The Doctrine of Election

Originally posted by vivify
Do you believe that Paul was wrong in claiming that there's a predestined "elect", and that God predestined some "vessels" for "wrath"?

This is not what Romans 9 is about at all.

Paul is trying to explain how the Jews themselves, as a people, are not predestined for Heaven, nor are all others, the Gentiles, predestined for Hell. Predestination is not the point of Romans 9. It is that God can choose Jew or Gentile to be lifted up, in His mercy.

Compare with Exodus 33:19: "And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy." The subject of this passage, is not personal election, it is God's mercy and compassion to all people. He is saying that He did not owe them anything except death. Therefore, their rescue from the desert was based on pure mercy.

Predestination is not the point of Romans 9. It is people like John Calvin and the Calvinists who MADE it about predestination.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is not what Romans 9 is about at all.

Paul is trying to explain how the Jews themselves, as a people, are not predestined for Heaven, nor are all others, the Gentiles, predestined for Hell. Predestination is not the point of Romans 9. It is that God can choose Jew or Gentile to be lifted up, in His mercy.

Compare with Exodus 33:19: "And he said ...[text shortened]... of Romans 9. It is people like John Calvin and the Calvinists who MADE it about predestination.

So why then, does Paul say this:

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

^ Isn't Paul clearly stating that God preordained Pharaoh's actions? And the bible does say that God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart, meaning that Pharaoh's refusal to let the Egyptians go at first, was because God wanted it that way.

Right?

Originally posted by vivify
So why then does Paul say this:

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

^ Isn't Paul clearly using the fact that God predesti ...[text shortened]... Pharaoh refused to let the Egyptians go at first, because of God wanted it that way.

Right?

In Exodus 9:17 God told Pharaoh that he had "exaltest thou thyself against my people" which meant that he had set himself against God. However, his superior position did not mean that he was superior. Rather, his elevated position was so that God could (1) preach or show him true power and (2) that as a result of the contest God's name might spread ahead of that of any human leader--

"And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, (1) for to shew in thee my power; and (2) that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." -- Exodus 9:16

The RSV translates verse 16: "but for this purpose have I let you live." God did not create, rear and preserve Pharaoh just to send him to hell. Rather, in His mercy He gave him his role and allowed him to be a living example.

This is our first clue to the pattern of the potter which Paul will use to prove that God has a right to make a choice and a right to change His mind. God gave Pharaoh many chances to repent and follow His will but Pharaoh rejected all of these choices. Finally, he was like a pot which hardened and cracked. However, God hardened Pharaoh by showing him mercy which would be rejected.

But, "If God has His choice and can bestow mercy on His own choice then how can He continue to blame us?"

In chapter eleven Paul will say--

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." -- Romans 11:25

This is my point, Romans 9 is not about predestination. It is not about the predestination of the Jews to the Kingdom of God. It is that God can change this and allow Gentiles to gain access to the Kingdom of God as well.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In Exodus 9:17 God told Pharaoh that he had "exaltest thou thyself against my people" which meant that he had set himself against God. However, his superior position did not mean that he was superior. Rather, his elevated position was so that God could (1) preach or show him true power and (2) that as a result of the contest God's name might spread ahead of ...[text shortened]... It is that God can change this and allow Gentiles to gain access to the Kingdom of God as well.

Okay. Thank you for input, this was helpful.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you believe that, if ~ for example ~ people like yourself and RJHinds are turning people away from Christ, due to your demeanour and example, then this is part of God's plan and happens with His foreknowledge?

If I am turning you away from Christ by preaching the truth, then perhaps I am an instrument of God to harden your heart.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

-Removed-

People and persons in the definition of the Trinity are not the same.

Originally posted by FMF
If God knew beforehand that the ark only had to be big enough for Noah's family plus animals, despite all Noah's unrecorded/irrelevant preaching to the entire doomed human race[did the people in China get to hear him at first hand? Now there's a thought. Did the bible mention his trip around the world to warn people?], then the "predestination" thing adds a certain cela prend le biscuit to the genocide angle.

As I understand it, the ancestors to the people of China were on the Ark of Noah. The people were still in one general location until after the language was confounded at the Tower of Babel and the people were dispersed throughout the world.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I understand it, the ancestors to the people of China were on the Ark of Noah. The people were still in one general location until after the language was confounded at the Tower of Babel and the people were dispersed throughout the world.

The Chinese language itself supports the Biblical flood account and creation in general, the symbol for boat is made up of several elements,

vessel + eight + people= boat

http://www.arky.org/museum/search/misc/aclsc.htm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Chinese language itself supports the Biblical flood account and creation in general, the symbol for boat is made up of several elements,

vessel + eight + people= boat

http://www.arky.org/museum/search/misc/aclsc.htm

RBHill made reference to something similar in his thread titled:
CHINESE= GENESIS

http://www.jdaniellowe.com/china.html

But twhitehead took exception to that because he claims to know enough Chinese to know that is bogus. I don't know myself, but it is interesting.

Originally posted by RJHinds
RBHill made reference to something similar in his thread titled:
CHINESE= GENESIS

http://www.jdaniellowe.com/china.html

But twhitehead took exception to that because he claims to know enough Chinese to know that is bogus. I don't know myself, but it is interesting.

Hard to say unless someone has studied Chinese but yes its interesting.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I understand it, the ancestors to the people of China were on the Ark of Noah. The people were still in one general location until after the language was confounded at the Tower of Babel and the people were dispersed throughout the world.

Chinese civilization ~ in China ~ dates back more than 10,000 years.

Originally posted by FMF
Chinese civilization ~ in China ~ dates back more than 10,000 years.

really, how have you come to the figure of 10,000, it seems a rather convenient round sum. Have you plucked it from the air?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really, how have you come to the figure of 10,000, it seems a rather convenient round sum. Have you plucked it from the air?

I said "more than 10,000 years". A "round sum" would be "10,000".

Originally posted by FMF
I said "more than 10,000 years". A "round sum" would be "10,000".

And yet we are still oblivious as to how you arrive at the figure. I suspect its futile to ask you for evidence of your claim seeing that you dodged it the first time with nothing more than scantily clad pedantry.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
And yet we are still oblivious as to how you arrive at the figure. I suspect its futile to ask you for evidence of your claim seeing that you dodged it the first time with nothing more than scantily clad pedantry.

Do you have a counter claim?