the Spirit would need to be involved. Children tend to be humble as well rather than arrogant and conceited. Again, one may grow into that, but nobody starts that way. Satan sows the weeds.

If fact Jesus stated
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
You just simply disagree with scripture.
 
You just simply disagree with scripture.
As I stated nothing has been hidden and all was made plain with explanations in the NT.

You think this is a lie?

Since Gods will is that none should perish then an enemy of His must still be active in this world working to subvert His will.

As we pray may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
And "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"


“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
 
Yes.

The word "Israel" means "God perseveres." The word "Israel" was applied long before (centuries before) the nation-state Israel ever existed. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all Babylonian. They were Hebrews from the Eber region in Chaldea, which is in Babylon. Numerous others are included among Israel, those in whom God worked who were not genetically descendants of Jacob's (the first person named Israel). Many other were included in the covenant relationship even though we do not know anything about their salvific state (Jashobeam the Hakmonite, Eleazar the Ahohite, Uriah the Hittite, etc.). In the NT we find Gentiles coming to Christ prior to Calvary (the Canaanite woman, Cornelius, the Centurion, etc.) Temporally speaking, they may not yet have been saved by Calvary but eternally speaking their eternal disposition had already bee decided.
Not all Israel is Isreal as Paul wrote has a different context then what you state. The children of God before the new convent was introduced were the children of Abraham. The children of God under the new covenant are those born of God. Paul wrote to show Gods promises to Abraham had not failed as Not all Israel is Israel.

Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.

I would think Isreal means, “one who struggles with God.”
 
Not all Israel is Isreal as Paul wrote has a different context then what you state. The children of God before the new convent was introduced were the children of Abraham. The children of God under the new covenant are those born of God. Paul wrote to show Gods promises to Abraham had not failed as Not all Israel is Israel.
When was the new covenant introduced?
Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.

I would think Isreal means, “one who struggles with God.”
You would think incorrectly, but even if that definition were applicable the question is then, "Who is it that wrestles with God?". The answer to that question is, "Those in whom is already at work for His purpose". Atheists do not wrestle with God. They do not believe any God exists so how could they possibly wrestle with a God in which they do not believe? Atheists do not believe in sin, either. What possible explanation could there be for any atheist wrestling with something which does not exist (in the mind of the atheist)?

Jacob was a man chosen by God before Jacob was born. Jacob was chosen for Christological purpose before he was born. The infant, the child, the man had no clue he'd been chosen, nor for what purpose, and the account of his life is one in which he chronically disobeyed God. God won. Your definition does not gain you any profit. It paradoxically works in the other direction.


When was the new covenant introduced?

Was it in Genesis 1:28ff?
Was it Genesis 2:9-17?
Was it Genesis 3:15?
Was it Genesis 4:26?
Was it Genesis 6:18?
Was it Genesis 9:9-17?
Was it Genesis 12:1?
Was it Genesis 15?

The New Testament reports the introduction of a new covenant. It does so citing the Old Testament prophets, like Jeremiah 31:31, which makes no mention of Gentiles), and Hosea 2:23's people who are not Good's people. This "new covenant" is a fulfillment of divine purpose that originated in the beginning (Jn 1:1) with the Messiah who was foreknown as such before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20). It is this new covenant in which the men and women of faith are made complete (Heb. 11:40). Perhaps most importantly of all (for the purposes of this thread) is the fact Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit) took the covenant promises made to Abraham and tied them to Jesus.

Galatians 3:16-18
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

The promises God made were spoken to Abraham and Jesus!!! The promises were spoken to Abraham and Abraham's seed and that seed is Jesus, not Israel. Israel (both the boy, the people, and the nation) were seeds of Abraham but they were not the promised seed, the seed of promise. Not all Israel is Israel.

If you get our your Bible, or call up your software e-Bible and do a search of the word "Israel," you will find the first person called "Israel" is Jacob. Jacob is given that name after he wrestles with God but God wins that match. The name is not merely about wrestling. In that episode Jacob is broken (both literally and metaphorically). His life changes. He becomes a functioning agent of God's purpose, rather than an ignorant and rebellious one. When Hebrews 11 cites Jacob, it does so by marking his birth and his death, not his life in between. It does not cite a particular event (like his wrestling with God) as it does with most of the other names mentioned. Jacob was loved by God before the boy was even born. The purpose God had for Jacob was Christological. More germane to the matter of "Israel," Jacob was called Israel long before the geo-political nation Israel ever existed. Hundreds of years. The next use of the word "Israel," is "sons of Israel," which the Jews theologically understood a a matter of genetics or bloodline but God does not care for such things. Bloodline does not get a person - any person - to God. There is not salvation-by-bloodline. Thinking themselves superior because of their bloodline was decried by Christ and one of the reasons those Israelites were excluded from the covenant found in Christ. It was heretical apostacy. Salvation-by-bloodline is also profoundly illogical because the finite can never reach the infinite by finite effort. That is a logical necessity. It does not take doctorate in theology to understand. It is one example of Judaic blindness (there are many). The sons of Israel existed hundreds of years before the nation of Israel. Look it up. You'll find "sons of Israel" first mentioned in Genesis 32 and you will not find Israel mentioned as a nation until Joshua one and Joshua 1 occurs prior to Israel capturing all the land God promised, before they divided the land up by tribes, and long before they became a geo-political nation-state.

In other words, the word "Israel" is not a reference to a geo-political nation-state.

That's how later Jews construed themselves and misappropriated all God's mentions of the word "Israel." It had become doctrine by the time Jesus showed up. It is one of the many misguided falsehoods in Judaism that Jesus corrected. It is within ALL of those contexts that Paul wrote,

Romans 9:6-9
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: Through Isaac your descendants shall be named." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as [h]descendants. For this is the word of promise.....


Not all of Israel is descended from Israel. It is the son of promise that determines Abraham's descendants, not bloodline. Paul expressly excludes the flesh (and products thereof). When we understand the word "Israel" means "God perseveres" and we read ALL mentions of the word using that definition we then also understand what God is telling the Bible readers is that it is those in whom God perseveres that live in a monergistically initiated and maintained Christological covenant and that has always been the case. In pint of fact, very few mentions of "Israel" in the Bible (OT or NT) are specifically or explicitly about the geo-political nation-state Israel. Try reading the Bible again with "people in whom God perseveres" in mind whenever you read the word "Israel" (unless the text itself makes it clear God is speaking about the geo-political nation-state). Here's a very simply and easy way to verify this last point: Give the book of Revelation a quick read through and count the number of times the word "Israel" occurs. You will find the word occurs three times, only three times in the entire book, and not a single mention is specifically about the geo-political nation-state! 😮 Look it up. Don't take my word for it.

When did the new covenant begin? It began at creation, but it is most plainly revealed when Paul ties Genesis 15 to Christ.

And.....

As far as this op goes, the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day missed that fact. Their theology had grown profoundly perverse, heretical, apostate. They'd blinded themselves (fundamentally that can be attributed to sin, the problem that plagues all humanity) but God willingly, proactively left them blind, kept them blind, and used their blindness for His Christological purpose. You catching any of this @XrzrX?
 
Paul wrote to show Gods promises to Abraham had not failed as Not all Israel is Israel.
Which is exactly what I said.

God's promises are fulfilled in the Israel that is Israel. God's promises are not fulfilled in the Israel that is not Israel but there is no obligation that any promise be fulfilled with the non-Israel Israel (except possibly the everlasting promise of destruction).


Are you familiar with something called the "suzerain" covenant? Answer first. You can look it up afterward and then post accordingly, if you like, but first tell me if you know the label and what it means.
 
Which is exactly what I said.

God's promises are fulfilled in the Israel that is Israel. God's promises are not fulfilled in the Israel that is not Israel but there is no obligation that any promise be fulfilled with the non-Israel Israel (except possibly the everlasting promise of destruction).
How does that apply to what Paul is stating about Jews in that not all Israel is Israel means gentiles were Israel beforehand?
Ref Romans 11
Are you familiar with something called the "suzerain" covenant? Answer first. You can look it up afterward and then post accordingly, if you like, but first tell me if you know the label and what it means.
I have not come across that term written in the NT. I am familiar with the original covenant that the people broke and the new covenant Jesus introduced in His blood. And the promise made to Abraham and His seed.
 
How does that apply to what Paul is stating about Jews in that not all Israel is Israel means gentiles were Israel beforehand?
Ref Romans 11
Re-read the post because i just answered that question and answered in a couple of different ways. Re-read Romans 9, too. Read it and re-read it and count the number of times the word "Jew" or "Jews" occurs. Look at the nature of the statement in which that word occurs and ask yourself two questions:

  1. Is that sentence exclusively about the Jews?
  2. Why did I (incorrectly) think the chapter was about Jews when Jews are nowhere mentioned in correlation to verse 6?


The word "Jews" occurs only once in the entire chapter, and it is explicitly couched in those God called from both Jews and Gentiles for His glory. The only reason any doctrine exists thinking, asserting, teaching the chapter is about Jews is because the passage gets Judaized by some theologies. That happens in addition to, in spite of what the text itself actually states.
I have not come across that term written in the NT. I am familiar with the original covenant that the people broke and the new covenant Jesus introduced in His blood. And the promise made to Abraham and His seed.
Thank you for answering the question and being honest and forthcoming about it.

A suzerain covenant was an agreement made by a conquering king to allow the defeated ruler to govern his land within the defeated ruler's pledge of fealty to the conqueror. A ritual was performed wherein several animals would be cut in two from head to tail and each half of the carcass would be laid on the ground to create a pathway or "hallway". The conquering king would sit in a makeshift throne or stand on a platform at one end and the defeated king would begin walking from the other end of the carcass-defined path toward his conqueror. When the defeated king reached the end of the march he would bow down before the conquering king and pledge fealty, obedience, to the conqueror lest what happened to those animals happen to him if he ever violated his allegiance to the conqueror. If the vassal king ever broke faith with the suzerain (the superior king), he would be cut in two from head to toe while still alive.


Abraham sets up the suzerain ritual.

Genesis 15:2-16
Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" And Abram said, "Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir." Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir." And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. And He said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it." He said, "O Lord GOD, how may I know that I will possess it?" So He said to him, "Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon." Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds. The birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away. Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. "As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. "Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."

Abraham was doing what people did in his day. Note that God did not tell Abraham what to do with the animals God requested. Abraham took it upon himself to create the suzerain ritual and God did nothing. All day long Abe waited around for God to show up, but He never did. When God required an animal's sacrifice it looked much different than the suzerain ritual. The animal's sacrifice in God's religion, in God's jurisprudence was a foreshadowing of Christ crucified. Abraham had to chase the carrion eaters of the carcasses and he ended up falling asleep without God ever showing up.

When God did eventually show up, He did so in a vision while Abraham slept, and in that vision Abraham saw a smoking pot and fiery furnace walk through the carcasses and pledge fealty to God. Smoke and fire are symbols for God in the Old Testament!!! What Abraham saw was God walking through the carcasses, God pleading fealty to God on the condition of his own loss of life if he ever failed in His allegiance to Himself. In other words, what God did with the suzerain covenant is foreshadow the day when He Himself, in the Person of His own Son, would lay down his own life to fulfill the promises made to Abraham. The covenant with Abraham is Christological.


The new covenant began in Genesis, not the gospels.


So..... when Paul begins to write about his kinsmen being saved he cannot possibly be meaning genetics save. Salvation-by-bloodline is irrational, a heresy and it goes against the fact of Romans 9:24,

Romans 9:23-24
And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles...

The "us" in that text is "us Christians," not "us Jews" or "us Israelites." God's promises will be kept for those in whom God perseveres. The Israel that is not those in whom God perseveres will not be saved. God never made promises to them. God never made promises based on bloodline. He made promises based on faith.


Next pair of questions:

  1. Was Abram Jewish?
  2. Did God ask Abram if Abram wanted to be called out of Ur before God called him?



.
 
Simple question..
Why would Jesus use parabolic language to obfuscate a Message that the unregenerate were totally incapable of understanding anyway?
The bigger question is, why do some people understand the same parabolic message while others do not?
 
Back
Top