Romans 9: Predestination or Free Will? Part 2

[cgvtv]

Very good. Calmly considered and contextually accurate.

[Striker1A]

Am I one of God's elect? I believe God exist with all my heart and soul and can understand why people can't see what I see. Yet I deny God by my actions and always setting time line when I will truly and finally do the will of

God in the future. I have repent before, but went back to my sinfully ways. I am afraid to repent again because I don't believe I'm quite ready to do the will of God. However, I constantly think about God and can't stay away from his words.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

The key is not your works. You cannot improve your behavior, only God can do that. You need to admit you are headed wrong and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "To as many as received him he gave the right to become children of God, even to them that believed his name." John 1:12.

Instead of trying to be good enough for God, put your trust in the work of Jesus to forgive you.

[empiricalpoet]

This guy is really on a tangent how can his audience stay with him? p2

[ryanvh1]

In time all will be redeemed.

[S1nApS3]

What about the Jews? Where did God go wrong in picking the Jews? ( 6 : 10 ) I don't thing this is the issue here. I thing we should go back to Romans 8 and see the amazing statement of Paul that God's elect (Christians) cannot be separated from God's love and salvation. In Romans 9 Paul addresses God's elect (the Jews) and the problem here is that not all of them are saved (believe in Jesus). The problem here is that God "fails" to SAVE His elect (the Jews)?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

God's election can be different than salvation. Jesus said, "did I not chose (elect) 12 of you, but one of you is a devil?" Jn. 6

[S1nApS3]

Of course it can be different! That's Calvin's point. Are you saying that God elect Judas for Hell? God elect Him to betray Jesus and go to Hell :)

But the Christians are God's elect in a sense of salvation. And the anticipation of the people in Rome is that all Israel should also be elected for salvation. After all they are God's elect. Yes they are, but not all of them (elect in a sense of salvation) Only those individuals who God chose from Israel are Israel (verse 6).

[S1nApS3]

so God's promise of salvation to Christians is worthy of believing (Romans 8) because it is not as though the word of God has failed... God saves all His elect and none of them is lost.

[herald1509]

6:37

In the first verse, isnt Paul full of sorrow because so many Jews arent being saved through faith in Christ? If so, why shouldnt the idea of salvation be relevant for interpreting the rest of the chapter?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yes, he's sad because of that. But his question is whether their personal rejection of Jesus means that somehow God's choice of them was a mistake. That doesn't imply that his choice was for salvation--that couldn't possibly be right. Think about all the Jews who were non-believers. Manasseh? Judas? Paul is showing that God's choice didn't depend on human faithfulness.

[herald1509]

But the idea of salvation is, contextually speaking, in play. The main point of Romans 9 is that not all Jews are chosen, just as not all of Abraham's offspring are chosen.

See verse 27, "Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved". And verse 1 of chapter 10 "my heart's desire... is that they may be saved".

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Oh no. I don't see anything here to the effect that not all Jew are chosen. Not all Jews are saved, but they all partake in the chosenness of Abe.

[S1nApS3]

"But his question is whether their personal rejection of Jesus means that somehow God's choice of them was a mistake"

I think the conclusion from verse six is

But his question is whether their personal rejection of Jesus means that somehow God's WORD HAS FAILED. Where did you came up with the idea of God choosing?

[herald1509]

...so Paul explains how this has always been, just as it was with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then he speaks generally about the Gods freedom in election, that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, etc.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yes, because God's choice is for a role in his plan, not for personal salvation.

[herald1509]

6:00- Yes, the Jews arent accepting Jesus as the Christ, and Paul wants to address that. But this chapter seems to be about how some of the Jews (the chosen people) are not chosen (as saved believers in Christ). So, Paul shows that the word of God has not failed, by explaining that not all who are of Israel (the nation) are really Israel (the chosen people), vv. 6-7. Only some Jews are among the elect.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No. I think it's about how they are chosen, but that doesn't means God's choice failed--they were never chosen for their good works to begin with. Not choice for salvation, but for their mission.

[herald1509]

6:10 - You don't need to speculate as to how God's choice may have failed. It's explained in the very same verse.

"6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children."

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yeah, he means that most of Israel have always been unbelievers, so nothing has changed. God's plan goes forward.

[rkg62976]

Man's greatest idol of all time: 'free-will'. The carnal man will boast in his salvation because he thinks he owns his own salvation. It is truly sad to see those who call themselves Protestants, not knowing what the main purpose of the Reformation was all about. This very topic is what Martin Luther described as the 'hinge' or 'turning point' of the whole of the 'thing'(Reformation). Man's enslaved will vs. Romanism's belief in 'free-will'.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

If human will isn't free, why are you writing this post? We're all just doing what is predestined.

[rkg62976]

Thank you for your response. We are to rebuke false doctrine when we see it. This is a part of the Gospel.

'Will worship' was a major point of contention by Reformers who recognized the fallacy of the Roman contention that 'free-will' was a necessary element of Salvation. 'Free will' led to all sorts of corruption regarding indulgences, prayers for the dead, veneration of dead saints...etc..

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Their problem wasn't believing in free will, but in failure to understand total depravity. They thought man's will was utterly free, including the ability to do righteousness sufficient for salvation. That's wrong. Fallen people need the quickening of the HS to believe. But denying free will is self defeating in the first place. If you're not speaking out of free will, everything you say is predetermined and meaningless.

[rkg62976]

T.U.L.I.P go hand-in-hand. The misunderstanding of one, leads to a corruption of all the rest. "Fallen people need the...H.S...But denying free will is self defeating..." You are obviously thinking about 'Irresistible Grace', and your contradictions become plain: you claim the 'quickening of the H.S. is necessary', then you deny it is the power of God in your very next sentence. Inconsistencies are very easily pointed out in the Libertarian 'free-will' system.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

The power of God to restore the capability of humans to believe if they want. No contradiction there.

[goflyhi]

I have a question for calvinist's

Did Eve eat the forbidden fruit by free will or was she predestined to do it???

[jaharrison1663]

Clearly you haven't studied the doctrines of grace or you would know the answer to this question. Here is a question to you. Was Eve dead in her trespasses and sins before she ate the forbidden fruit? If not, she was able to make choices that were acceptable to God, and choices that God would not like. This is a comparison to the elect today, who have been set free from sin and can make choices to do what is pleasing to God. We can also sin and do what is displeasing to God.

[enocht100]

There was not a cross because of the fall, but there was a fall so there could be a cross. The Cross of Jesus Christ is the greatest demonstration of God's Glory and righteousness.

[reanandsantos]

hhmm...WHAT A GREAT WORK TO EXPLAIN AWAY WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE TEXT...CULTIC GROUPS ALSO USES THE THING CALLED "CONTEXT" SO MAKES OTHER SO CALLED CHRISTIANS DO THE SAME MISTAKES CULTS DID......

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Getting comments like this is the reason I made comments be approved.

[TCMAO0]

Rom. 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many bretheren: and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. Q. How many do you think have been called, justified, or glorified that He did not first foreknow or foreordain?

[J90820]

'For whom he foreknew'. It doesn't say, however, 'for whom he predestined'.Foreknowledge is NOT predestination.God knew who was going to receive him, and therefore He foreordained them to blessings in Christ. It had nothing to do with his 'selection'. Humans are free to receive or not receive God's gift, but He knows who is going to choose Him, and therefore prepares blessings for them. "And I am going to prepare a place for you"

[8Anya8]

Christianity otherwise known as 'the way' is the fulfillment of what was aforetime spoken to Israel of old,thus it is Hebraic in orgin and practice.

Due to the sons of Israels failure to receive and understand what God had afore ordained,that Messiah should both suffer n die n be raised the 3rd day,he turned his attention to the Goyim,who have since reconstructed the way into something it was never meant to be.

Gods rejection of Esav was due to his carnal mind,Gen 25:32 and his hate in Obadiah

[enocht100]

Did you not read the text?

11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

Romans 9:11 (NKJV)

The part that is hard to understand is not "Esau I hated", but "Jacob I Loved". That should be the thing that is profound in this passage.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

You haven't explained why the quote comes from Malachi many years after they were both dead.

[bobcaldwellrocks]

well done and your love for God shows through,however,I believe the Calvinistic view is the most solid.

[RAIDERJO76]

I like how you imply that all Calvinist expositions of Romans 9 start in verse 6 and therefore are taking the passage out of context. Some Calvinists may be guilty of doing such things, no doubt. But probably the most well-known Reformed exegesis of Romans 9 on Youtube (by James White) starts in chapter 8!

I won't critique an of the actual interpretation until I've finished watching all of your exegesis though...

So far, you've made some mistakes, but its really not too bad...

[S1nApS3]

Good comment!

[CBALLEN]

Does anybody remember that God chose Israel and that most of the gentiles just went to Hell,if they didn't embrace the God of Israel.Many nations existed for God to use to punish His chosen people,then He would destroy them when He chose.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Wrong.

[TiredofHype09]

This is so good!!! All Calvinst need to hear this..

[stangs268]

Predestination and free will are like 50/50

YOU WILLING CHOSE WHAT GOD HAS SOVERELGNLY DETERMIND...

[Wwrath]

Predestination is blatantly obvious. If you don't believe it then you are ignorant. Not one verse in the Bible supports free will, yet I can name over 50 that irrefutably support predestination. And when it talks about Israel, its not talking about the nation, "Israel" are God's followers, that's what the beginning of Romans 9 is explaining... this guy is half-retarded

[4thstreetstudycenter]

So who is he talking about when he mentions Esau? And why mention that they were not yet born?

[Wwrath]

From Esau came the Islamic nations, and of course that created an age old rivalry with the Israelite descendants of Isaac. He mentions Esau and Isaac as an example of predestination... "for though {the twins} were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to {His} choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls"

He mentions they werent born yet, to point out that predestination is not based on works, but by the purposes of God.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

So you think this is teaching that all descendants of Jacob have gone to heaven, and all descendants of Esau have gone to hell?

[Wwrath]

No, I never said that... but the fate of Isaac and Esau were predetermined. After reading Romans 9:18-22 and Ephesians 1:4-8 you really cannot deny predestination

[4thstreetstudycenter]

We're talking about Rom. 9. You haven't explained why he quotes Mal. 1 about the nation of Edom. You have not explained why he talks of nations when you claim he is referring to individuals.

[Wwrath]

the commenting system screwed up, did you get that last post?

[zitan17]

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,"

God does set before us choices, however He knows what the out come will be, because He is not bound by time

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Agreed. Foreknowledge.

[ajdesau]

you can't say that verses 1-5 represent the context and leave out verse 6 which is set in contrast to verses 1-5, and thus provided further articulation of the context. the exposition to romans 9 in the beginning was good though. that was actually the truth.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

I think I accounted fully for vs. 6

[ajdesau]

it is that true "spiritual" israel of which paul speaks in this chapter. he says it is not as though god's word has failed, because god elects some into his spiritual famiy (i.e. true israel which is made up of saved believers) and he hates or does not elect some into that family (i.e. they who are merely israel without spiritual life and thus not truly saved).

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Spiritual Israel comes up here, as well as national Israel. Why does he say "my kinsmen according to the flesh?" See the next lecture on Jesus and the Jews to hear about spiritual Israel.

[ajdesau]

was applied to them retroactively. well how could that be? because in the truest sense they were christians of heart and not jews because they believed in the revelation of god at that time which typified the culmination of revelation found in christ. it is those true jews of which paul speaks of here, which is why he says in verse 6 "not all israel is israel". he is not merely speaking of the ethnic, religious, national israel. why else would he distinguish between the two in verse 6?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

His example in the next verse is Israel and Edom--two nations both birthed by Abraham.

[ajdesau]

this interpretation couldn't be further from the truth. first of all christianity (in the truest sense) is not some religion that branched off of judaism. you have to interpret the jewish faith as seen in the O.T. by the N.T. (that is the proper hermeneutic to use), in which case the true jews or israel that paul speaks of in (Rom. 9:6, Rom. 2:29, Phil. 3:3) were those who believed in god's word and thus were justified in believing it, and in turn christ's substitutionary atonement...

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Christianity is Judaism, properly understood.

[finepaid]

The bodies of wrath and the bodies of mercy were prepared beforhand! Yes! the new body will be given to the believer on that day! the new body that the sinner will have will be given him on that day! this is not! say that the bodies that we have now are the beforehand bodies. This text is speaking of the Bodies that will be given! to be able to endure our etrnity! not text to support calvanism! I believ in Calvanism, I just think there are better texts!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

The OT scriptures he's citing are referring to nations in context. Therefore Paul would be interpreting them correctly.

[TulipActionHero]

Vs.23,24 "And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, EVEN US, whom He also called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles... Pauls is establishing another group of people from among all races.. Referred to as "vessels of mercy".. Are you going to say that he is referring to nations again in this passage? A nation of both Jew and Gentile? The letter doesn't stop at verse 23

[4thstreetstudycenter]

That verse is taken up on the next lecture, Christians and Jews.

[kr5501]

It didnt dfail because " if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's offspring, hiers according to promise." Galatians. If you know Christ its because of promise not choice. For Christs; glory not ours. We are 100% evil, unholy, unworthy, unable.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Romans 9 is about predestination. But it is not about individuals. But rather two specific groups of people. God predestined the Gentile would be saved in the same way as the Jew, i.e. by grace through faith in His Son Jesus Christ. God is not willing that any should perish. And draws all men unto Himself. And those who believe become a new & 3rd group called the "Ekklessia" which means "called out" in Greek. Vessels of wrath are unbelievers. And vessels of honor are believers. It's that simple.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

I think the vessels are nations, not believers/non-believers

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Would you say the same thing about Ephesians 2:11-20 ?

[kr5501]

Do you believe God is sovereign? It sounds like this person has a problem giving all glory to God. The children of promise (elect) the children of wrath (non-elect). How do you come to christ?

What is it that gave you a new nature?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Of course, God is sovereign. We come to Christ by grace through faith apart from works.

[kr5501]

What makes you think the vessels are nations? Do you trust in the biblical doctorine of election?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yes, I believe in election as taught in scripture. These are nations because the context is nations, both in Rom. and in the OT passages cited.

[kr5501]

I did watch all the videos and they did not explain the children of flesh and of promise. It has been a few weeks since I wacthed them so. Have you watched Jeames Whites Romans 9 exegesis, if you give it a chance it is very consistent. I try to hear both sides as well as study myself and I think that to say He is talking about nations is very inconsistant.

[kr5501]

What is it that makes the diffrence in one who believes and the one who does not?

[TulipActionHero]

Do you believe the whole council of God's Word? Many people claim too yet will not accept the hard passages that they don't understand. They read what they believe rather then believing what they read..

Have you ever read Prov 16:4?

Or Rev 17:8?

Do the people in the latter verse have the "freewill" to choose Christ when there name was never written in the book of Life? Do they have a choice to get their name in the book that was written from the foundation of the earth?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yes, I have read them. If you read 1 Pet. 1:1-2 and Rom 8:29, you would know God chooses by foreknowledge.

[TulipActionHero]

So if God merely used His "foreknowledge" when writing the names in the book of life, do the people whom He did not write have a choice to come to Christ and have their names written in the book? Of course not because they book has already been written.. So they have no choice at all. Did God merely use His "foreknowledge" to prophesy about the gathering of certain men who would carry out the crucifying of Christ? Or did God ordain those men to carry out His orders?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

So you're saying these verses are wrong? What is your reply to the plain statements in these passages that is it base on foreknowledge? If you were right he would have said he foreknew based on his election. But no. It's the other way around. In fact, they do have a choice, but he foreknows what it is.

[TulipActionHero]

Are you answering my questions with questions?

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed........"

I think it is quite curious that the verse says He "foreknew" THEM, not foreknew their choice..

That means that God knew His people before time existed. Jesus said "You are of your Father the devil".. He also says, "He who is OF GOD HEARS THE WORDS OF GOD; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God".. So those who are from God, God foreknew.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Looks like you've got foreknowledge based on election, but the text is clear it's the opposite. "according to" means election depends on foreknowledge, not the other way around.

[TulipActionHero]

And my question remains, If God predestines people to be conformed to the image of His Son according to foreknowledge, then He must also predestine others not to be conformed to the image of His Son.. Just like the people in Rev 17:8. "Whose names WERE NOT WRITTEN"..

Do these people have a choice in the matter?

You know that they don't, yet you skate around with a forked tongue speaking of what you don't know, and refusing to acknowledge the truth..

[TulipActionHero]

Now, lets get back to my initial question, Do you believe what the bible says? I find it funny how someone can claim to know Christ yet absolutely CANNOT accept verses such as; "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil".... I find people sweep verses such as this under the rug because there is no way they could worship a God who did such a thing.. And they are right, they do not worship the God of the bible, but a god they fabricated who is just.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No problem. If God didn't make the wicked who would have? It never says he made them be wicked. It sounds like you don't understand moderate Arminianism very well. None of these verses are swept under the carpet. But how do you read Mt. 23:37 "How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling?" He doesn't say he wanted to but changed his mind. He says they were unwilling.

[TulipActionHero]

Who was unwilling? Why didn't Christ say "I wanted to gather YOU together"?  Who was Jesus lamenting too? Who was unwilling, the people of Jews? Yet Christ wants to gather the Jews children together? Obviously you have not thought about the context of the verse. You see the word "unwilling" and jump to conclusions without even thinking about the context of the statement. Your theology raises more questions then answers.

[TulipActionHero]

Did or did not God ordain certain men in Jerusalem to carry out His will in the crucifixion of His Son? Or did He merely "foreknow" the events that would take place?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Sure he ordained it. But what do you mean by ordain? I don't think he caused them to do it against their will. Do you?

[HeresyDetector]

He made it their will to do it. Acts4:27,28. "For truly in this city there were gathered against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur"... God gathered these men to murder His Son. He made it their will. This is God's Sovereignty.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

It doesn't say that. It just says it was predestined, and within his purpose. But we know that predestination is according to foreknowledge, as taught in Rom. 8:29. He could have bent their will, and he may have done so, but this verse doesn't say. In any case, even if he did, that has nothing to do with the question of whether he ALWAYS

[HeresyDetector]

"It just says it was predestined"... How do you suppose that God predestines things? The verse says; "TO DO WHATEVER YOUR HAND AND YOUR PURPOSE PREDESTINED TO OCCUR"... This clearly refutes your "foreknowledge" argument.... "To those who are CALLED according to HIS PURPOSE".

Why are they called? To fulfill HIS PURPOSE... Anytime ANYONE is shown Mercy and Grace it is according to HIS PURPOSE. Not our will. This is something you will never understand.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

proorizo means to mark out beforehand. How does he do it? He says it's by his foreknowledge. Your claim that he does it one way or the other is pure speculation.

[HeresyDetector]

Proorizo means: 1. to predetermine, decide beforehand 2. in the NT of God decreeing from eternity  3. to foreordain, appoint beforehand

So the verse could have been written;

"For those whom is knew beforehand, He also predetermined them to become conformed to the image of His Son".. The whole point of is that they are CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE... But once again, you will never understand this. God has called His people according to His purpose and nobody thwartes His will.

[HeresyDetector]

The verse says what it says. That He gathered these men together to fulfill the purpose of His Will. Like it or not that is what it says. And just so you know the word "foreknew" in Romans 8 isn't looking down the corridors of time and knowing what decision they will make.. The verse says "For those He "foreknew", He also predestined".. God foreknew THEM..I doesn't say God foreknew their actions.. God foreknew THEM.. Why would He need to predestine someone if He knew their choices?

[spoothead1]

Umm what do those verses have to do with anything? I think you're reading out of context.

[TulipActionHero]

.....had chosen some for salvation within the people of true Israel for salvation and some not.. Why would Paul want to essentially Lose his salvation for the sake of Israel.? The whole passage is Exactly about salvation.

The thing that you don't get is, God doesn't save you for you.. God saves people for Him and that takes your "freewill choice" completely out of the mix.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Where does this "some for salvation within the people of true Israel for salvation and some not" come from? What verse are you referring to?

[TulipActionHero]

Great Strawman! LoL! Hilarious! I hope people don't pay for your History of Religion class.. Chapter 8, Paul describes all the wonderful things in Christ; Predestinated, justification, glorification, Who will separate us..... The gentiles immediate question was; Why don't your kinsmen BELIEVE in the MESSIAH. "it is not as though the Word of God has failed"...The supposed "failure" is that not all from Israel BELIEVED in the MESSIAH.

Good attemp. Great fabrication of a Strawman! Classic!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

What do you think the first 6 verses thought development is?

[TulipActionHero]

Did the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service extend to the Edomites ? Does Paul have great sorrow and unceasing grief in his heart concerning the Edomites? Of course not! So Paul is grieving over ISRAEL, because most had REJECTED JESUS. Paul is distinguishing God ELECTION among the people of Israel. "it is not as though the Word of God has failed"... Failed to the Edomites? Failed to Pharaoh? Failed to Esau?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

So you agree that the context is the apparent contradiction between God's election of Israel and the unbelief of many Jews. Maybe you should actually listen to the 6 sections of the lecture, so you find out what I'm talking about.

[TulipActionHero]

I listened to all of them. The context of the passage is, Paul just described all the wonderful news of the Messiah and God's plan of Salvation, and the Gentile first question would be, "Why aren't your kinsmen believing in the Messiah if all these great things are true?" And Paul starts out by Establishing Exactly who is is talking about in Vs 4,5.. He is not refering to Edom, or Egypt, or anyone else.. Then He makes clear "that it wasn't as though the word of God has failed", God ....cont.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

And you think THAT explains why he's bringing these nations up? That would be too obvious to say, let alone spill all this ink on.

[TulipActionHero]

So your saying that my interpretation of this section is too obvious for him to write it on paper?  Paul doesn't bring up any nations. He bring up Jacob and Esau who were people long before their nations were established.. Paul could have just as easily said, Israel and Edom. Moreover his mention of Issac vs Ishmael where Ishmael was a child of the flesh and Issac was a child of the Spirit.. God's Election plain and simple.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

If Paul is talking about the individuals, why does he say the older will serve the younger? When did that ever happen?

[TulipActionHero]

vs 8 says "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are reguarded as descendants".... What is the promise? "The promise is for you and your household and for all that are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call unto Himself".. Are we still talking about nations? Paul is talking about Salvation! And again, Salvation or lack there of would merit Paul's anguish and grief..

[4thstreetstudycenter]

You're stringing passages together that weren't together in the original. That's word-association hermeneutics. Stick with thought development in this passage. Just as you would write a letter and build on what you are saying, they did the same thing. No need to go jumping around.

[TulipActionHero]

So you don't think that Paul was speaking of the promise of Salvation in vs.8? Is not the problem in vs6 what Paul is addressing in the rest of the chapter?.. That not all who were chosen for all the great things of vs4,5 were chosen for salvation?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No. He was referring to God's promise that Abraham would have a son.

[artanis68]

Thank You Thank You Thank You! I too have found that many of the loopholes of Calvinism is HERMENEUTICS!! It is this grave error of proof texting and presuppisitional reading of scripture. Glad to see someone teaching these young people Hermeneutics! Praise God for your courage - you will be harshly criticized by the Calvinist for doing this.

[TRUCKEEDOG666]

religion masquerades as logic