Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Thus, although in principle only those who are biologically descended from Abraham could be called Jews, there was another factor that was also necessary, namely God’s own decision to promise the birthright to a particular biological line, that of Isaac. In fact Paul goes further by saying that it is really only on the basis of God’s promise that the line of inheritance is decided and that the biological descent is relatively unimportant.
One spectacular way of misinterpreting this verse is to assume that by ‘children of God’ Paul means those who are saved. What he means is those who are the possessors and inheritors of the covenant promises and blessings of the nation of Israel.
That is why he introduces his argument by saying not all Israel is Israel. If he can then show that being a member of Israel was a matter of God’s promise and not a matter of anything any individual does, then he can prove his main point, which is that God’s word to bless Israel has indeed been fulfilled even if many individuals within the nation did not respond positively to those promises.
V 6-9 is dealing with the Unconditional alone. You seem to be suppositionally jumping ahead prematurely:
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
That's a subtle deflection from the main point. It is true that the heirs were not heirs by virtue of birthright but of promise. But these heirs were not heirs of salvation, they were heirs of the covenant and patriarchal promises. It goes too far to suggest that only certain people were heirs of salvation itself. Paul gives the exact meaning in his examples, which finish with verses 27-29. This remnant was the remnant from Babylon and not the church as Calvin was wont to misinterpret. I'm suspicious that Piper's language here is just a roundabout way of saying just what Calvin did. Of course it makes no sense to say that the church is Israel. Paul is talking about the nation of Israel, his blood brothers, not some allegorical derivation from the same.
Quote:
V 6-9 is dealing with the Unconditional alone. You seem to be suppositionally jumping ahead prematurely:
I'm not sure what you are getting at. I said
Quote:
was a matter of God’s promise and not a matter of anything any individual does,
and I don't see how this could be interpreted as conditional.
All well and good, but diverting from the main point Paul is making, which is about his blood brothers, not about the church. Paul wants to prove that the promise of God did not fail even though his countrymen did not all accept salvation and he does it by showing that there never was a guarantee of salvation given to a biological line.
Thanks for your comments. I might amend my commentary as a result to make it clearer.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
That's a subtle deflection from the main point. It is true that the heirs were not heirs by virtue of birthright but of promise. But these heirs were not heirs of salvation, they were heirs of the covenant and patriarchal promises. It goes too far to suggest that only certain people were heirs of salvation itself. Paul gives the exact meaning in his examples, which finish with verses 27-29. This remnant was the remnant from Babylon and not the church as Calvin was wont to misinterpret. I'm suspicious that Piper's language here is just a roundabout way of saying just what Calvin did. Of course it makes no sense to say that the church is Israel. Paul is talking about the nation of Israel, his blood brothers, not some allegorical derivation from the same.
I'm not seeing it. Were all nations blessed that Israel became a nation?
Or were they eventually to be blessed as a spiritual implication of Christ coming from a chosen people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
I'm not sure what you are getting at. I said
and I don't see how this could be interpreted as conditional.
Thank you, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
All well and good, but diverting from the main point Paul is making, which is about his blood brothers, not about the church. Paul wants to prove that the promise of God did not fail even though his countrymen did not all accept salvation and he does it by showing that there never was a guarantee of salvation given to a biological line.
Yes but Paul is talking to Roman gentiles here. Piper appears dead-on to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
Thanks for your comments. I might amend my commentary as a result to make it clearer.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
This is not your usual Piper. This work has been called one of the finest exegetical treatments of its targeted content to be written in the modern era.
You owe it a read just to see how exegesis is done at the highest level.
I've done the exegesis at that level. TBH, reading Dr. Piper's book was very disappointing. However, Dr. Piper and I agree (in principle) on how Paul is using this passage. Paul is simply saying that God can have mercy or mete out wrath as He chooses.
Further, the very fact that God is making this statement about the nation of Israel suggests that Paul is talking about various groups, and not individuals at all in Romans 9.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
I've done the exegesis at that level. TBH, reading Dr. Piper's book was very disappointing.
Let's see what level you work at:
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
So, when God says, "Now I know..." we can affirm that God gains knowledge.
And when God's word says that He relented from what he declared he would do, we can affirm that God change His mind.
Excellent.
Given the above, it is very doubtful you have done exegesis at any level that can be taken seriously. Muzegesis, sure. Exegesis, esp. at what is contained in the book in question, absolutely not. Prove it and provide a couple hundred pages on the same 23 verses Piper examines. I will happily apologize for questioning the veracity of your hubris.
I don't know that I'd call those 200 pages "exegesis." From what I've read, it's really more about how to find Calvinism in Romans 9. The fact that he assumes the Church is in view when Paul talks about eschatological Israel is enough evidence to show that.
And, TBH, I don't think many (if any) here would really be able to understand a translations/exegetical level post on Gen 22, although the Hebrew of verse 12 is pretty straightforward, and there isn't a lot of wiggle room in the translation or the exegesis, which is why Calvinists are reduced to hand waving and refuting Scripture with Scripture to make it go away.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
I don't know that I'd call those 200 pages "exegesis." From what I've read, it's really more about how to find Calvinism in Romans 9. The fact that he assumes the Church is in view when Paul talks about eschatological Israel is enough evidence to show that.
And, TBH, I don't think many (if any) here would really be able to understand a translations/exegetical level post on Gen 22, although the Hebrew of verse 12 is pretty straightforward, and there isn't a lot of wiggle room in the translation or the exegesis, which is why Calvinists are reduced to hand waving and refuting Scripture with Scripture to make it go away.
Well, I would (post 19). But in general I find that Calvinists either shy away from exegesis or make a bad job of it or just refer to other exegesis, whilst having nothing to point to of their own.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Slogan/motto:
Pray, Hope, and dont worry" Saint Pio
Reputation:
May 21st, 2012, 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
Well, I would (post 19). But in general I find that Calvinists either shy away from exegesis or make a bad job of it or just refer to other exegesis, whilst having nothing to point to of their own.
Jesus warned of these types of teachers. What would they be saying you ask?
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Notice a false teacher/prophet looks just like a sheep. But his message is not from God. A false teacher preaches a broad way to heaven, and Jesus preaches a narrow way.
Well, I would (post 19). But in general I find that Calvinists either shy away from exegesis or make a bad job of it or just refer to other exegesis, whilst having nothing to point to of their own.
Interesting that you'd say that in light of the link where I felt we both established a bit beyond this seemingly veneer assessment (to me).
I know you said 'generally' but then in light of the given link it doesn't really add up to me.
Your Lo Yadda was answered in link if you'd cared or yet care to follow it. I was then, a quote where I didn't clip it down to the pertinent. You over-extrapoloated.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Interesting that you'd say that in light of the link where I felt we both established a bit beyond this seemingly veneer assessment (to me).
I know you said 'generally' but then in light of the given link it doesn't really add up to me.
Context, Lon, context.
I was answering themuzicman. I was only pointing out that I was at home with original text exegesis and I only cited a post that showed that I was comfortable with that kind of discussion. It was simply my final post in that thread.
Cheers,
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Last edited by Desert Reign; May 21st, 2012 at 04:50 PM.
Your Lo Yadda was answered in link if you'd cared or yet care to follow it. I was then, a quote where I didn't clip it down to the pertinent. You over-extrapoloated.
If the link was the one to Open Theism 3 then, no I did not read it at the time of our 1-on-1. I did not read any of those earlier debates because I wanted to be sure that my contributions were not plagiarising anyone. They actually took place before I joined this forum.
I have now read it. At least pages 2 to about 6. And I am still convinced that you have got the Hebrew quite wrong and were citing LO as meaning 'since' when it in fact it means 'not'. The word translated as 'since' is KI. You really have got it quite wrong and there is no point in my conceding for the sake of peace to let you have it. This is simply a matter of fact or of common knowledge. There is no YADDA, only YADATI and this is also the source of another of your errors in OV3 in which you tried to say that it was possible to translate it as 'It became known' (or something impersonal like that). YADATI is in the first person (I have known) and cannot be construed in any other way.
In the 1-on-1 you shrugged this off as if it were some unimportant technical issue to do with Hebrew language but of course I had already written my last post in the debate so no further answer was going to come from me. If you really want to open this up again, I don't think you will fare too well unless you brush up on your Hebrew and get to grips with the text better than before. Though I think it would be wiser for you to concede the point because even though not many here will appreciate the nuances and may be swayed by some vague assertions, you owe it to yourself to be intellectually honest.
I also found it quite reassuring, now that I have read OV3 and comparing with our own 1-on-1 how very close I and themuzicman were on these exegetical issues, despite my working entirely independently. There is obviously an underlying logic to this that we are both tapped into and that logic is simply a respect for reading any kind of literature in its proper context and letting it speak for itself. Where I did my degree, I was taught as a hermeneutical principle that unclear texts should be interpreted in the light of clearer ones. Unfortunately for some of my teachers I was able to read texts (regardless of language or translation) well enough that only in very rare instances was a text unclear and so I bypassed all the indoctrination that led other poor souls into Calvinism. After another 15 years of Bible reading, I came to a coherent openness theology myself independently and consciously rejected the Calvinist doctrines.
So, to repeat, I would be happy to resurrect any of the issues raised in our 1-on-1 if you wish. There were a number of points where you just plain misunderstood my point (or I was insufficiently clear) but where I did not have sufficient time to respond. And there would be at least these points where further debate could prove fruitful.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Jesus warned of these types of teachers. What would they be saying you ask?
jannie
What they ultimately want is for you have to rely on them for your understanding of the Bible. In that way, they have control over you.
When they say such things as 'The basis of personal election is inscrutable - it is hidden in the impenetrable will of God' - this is another way of saying 'You are not allowed to ask questions that imply that you disagree with me' or 'I'm allowed to have a theology that is incomplete but you are not allowed to complain about that.'
But try not to be too smug about it though, it happens in Catholicism as well.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Last edited by Desert Reign; May 21st, 2012 at 07:29 PM.
Slogan/motto:
". . Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
Reputation:
May 21st, 2012, 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
When they say such things as 'The basis of personal election is inscrutable - it is hidden in the impenetrable will of God' - this is another way of saying 'You are not allowed to ask questions that imply that you disagree with me' or 'I'm allowed to have a theology that is incomplete but you are not allowed to complain about that.'
This is a blatant misrepresentation of answers given over the years to this question.
For example, both Hilston (not a Calvinist) and myself (a Reformer) have repeatedly given answer, that divine election is the product of God's sovereign will, purposes, and His own good pleasures.
His choosing to save many souls, but not all, is founded upon His sovereign freedom to make that choice, apart from any contributing merits, virtues, or good works of the persons He has chosen to adopt into His royal family and kingdom. This is His divine, arbitrary right as Judge of the human race . . . and God Almighty has exercised these divine and free rights in perfect righteousness.
Neither of us have provoked the invented answers you now try to sell on TOL, simply to bring empty accusation against others with whom you personally dislike.
IOW's, you do not disagree with theologians who have given you straight-forward and biblical answers, but you disagree and dare to quibble with the very will of God Himself!
Quote:
But try not to be too smug about it though, it happens in Catholicism as well.
I am willing to say, you are the most "smug" and accusatory poster on TOL (all the while, challenging themuzicman for the position), and the cause of your smug attitude is your ignorance due to a lack of decent theological education.
Nang
"The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."
"Experience teaches us nothing; revelation teaches all we need to know."
“ Those who proclaim that the sovereignty of God determines what justice is, (do so) by observing what God actually does. Whatever God does is just.”
What they ultimately want is for you have to rely on them for your understanding of the Bible. In that way, they have control over you.
Who is "they"? I've been a Christian since 83', saved in a reformed church, well, preached to by a Calvinist minister anyway, a Calvinist myself once I understood enough - no one has ever forced me to believe anything, stay at a specific church - you are a flat out liar.
Calvinism doesn't attempt to enslave an individual, rather set them free, from themselves, a bad belief system whether it be humanism, false religion, or a false identity. I would argue that you Desert Reign (and muzicman) teach a false view of our human condition, 'out of' and 'in' Christ.
Now, if Scripture offers a warning and a Calvinist exhorts the listener to heed the warning from Scripture - you're issue is with Scripture. A Christian is encouraged to find answers in Scripture, never to take another man's word for it, at the same time understanding God raises up some to be preachers and teachers, we are to respect those who serve the body with their gifts but we only have one master (hopefully).
We run our own race friend, we alone will give an account of our life. I wont be standing face down in front of the living God saying "but wait Lord, my pastor said...", I've been taught from the get-go that it's my fight to fight but I can learn something from those who've paved the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
When they say such things as 'The basis of personal election is inscrutable - it is hidden in the impenetrable will of God' - this is another way of saying 'You are not allowed to ask questions that imply that you disagree with me' or 'I'm allowed to have a theology that is incomplete but you are not allowed to complain about that.'
Hmm, all I can do is remind you of 2Timothy 3:16;17
This is what we (you and me, the body) do as brothers and sisters, we correct each other, it's part of the training. I do eventually call it a day though, we all need to stand on our own 2 feet at some point, it's called growing up, formulating our own belief system, hopefully we've been adequately equipped.
I also acknowledge there is a profitable way to go about the training, but the fact we might argue or be dogmatic isn't a sign of controlling, hopefully it's conviction derived from hard work and proper use of Scripture leading to confidence in the promise God's word wont return void - Isaiah 55:11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
But try not to be too smug about it though, it happens in Catholicism as well.
You should heed your own words here, you and muzicman have not demonstrated proper exegesis, hermeneutics, or Herman Munster for that matter, what in fact you've demonstrated quite well is what flawed presupposition does to a good argument - it taints it. Your preconceived notions are more in stone than the original tablets - you aren't open to even honest dialog. You and muzicman said from the start that Calvinism is bad interpretation mixed with bad exegesis and bad motives to boot.
The reality is you and muzicman have the most to lose here, you have so much tied up in your co-op with God, your ability to discern the voice of God prior to salvation, the Calvinist lays down at the foot of the cross and asks for mercy, grace, not a fair hearing.
One has to be seriously Pinheaded & newsless to Espouse & affirm OT Nonsensical tommyrot!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Linear Mode
