1. THE ELECTION OF ISAAC OVER ISHMAEL DOES NOT TEACH UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF PAUL TO DO SO. HE HAS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE FOR THE ILLUSTRATION.

CBC preacher Response #10

2. Secondly, if the verses before and after speak of Jew vs Gentile, why should not the middle?
CBCpreacher obviously understands this principle of hermeneutic when he posed a similar question to me. I agree that the verses before and after speak of salvation, but that is not the point of our disagreement. The point of our disagreement is whether the verses before and after speak of unconditional election. What we see CBCpreacher is once again using the logical fallacy of equivocation. He replaces salvation with unconditional election to try to steer the argument to his favor. The fact is that salvation and unconditional election are two different things.

Now allow me to pose CBCpreacher with his own question: If the verses before and after speak not of unconditional election, what makes you think that the one’s in the middle do? By your own standard, if the verses before and after speak of Jew vs Gentile, then why do you find it hard to believe that the one’s in the middle do not?

I wonder if CBCpreacher would be willing to be intelligently honest and attempt the same contextual study that I did above starting from the immediate context and going as remote as possible in Romans? Somehow I do not believe he would do so. Even if he would attempt such a disappointing task, if one were to do the same contextual study concerning elect vs nonelect, the only conclusion one could come to is that the Jews cared less about that doctrine. It was always about them vs the Gentiles.

iv. And we can go even further into the remote context to see this theme.

Acts 10:45 wrote:
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 11:1 wrote:
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

Acts 11:18 wrote:
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Acts13:46 wrote:
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

a. In the remote context Paul continues the theme in his parenthetical argument (Romans 9-11)
i. In Romans 10 Paul states that he desires that his brethren, the Israelites, would be saved. He gives a reason why they are not and surprisingly to the Calvinist, he does not mention unconditional election as one of those reason. On the contrary he blames their free will. And guess what: instead of contrasting the rejection of the nonelect to the acceptance of the elect, He once again contrast’s Israel’s rejection with the Gentiles acceptance:

Romans 8:19 wrote:
19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith,
I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people,
and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Now the fact that there is a dominant distinction between Gentile and Jew in Romans 9-11 is important to note, especially knowing that the Jewish error has always been thinking that by consequence of their race, they are automatically partakers of eternal life. The Jewish question could not had been the question of the elect verses the nonelected, for they thought that all Jews were saved. The question was why did God choose the Gentiles over the nation of Israel? So to insist that the theme of Romans 9 is to demonstrate the truths of unconditional election not only forces the Jews to be concerned about something that they would never otherwise be concerned about, but also, it would completely contradict the prevailing problem of the Jews which is agreed upon by theologians from both sides of the aisle, viz. that all Jews are saved. This theme can be seen not only in the immediate context, but also in the remote context.

In the immediate context he gives his thesis which to us westerners it is the conclusion:

“Commentary on The Whole Bible” wrote:
The apostle having discoursed of justification and sanctification, and of the privileges of justified and sanctified ones, proceeds to treat of predestination, the source and spring of all the blessings of grace; and to observe how this distinguishing act of God's sovereign will has taken place, both among Jews and Gentiles; in treating of which, he knew he should go contrary to the sense of his countrymen the Jews, who have a notion that all Israel shall have a part in, or inherit the world to come {q}: and that the Gentiles will be for ever miserable…

CBCpreacher wrote:
He is clearly pointing out the "spiritual" children of Abraham, as opposed to the physical descendants.

1. Firstly, that is the thematic material not only within the immediate context, but also in the remote context. All major theologians agree at least that Paul is answering a Jewish question concerning the Gentiles in his parenthetical thesis in Romans 9-11.

John Calvin in his

“Commentary on Romans” wrote:
It so happened in this way, — Having finished the doctrine he discussed, he turned his attention to the Jews, and being astonished at their unbelief as at something monstrous, he burst forth into this sudden protestation, in the same way as though it was a subject which he had previously handled; for there was no one to whom this thought would not of itself immediately occur, — “If this be the doctrine of the law and the Prophets, how comes it that the Jews so pertinaciously reject it?”

[QUOTE]continuing...
[AUTHOR]CBCpreacher[/AUTHOR]This text deals with God's sovereignty in salvation from beginning to end.[/QUOTE]This is the subject of the present discussion.
_______________________________________

CBCpreacher wrote:
Yamil, I will get us started on Romans 9. Verses 6 and 7 state where Paul is going with this text, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." He is clearly pointing out the "spiritual" children of Abraham, as opposed to the physical descendants. Who are the "spiritual children"? We see the answer to that in verses 24-26. The quote from Hosea speaks not only of the Jews, but Gentiles who belong to the family of God. Now, we have in the middle of this text the verses refering to unconditional election ("For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth"). You can give this section no other name but "unconditional election". The verses before it speak of salvation, the verses after it speak of salvation. Why should the verses in the middle be any different? Paul then uses verses 14-23 to give examples of this truth and to prepare for the response of the nay-sayers.

You said anyone, and that would include yourself.

The pontification was your comments not the Scriptures.

THe scriptures was what is called verse launching which would make no difference if you wuote those or I Cronicles 7:23 since they both do nothing to answer the objection made.

It's what false religionists like to do to make themselves feel good in presenting a pseudoargument.
_______________________________________
Fundamental,

Abigail wrote:
Wrong Yamil. But you and others like you will not accept Scripture because you hate God's gifts!!!!! All of the following are inside the Church house. "Unknown" means unknown.

But thanks for proving my point. Unknown does mean unknown NOT nonexistent like you would have us to believe.

Well, why should you not know me? After all, I am the Weapon of Mass Instruction devastating theological elitism with the simple truth!

Hey, would you mind sticking around and making a few comments in between mine so that I can get an exegesis across.

Apparently, SA made up this rule of consecutive posts to restrict good exegesis from being presented. The rule serves well for the Calvinist since they care more about verse launching and pontificating than they do about sound exegesis.

An unknown tongue means a language that noone in the church understands. It is nevertheless a language, meaning that it exists somewhere in the world.

It would be like I speaking spanish in a church full of flaming gringos.

There is no way to get around it to the natural meaning of the passage.

The tongue-slapping contest that occurs in Abigail's church is hardly a tongue, let alone an unknown one.

Besides, even if what Abigail is trying to assert would have one aiota of truth in it, the point of the passage is that it should be done privately in such a case where there is no interpreter.

Read Acts 2. Specific dialects are mentioned. No nebulous tongue slapping contests there.

Cbcpreacher wrote:
Walt, yes Infection and Yamil are one and the same. If you ever want to see where he has come ferom over a period of time, some of his other monikers were Weapon of Mass Instruction and sometimes he used his whole name, Yamil Luciano.

Cbcpreacher wrote:
I will tell you that I guess I would call myself an Independent Baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace. I don't consider myself a Calvinist becuase that would include much more than those truths.

You should've consulted me first before revealing such information. You could've had such a wonderful relationship with Walt. There is no hope now that you threw out the words "fundamental baptist."

Ha! And you think Seaton was bad. lol