badhorsie777 wrote: I promise you I will look (again) with fresh eyes and prayer at the book of Romans
Wow, you are the first Calvinist in all these years that actually said something like that.
badhorsie777 wrote: but of course you must know at least this much: that language such as "chosen..before the foundation of the world" seems to imply that it is not election which is based on faith, but rather the opposite.
Maybe, but we would not be analyzing Romans anymore, would we. We would have to stop and jump to Ephesians. I am sorry to say, but we will not get anywhere in our discussion if we keep jumping around like this. We have to have ONE starting point, not 10 interchangeable ones that deal with 10 different contexts. I gave you the courtesy to choose where you would like to start. If you would like to start with Ephesians then that's fine but I would appreciate if you would make up your mind.
I would do the same as you asked and look at Romans in context. Hopefully you do not mean what others mean by it--- the context of the whole of scripture--- which is no context at all.
I do not believe badhorse is of the hypers who believe that if one is not a Calvinist one is not saved.
Badhorse, Currently listening to Dr. Curt D. Daniel's "History and Theology of Calvin". Very interesting. I am on the 3rd of his 75 lecture series. Although like all of us, he has a few biased opinions, anyone that has a 75 lecture series on history has to be good. Although he is a Calvinist, I have been learning a lot.
badhorsie777 wrote: Yamil: To be clear, what is the question you asked that I (obviously) missed?
The question was simply a challenge to offer one (preferably the strongets) point from Calvinism and offer one passage of Scripture that states what you believe.
Now to answer your question. The passage you quoted simply serves to illustrate that those who inherit eternal life do not inherit it based on their pedigree. Paul was simply attacking the Jewish assumption that simply being of the Jewish race guarantees one eternal life.
Election is based on faith not pedigree is what Romans 9 teaches.
I understand that some use such a verse to teach unconditional election but the passage does not even give the slightest hint.
R. K. Borill wrote: Looks like Yamil's Snake Oil medicine is not working.
Actually its called snake repellant. You should try it. Unfortunately, the only problem you would have is that it is not complicated. It's only simple truth.
R. K. Borill wrote: Your "dispy fever" is cooking your brains.
Actually its called the normal body temperature. It's only a fever to those who have grown cold (or in your case frozen) to the Word of God.
R. K. Borill wrote: Your interpretation twists the text into something that is not there.
Actually what is not there is the word "gift." There are 33 instances in the NT of the word "gift" and more than 300 variants of the word "gave" in the NT. One does not need to twist a presuposition to mean "gift" when there is ample evidence of its use in the NT.
Nevertheless it serves to demonstrate the desperation of Calvinists to scrape the Scriptures in hopes of finding something that is not there.
Here is something that is there...
"For God so loved the world..."
I understand that to elitist, such a declaration is a threat. But trust me; its good news.
Helps wrote: Moderator Gamma You have removed my post of 1/4/08 7:58 PM. Can you please clarify what you found offensive? If it was my calling Mr Luciano a liar, perhaps you should review the posts between us and judge whether what I said was true or not. If I am wrong then I shall be more than happy to apologize. But, if I am correct, then you were wrong to delete the post
This is not a school playground. We want to hear a refutation, not simply place your fingers in your ears and scream "liar, liar, pants on fire."
badhorsie777 wrote: "so that the purpose of election should stand, God said Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated"... Dr. Yamil and others, how does this show man's role in salvation? I believe in (and have had) a conversion experience.
Before I answer your question, I am not sure whether you simply ignored mine or you did answer it pbut not so explicitly. I believe you when you say that it "is (in YOUR home and sphere of influence) about being faithful to the scriptures, in context, allowing the clear areas to interpret the unclear, and stopping where scripture stops being so clear."
So please tell me, what is the simple point that you are trying to make and what simple declarative statement does the Bible give that actually states what you want to state. This does not mean that one cannot rationally infer certain things, but when it comes to doctrine it is of prime importance that one does not start with inference but rather with what the Scriptures specifically state. Once we justly start with this point, then I can believe that we can logically infer certain things.
Now to answer your question..
The context in Romans 9 and the context of the OT scripture from which ....
badhorsie777 wrote: I would thank Dr. Yamil for his courtesy. THIS is how it should be. Arminians vs. Calvinists aren't advocating licentiousness or pornography - they are each concerned with doing right by God, so a bit more respect is due than I see shown often on the ol' net.
I agree. It's nice to be able to have a serious and thoughtful exchange with a Calvinist once in a while.
Before I answer your question, I would like to preface it with a warning. You being courteous to me will produce a lot of fire from the Calvinists in your camp, so I encourage you to prepare your heart. You will not be the last one to be blacksheeped by others here for being gracious to the opposition.
I also would like to preface with the humble acknowledgement that at the end we will probably still disagree. Although it is my intention to convince you of my position, I do realize that this may not be the end result. Nevertheless, I am content to know that at least we can understand each other's position without having the ad hominem fluff get in the way. I hope you feel the same way.
Because of space I would have to address your question on the next post. __________________________________ Weapon of Mass Instruction signing out
You are the one who said it silly! You told us all that it was the grounds of our justification!! Perhaps its the language that you are struggling with, again!
It's a world of a difference stating that faith is a basis for salvation(fact) and stating that faith IS salvation (your strawman).
Really guys, its not as complicated as you would like it to be.
The dehvastating truth is that even if by any stretch of the imagination you were correct, you would still have to lurk around the impossible to prove that unconditional election is the means of salvation let alone the basis.
Paul described you guys as those guilty of robbing some of the simplicity that is in Christ.