The Reformed(Calvinism)- Arminainism argurment (also know as predestination verses free-will, a very inacurate title in my opinion) has been going on in the Christian community since two students of the theologian John Calvin-Theodore Beza and Joseph Arminuis - started it hundreds of years ago in the wake of The Protestant Reformation. The term Calvinism is somewhat of a misnomer Becuase this topic covers only a small area of Calvins ardent beliefs, and it can be argued that Calivin did not take it as far as Beza and his supporters later would. Proponents of what has ben traditionaly called Calvinism prefer the terms Reformed and Reform Theology, so I use them where applicable and leave Emilys comments as what she originaly said.
Emily falls strongly on the Free Will side of the argument, where my position is kind of in the middle, as I don't think either side is totally correct. Emily is now attending a Bible College with a strong Reform tradition and was strugglng with the fact that most of here teachers did not share her personal views. From this point I will use the content of our emails as conversation between the two of us on the subject.
Emily: So here is what has caused a bit of a stir on campus today.
http://cngwireless.net/stuff/
arenie 505 is the name, and i apologize for the quality but alas it is from a laptop. I butt in a couple of times, which is the most I've done in this class since I discovered that my teacher is Reformed. I've been mostly holding back since that came to light. There is one guy (you can't hear him to well) whose name is William who speaks up as well. We talked after class, he is one cool cat. Also, let it be noted that my teacher did send an email to everyone after class stating he was wrong on one of the points. Thanks again, Glen, for helping me get this so it would be accessible, you rock dude.
Andy:Firstly, I am glad to hear you speaking up with confidence, never be afraid to respectfully and with love discuss your difference of opinion or belief with another person, be they your pastor, teacher or the Pope himself.
I do have some issues with your professors argument on the dual nature of Christ. He seems to get tangled in his own thought process at some points, almost as if he is about to switch sides in his own argument. First on the Immutability of God ( his unchanging nature), I don't think the Incarnation actually effects that. Your professor seems to be arguing at some point that since Jesus is both God and man and God is immutable, that Jesus then must have always been and will always be Both human and divine. God's nature is to be unchanging, but that does not mean that he is forever frozen in a fixed moment in time. Jesus is born, Jesus grows, Jesus hits puberty ,and Jesus meets a slow and agonizing death, but the progression of those changes do not affect the nature of who he is. God unchanging refers to the nature of who He is and his promises, not physical or metaphysical characteristics. The addition of a "layer" of humanity does not
change who Christ is any more than a layer of clothing changes who I am. I am still the same person whether I wear a t-shirt and jeans or a suit and tie. How can the pre-incarnate Christ adopt a human form and grow in the womb if he already had one? I believe that humanity is something He temporarily assumed while here on earth, before returning to his full status after his ascendance to heaven. He can still appear in human form, I think he does that several times in the Old Testament , before he was born to Mary, and will again at the second coming, but that he only actually was human when he came to earth , died for our sins and then was resurrected.
Philippians 2:5-8 NKJV
"5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." NKJV
On the issue of whether or not Christ could sin. That depends on how you look at Christ's divinity and the definition of what sin is. Christ is divine, but he divine because he is part of a triune Godhead who are separate, equal and at the same time one in unity and purpose. Sin by definition is defiance of the will of God. So in order to sin the Son would have to defy the Fathers will. Your professors argument was that he could not defy the fathers will because of his divinity, even though he had a sin nature through his humanity. I disagree. There is a huge difference between what one theoretically could do and what one will do or be willing to do. As we have said, Jesus had a sin nature through his humanity. Therefore I would say that though he could sin due to his human nature, he would not do so because of his divine relationship and unity with his father.
I have also noticed that most of the people I have spoken to or read who have "reformed" (calvinistic) theological views often speak of their high value of Gods sovereignty and emphasize it over his other attributes, making it God's signature defining characteristic. Those of the Armenian (free will) persuasion equally emphasize Gods Grace (or love, the same thing). I don't think that either view is correct. I believe that God's Grace and Sovereignty are both his key defining characteristics and should be esteemed in equal value, that one does not diminish or overshadow the other . God is Love. God is also Righteous, Holy And Just. These coexist and balance each other. I am on neither side, personally,I agree and disagree with points of both.
Emily: Thanks for the input dude. Really good analogy with the t shirt and jeans vs. suit and tie. I'm gonna use that one. Most of the people here seem to be Calvinists to varying degrees, so I'm a bit on edge. I had another discussion after the one in class, incidentally the one in class apparently caused quite a stir in the school (one guy got on FB during class and alerted several people that they should come sit in on the class as it was 'getting dirty in here' and by the end of the day several people were talking about it.)
Anyway, after class I ran into William (who tends to think along my line of thought) and another fellow (Theo, who was in class as well) and we were discussing what had transpired when another group of guys comes up and politely butt into our conversation. Long story short, philosophical pissing contests ensue. I said very little, as it really revolved around William and the Calvinist kid named David. But during the course of this conversation I stated to David that he needed to be very careful when trying to defend his beliefs because you can't always be sure what someone will take and do with what you've told them (I told him about Matthew, that fellow you who killed himself over something similar)
Poor David lost a little bit of his gusto upon hearing that, and realized that what he does isn't some game but can have deadly consequences. But the truly interesting thing that I took from the whole thing was one passing comment that he made about his salvation, about how what someone else believes and challenges his beliefs is threatening his salvation. Now, I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that, and whatever he meant really isn't the point. What is important about that statement is that is the fact that the emotion behind it was fear. He argues so strongly for Calvinism because he (and several other people I now realize) are afraid of what it means if it isn't true. "If we really have free will, and that means God isn't sovereign then God isn't in control and I'm not safe." It's like realizing that your parent isn't perfect or Superman, it's unsettling as hell. BUT, transversely, when those who are pro-free will are presented with the idea that God is in total control and that our actions are predetermined, we feel the fear of being trapped, of being manipulated, and our very identities are threatened when our independence, our autonomy is in question. We both fear what the other is proposing, for essential the same reason. It makes us feel unstable.
I don't know if I can convey how very much this revelation has rocked me. I can understand now why (some) Calvinists are so very hard core and stubborn about their beliefs. It really went a long way towards helping me to be more patient and loving with them, where before I wished that their milk would always be sour and they would always run into heavy traffic whenever they were in a rush, I now know they really aren't all that different than me.
Andy: Though at sometimes predestination vs free will can seem a silly argument (the same people are still going to heaven whether the where chosen by God or the chose God themselves), it can also be very divisive, because it is a symptom of your own personal view of God and their relationship with him (notice how Reformists tend to emphasize God's sovereignty and personal security, while free willers emphasize his love and personal freedom). I lost a close friend because of this. When I was a freshman and sophomore in college my best friend was a guy from my hometown named Keith. One of the things that Keith and I loved to do was debate. We discussed any topic that came to mind, often with much yelling and hand gestures. (We frightened a professor in a class we had together during group discussions.) Over the course of freshman and sophomore year Keith became a die hard Refomist, and this became our main topic of debate. One night in the middle of a loud debate on the topic as Keith and were furiously poring through our bibles to support our position I realized that what we were doing was wrong and disrespectful of God's word. We were not seeking God's will in this discussion, we were just using the bible as a tool to prove that we were right, that God agreed with me and not the other person, that God was on MY side, and it was wrong. I told Keith this , and refused to discuss the topic anymore in the way we had, but began seeking God's will on the issue, which is were I discovered that neither side was right, That each looks at only certain aspects of God, but ignores others. The whole argument is a form of putting God in an easily defined and predictable box that we can feel comfortable with, or to paraphrase C.S Lewis, its an attempt at trying to tame the Loin. Keith did not agree with me, and we drifted apart as he became more and more rigid in his views and attitude. It is most important that what ever the discussion we present our views with respect and love and humility. It is never that God agrees with me and I will beat you into intellectual submission so you can marvel at his Glory shining though me, but rather that this is the way I understand what God has revealed through scripture and I love you any way, no mater who is right.
Emily: I have a question for you: when do you know when to argue you beliefs and when to just let things be? There are so many people here who don't seem to willing to change their beliefs unless you debate them into a corner and even then they may still hang onto their beliefs. I've done this myself. Even when someone seems to have the upper hand in a debate and what they say seems to make a kind of sense that I can't rebuke, I still get this feeling that they are wrong, but have nothing to back it up but a feeling. And I know that that it a no-no area for alot of people. You shouldn't base your beliefs on what you 'feel'. But couldn't it be just as easily argued not to trust what you know? What you know can change, or what you think could turn out to be a lie. I guess this question kind of circles back to the debate I initiated with you and Chuck a while back about the limits of knowledge. How far can your mind really take you on the road of faith, or more importantly how far should let it take you? Is it about balance, I wonder? Is it about letting God tell you when to trust you mind or when to trust your heart. When to trust facts and when to trust faith. *sigh* It's so hard to discuss my beliefs in an open way (a way in which I can admit I might be wrong) with people I do not trust. I feel like just keeping my mouth shut about a lot of stuff simply because I know I wouldn't be able to enter into a frank and open conversation with half the people here. Also, alot of this deeper theology is giving me a head ache, which has never happened before. It always seemed like I was willing to jump right into a discussion before, and now I avoid them. I just don't want the headache of arguing with a 21 year old Calvinist kid who thinks because he has been in bible college for 3 years being taught by like minded people that he has a corner on knowledge about God. Maybe it's terribly arrogant of me to say this about someone else when it could easily be attached to me as well, but I simply don't want to beat my head against a brick wall with some of these kids. Is that wrong of me? That I want to avoid these debates in these circumstances? Am I not fighting the good fight? Should I have more fortitude? Or am I showing some wisdom? I honestly don't know.
Andy: First, it is very important that you don't just know what you believe, but why you believe what you believe. A feeling is a shaky foundation to base anything on, unless it comes from God himself. Feeling something is true is just the starting point. True conviction comes not just from knowing that something is true but Knowing why that is true. Thier are some things we will never understand, but reward comes as much in seeking God as attaining the knowledge you sought.
As far as when to discuss it with another, let the Holy Spirit be your guide. In a environment like you are in theological discussion if often almost a hobby, or at worst a spectator sport. Some people are also trying to pick a fight so they can try out their shiny new argument they just learned in class. Argument almost never changes the mind or the heart.
Third and most important, do everything with the love and humility of Christ. you are not hear to change minds, but hearts, and Christ grows and develops your mind and heart through this experience.
Emily: In my Greek class we are studying Acts 13:18
| Arrrrrgh! Why does the Greek teacher have to be a Calvinist? could I please hear your views on this? Andy: First Lets go back over the five points of Reform Theology (this is the Andy interpretation.) T-Total Depravity= people are sinners and cannot save themselves (I Totally agree) U- Unconditional Election= God Calls Christains to salvation and saves them, It is God's choice, not mans. (I would say God Calls some Christains to Salvation and saves them.) L- Limited Attonement= The Atonment of Christ is only effective for those he elects, the rest burn in Hell for all eternity. (I have a serious problem with this Idea, as you can tell, and do not think that it is biblical) I- Irresistible Grace= Only God can put the desire for salvation into your heart, his grace cannot be resisted. ( I agree in principle, but calvinists' see this as an all or nothing thing, God puts the grace whammy on the elect and every body else God just burns. I believe God makes grace irresistible in some cases and resistible in others but he offers it to everybody.) P- Perseverance of the Saints- once saved, always saved. (Totally agree) Now to your verse Acts 13:42-52 NKJV 42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue,[j] the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. 44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘ I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’” 48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region. 50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium.52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit One commentary I read argues that it was they way they were saved that was appointed, not that they would be saved. I don't think that is accurate though.I think it means that certain people were chosen to be God to be saved that day. I don't have a problem with election at all, it is referred to over and over again in the new testament. Certain people are chosen for salvation. I don't think that it is a case of "God chose this person at the beginning of time for some arbitrary and unknown reason " like Reformed theologians believe, but that God wants this person to be a part of the divine plan and he can make that happen. It's like with me and Elijah (My 16 month old son). If I decide he needs a bath and he says no, he still gets a bath, its just a little more difficult. It's not that I chose before he was born that on this day he would have a bath, Its that I'm Daddy, I'm bigger, and therefore my will be done. Now notice what the verse DOES NOT Say. It does not say that all those who were not appointed for salvation died and burned in hell. It does not even say that that those who were appointed for salvation were the only ones who were saved that day. it only says the appointed were saved. Clear evidence for Election, no evidence for Limited Atonement. This is the problem you have when dealing with some Reform Theologians, they like to roll Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement together and assume that proof for one is proof for both. This is not true. There is plenty of proof for the Idea that SOME christians are elected ( chosen for salvation.) There is no proof that all christians are elected or that the unelected automatically are destined for hell. I would also like to know your teachers interpretation of verse 46. It is very clear that the Jews were offered salvation and CHOSE not to accept it. In my opinion you have examples of both election and free will in the same passage! I believe it is as the great preacher Charles Spurgeon once prayed "Lord hasten to bring in thine elect, and then elect some more!" Emily: The problem with this is that I'm dealing with people who have a more extensive knowledge of the Bible than I do (and probably always will) and all I have is "That doesn't sound like what I know to be true about God." It comes back to scripture, they always want to use scripture to prove a point and I have not yet learned enough about scripture to give an adequate retort using said scripture. I just believe. Or don't believe, whatever. It troubles me greatly being taught from this perspective. Satan is really using all of my weaknesses and fears against me lately. And I feel like I have no weapons, no allies, no defense whatsoever against so many attacks of such strength. I know God is with me, I know He'll never leave me, but just hearing such damaging doctrine... I falter under it's implications. My soul weeps and rages and cringes back all at the same time. It gets unbearable sometimes, to be quite honest my friend. I feel like I have strength to draw back this great big bow and fire back, but I have no arrows to fire with. I have to ask, where is God in the midst of such doctrines? Where is He battling these lies? Why does He allow them to continue to spread this mixture of truth and falsehood? And then I doubt... maybe they are right. What if they are right? They have scripture, I have a feeling in my soul. Where is the scripture to support the idea that some are elected instead of limited atonement? Andy: First, remember that these people you are discussing this with are also believers, who are also trying their best to understand Gods word and will in their lives. They are not your enemies., no matter how combative or occasionally arrogant they can be. You do not have to change or refute their beliefs, you only have to be able to defend your own. You are here to grow,explore, test and learn. God has you rubbing elbows and exchanging Ideas with other believers who have different theological beliefs than you for a reason. \8i=9l.bbfuy,. giiiiiiiii.ijo41k (Sorry, Elijah got a hold of the keyboard, I decided to leave you his little message of encouragement.) I know that you also feel that you are not here just to be taught, but to cause others to reflect. That can be very difficult with people like your teachers, who have worked very hard and have multiple PHD's in obscure subsets of theology, they are here to influence you in their minds, not the other way around. However when it comes to ministry, some reap and others sow, just because there was no immediate effect does not mean that you have not planted seeds in the heart and mind. On the ele?/??////? ( Little fingers again.) On the issue of election, There is a ton of scripture referring to the elect and christians being elected. This is where our issue lies. If God specifically chooses some, what happens to those he does not choose? There is NO Biblical support for limited atonement. The closest that you can get is a misinterpretation of Romans chapter 9 totally taken out of context. Do not let some one get way with using a passage about election to try to prove limited atonement. We also have John 3:16-20 that refutes the Idea. 18-20 clearly explains why some people go to hell, even though God wants all to be saved. we also have passages like acts chapter 13 where you have both an example of election and one of example rejection through free will. I have done a little research for you and I have looked at every passage in the the new testament that contains the words Elect, Election, and predestine. In every instance it NEVER refers to a single individual as being elect or not being elect. The words elect and predestined are always used to refer to the Church, or to christians as a group. The only reference I have found that can be possibly referred to individuals is the references to the Lambs book of life in revelations. I do believe that God chooses certain people for his service, such as Abraham ,the Disciples or Paul. This is not so much of a matter of "Predestined from the beginning of time with no free will" as it is that God comes on so strong that it would be stupid to refuse, that God stacks the deck so hard in His favor that they make the choices that he wants them to. It's like the example earlier about me and Elijah. I will also here is a bible study that might help. I love this guy's bible studies and often use them in sermon preperaton as a reference, look especially at his comments on Ephesians 1:4-6. http://www.jesuswalk.com/ephesians/1_blessings.htm This is an an answer that was given by a pastor whom I really like and respect who is usually considered to be a fairly hard line Reformist. http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-Q-11.htm Emily: Could you dig up the counter part to TULIP ( 5 pionts of Reformed Theology)for me that you were telling me about? Also, I found this and thought you might like it, it's called CURED http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/southern-baptist/T24NJFPCVIMTHIGR3 Andy:I was incorrect, the ROSES acrostic comes from a theologian named Timothy George Radical depravity Overcoming grace Sovereign election Eternal life Singular redemption This article discusses the difference between the TULIP and ROSES pointshttp://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/07d.html What is interesting to me in this article is that they use 2 scriptures to defend the Idea of limited atonement, Acts 20:28 and Ephesians 5:25. However , neither of the verses refers to the election of individual believers, only to the Church as being chosen. In every scripture I can find in reference to Gods election, it always refers to the Church, or Christians as a group, and never to individual believers. It's like a bus. God has chosen this particular bus (the Church) to be the way to salvation through Christ( I guess that would make him the Bus driver). Whether or not you get on the bus is up to you. Our Job as ministers of the gospel is to tell as many people as we can to get on the bus. The Holy spirit is also sweeping through the crowd, picking out certain individuals, and telling them to get on the bus as well. Just because he picks out certain people( Paul, Abraham and the Disciples come to mind) does not mean they are the only ones he wants, he wants every one he can get onboard, some just Get pesronal pressure for God to get on board. Roger Nicole does have an alternate acrostic as well, though Grace Obligatory grace Sovereign grace Provision-making grace Effectual grace Lasting grace Emily: Romans 9:14-25 Just in general, what is your take on this troubling section. It seems very clear to me what it is implying, but it doesn't sit right with what I know to be true about God. I've always thought the idea of "Who o man are you to talk back to God?" was kind of a silly thing to say. You just said who I am, Paul. I am man, to who God gave the ability to talk back. I am not a tree, not a fish, not a bug, not a raindrop. I am a sentient being. I am self aware and have been made in the image of God, by God. God questions people, it stands to reason that I have the ability and desire to question God. Who am I? I am His daughter, and I have a right to speak to my Father. Andy: Have you ever heard a small portion of a conversation and thought someone was saying one thing, but when you hear the discussion in its entirety discover they were actually saying something different? that is what is happening here. Chapters 9-11 are really one long sermon on the state of the nation of Israel, in which Paul gives points and counterpoints, presents his own arguments, and also presents and refutes arguments he disagrees with. It is very easy with this passage to pluck a few verses out of their context and make it sound like he is saying something that he is not. In order to understand what Paul is saying you need to start at the beginning of the discussion and then work your way through, rather than jumping in at the middle. Paul begins this topic at the beginning of Chapter 9. Romans 9: 1-5 NKJV 1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen It is clear that Paul Is worried about the nation of Israel. The Israelites believe that they are the Chosen, Predestined people of God, and they will all be saved, but Paul knows this is not true. Romans 9: 6-9 NKJV 6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”[ 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” There is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise. He uses the example here that the promise was carried through the lineage of Isaac and not that of Ishmael, even though both were sons of Abraham. Romans 9: 10-13 NKJV 10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, evenby our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Once again, the promise does not simply apply to the descendants of Abraham, Because the promise and blessings go to Jacob's line and not to Esau's. Verse 13 is actually a quote from and reference to Malachi 1:2-3, in which God is comparing the nation of Israel to the nation of Edom, using the names of their founders as a metaphor. He is not talking about the people Jacob and Esau, But of the nations that came from their lineage. Paul is using the passage in the same fashion. Romans 9: 14-18 NKJV 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. Here Paul anticipates and answers the Argument that God is not being faithful in the keeping of his promises. You notice that though he is talking about God's Mercy and Compassion, there is no reference to salvation here. It is Gods blessing that are being discussed, not the question of salvation. Pharaoh is used as an example. Pharaoh attained all of the position and power that he had through Gods choice, even though Pharaoh was an enemy of God, so that God's will could be done through Moses and the people of Israel. Verse 18 is a direct reference to God hardening Pharaoh's heart against the Israelites starting with the 6th Plagues. Pharaoh hardens his own heart during the first 5 plagues however. If you go back and read exodus 8 and 9 which paul is referring to, you see that God continues to harden the heart of Pharaoh in response to what Pharaoh has already done. Romans 9: 19-24 NKJV 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? It is not the honest questioning of God that is going on here, but another accusation of God being unjust. the question being asked is "why is it my fault that I am a Sinner, it is God who made me capable of sin in the first place, so its his fault." Notice the phrasing "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". It is not that God decided " I'm going to make this one evil, then I will punish him for it" but rather he gives them enough rope to hang themselves. notice verse 24 "even us whom He called" Believers are also potentially vessels of wrath or vessels of his riches. Once again he is not talking about salvation, but Gods blessings versus God's punishment. In Ephesians 2:3 Paul refers to believers as being childern of wrath before they came to salvation, and I would also argue that passage such as Galatians 3:13 and Isaiah 53 :6-10 are examples of Jesus himself as a "vessel of wrath prepared for destruction" on our behalf. Romans 9: 25-29 NKJV 25 As He says also in Hosea: “ I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” 26 “ And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘ You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” 27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “ Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. 28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, Because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.” 29 And as Isaiah said before: “ Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah It is not being a member of the physical kingdom of Israel that saves you, but being a member of the spiritual Kingdom of God Romans 9: 30-33 NKJV 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.[n] 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[o] For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “ Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, Andwhoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” The people of Israel think that following Moses Law and relying on Abrahams faith is enough to get them to heaven, but it is not, they have to have faith of their own in the Messiah. Once you look at the whole passage in context it is clear that it is not about certain people being predestined for salvation or damnation, But about Paul being worried because the people of Israel assume that they are automatically predestined for salvation when they are not. Some of you reading this may disagree, and that is fine, feel free to to express your opinions in the comments box. |
No comments:
Post a Comment