Election is Christocentric

[FSSL]

So... Is Romans 9 about individuals or the nation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bob H]

Exactly.  God, wanting to show his wrath, endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath he prepares for destruction.  In other words, God makes some vessels specifically for that purpose.

Thank you. Most cals don't like to admit to double predestination.

What's it to you, bud?  You got a problem wit dat?    (See above post to rsc2a.)

Seriously, that's Paul's answer to those who object to God predestining some to destruction. 

19 One of you will say to me: ?Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?? 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? 

In other words, "What's it to you, bud?  You got a problem wit dat?  Talk to da hand!!  God's hand!"
[/quote]







Hey, no problem man. "You'd the man" I'm just tickled pink that you will admit it  Most cals here thru the yrs wouldn't.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't know what you're fussing about.  The fact that we are chosen in Christ doesn't change the meaning of "chosen" or "elect".  God chose.  It's as simple as that.

Ok. But you can't have one without the other. Hope you can admit it.


"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

The complete thought is more revealing.

22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience  vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known  the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory?24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Exactly right.  God wants us to know these (and other) attributes about himself. 

How can we know God's wrath against unrighteousness unless there was unrighteousness upon which he would demonstrate his wrath?  How can we know God's mercy unless we are recipients of that mercy?  How can we know his glory without knowing these and other attributes of God? 

And all these things necessitate sin to exist.  If sin never existed in the universe, God could not demonstrate his wrath against it, or his mercy toward sinners.  And that's why I'm supralapsarian.  Sin was a necessary part of the plan for mankind. 

 

[rsc2a]

And that's why I'm supralapsarian.

Isn't that some kind of rabbit?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think any rational person would say that election is "Election is Christocentric". In fact, there really isn't any other way around it. God's choice in humanity was first a choice in His darling Son. Jesus Christ.

However, the damnable nonsense of "Calvin's goon's" make it all about THEM.....

THEY ARE GOD's first choice. In fact, they rob all the glory from Christ and then pretend they really are glorifying God more than anyone else.

Of course the elect are those who are chosen in Christ.  But God does the choosing.  It says so plainly in scripture.  Election is those who are chosen, not those who choose.

They are chosen in Christ. In other words. Its God's chose in the Christ. Not God's choice in the elect.

How hard is this to understand? Why are you playing games. You know you believe that God chose you first. That is what you Calvinisnt goons believe. All of God's choices revolve around YOU!

I don't know what you're fussing about.  The fact that we are chosen in Christ doesn't change the meaning of "chosen" or "elect".  God chose.  It's as simple as that.

Who said it did?

I SAID you believe it was God's choice in YOU. Not Christ.

So now you're telling me what I believe? 

What do you believe?  That God chooses those who choose Christ?  If so, then you're adding to the text.  The Bible never says that.  You may BELIEVE it, but it's not what the text says.

I said that God chose the Church, the elect... In Christ. God's choice was in Christ. Not in the elect themselves. You have a very poor understanding of election.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think any rational person would say that election is "Election is Christocentric". In fact, there really isn't any other way around it. God's choice in humanity was first a choice in His darling Son. Jesus Christ.

However, the damnable nonsense of "Calvin's goon's" make it all about THEM.....

THEY ARE GOD's first choice. In fact, they rob all the glory from Christ and then pretend they really are glorifying God more than anyone else.

If individuals are not chosen, then justification, sanctification, perseverance and glorification are all obscured and rendered senseless. Justification, sanctification, glorification all stem from the fact that we have been chosen. Only individuals are justified, sanctified, glorified and chosen (Romans 8:30)

Even individuals within the chosen nation of Israel were chosen... Remember Romans 9? God chose Jacob, an individual.

Get a grip, The elect is spoken of as "them" In Romans 8:30. Why have you thrown your grammar skills out the window?

Jacob was a metaphorical representation of Christ. Not the Church. Are you saying that Jacob is a type of the "church"? Get a grip man.

 

[FSSL]

Right... If Jacob is metaphor... What did the Pharaoh metaphor stand for?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[praise_yeshua]

So... Is Romans 9 about individuals or the nation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Calvin's good twist Romans 9 to their own destruction.

God's choice in Jacob was a metaphorical representation of God's choice in Christ. Esau represented Adam. Jacob represented Christ. You nuts twist it to make it about YOU!!! I preached a message on it close to 25 years ago. Its unmistakeable.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Right... If Jacob is metaphor... What did the Pharaoh metaphor stand for?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'll answer if you deal with your silly use of grammar in Romans 8:30. I'm tired of you choose just what you want to harp about.

 

[FSSL]

Grammar.... It is clear and univocal... These were individuals with historical statements used as examples... No metaphor for you!

Now... Please explain the Pharaoh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[praise_yeshua]

Grammar.... It is clear and univocal... These were individuals with historical statements used as examples... No metaphor for you!

Now... Please explain the Pharaoh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes. A group has individuals. The grammar of Romans 8:30 deals with them as a group. Do you admit this or not? If not, then why not?

 

[FSSL]

Each individual is justified... Not a group.

"Those" is plural, not a collective or group. If this referred to Israel, we would have a singular pronoun


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Recovering IFB]

So... Is Romans 9 about individuals or the nation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Calvin's good twist Romans 9 to their own destruction.

God's choice in Jacob was a metaphorical representation of God's choice in Christ. Esau represented Adam. Jacob represented Christ. You nuts twist it to make it about YOU!!! I preached a message on it close to 25 years ago. Its unmistakeable.

You have audio of that sermon, I would love to listen to it.

 

[FSSL]

To bad the cals misinterpret it 

... good thing we have a different interpretation! Look at the mess PY is making of Romans 9! Metaphors... metaphors are everywhere!

 

[rsc2a]

To bad the cals misinterpret it 

... good thing we have a different interpretation! Look at the mess PY is making of Romans 9! Metaphors... metaphors are everywhere!

Did you just allude to something?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

To bad the cals misinterpret it 

... good thing we have a different interpretation! Look at the mess PY is making of Romans 9! Metaphors... metaphors are everywhere!

Did you just allude to something?

I think someone is deluded about something.

 

[Recovering IFB]

I feel excluded!

 

[bgwilkinson]

Is this thread concluded? :-\

 

[FSSL]

Is this thread concluded? :-\

The metaphorical thread or the real thread?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Some people just get so upset, it renders their arguments as clear as mud. 

As that guy in LA once said, "can't we all just get along"?

No more vitriolic polemic ad hominem attacks.

Let the succinctness and lucidity of your arguments rise to the fore.