The definition of Christian is "follower of Christ." Yes, Jesus is eternal, but He was not known to man as such until the incarnation. So Judaism is older.
Christ revealed Himself to man long before His birth.
The Arabic word for Christian is Messiheine (no english spelling). or believers in messiah. As such, the Hebrews going back before Moses believed they would be delivered and redeemed. That makes them Christians too. Prior to Moses, the patriarchs of Judaism were credited with piety because they heard and believed the promises of God. One of those promises was that there would be a messiah. The cut line is hard to find specifically, but it seems to be a little before Moses. But Judaism itself, by that name also did not exist that early. Judah was only one of the tribes of Israel and did not become a dominant kingdom, giving its name to its people, until after Moses.
So yes there was certainly a relationship between God and his people prior to Moses, but it was not referred to as Christianity or Judaism and nor did it have any of the forms or practices we would recognize as either.
So,
First place: Unnammed natural religion.
Second place: Christianity
Third Place: Judaism.
Christians are those of us who believe that Jesus died for our sins and that his death cleans us so that we can be reconciled back to God. Jesus of course did exist prior to his human birth but he was worshiped for who he was (as God)and not as what he was going to do in human form. Jews were/are a people group to whom God made a promise. And through this promise and prior appearances by God, they established the Jewish religion. Prior to that God made personal appearances to a select linage of people of whom we called Jewish while the rest of the world worshipped Baal or some other kind of nature deity. Finally, before that was the Garden of Eden in which man/God was in harmony until the apple incident.
There's my take, time for more coffee!
Wow. The fact that you posted this is proof of how Christianity has been tainted by Dispensationalism.
I got a couple questions for all those folks that think Christianity and Judaism are different religions;
1) Why does the Christian Bible contain the Old Testament?
2) How do you explain Galatians Chapter 4, verses 22-31? And why were early Christians required to be circumcised?
I don't believe that the two are different religions. I believe judaism is a set of rules and symbols that were part of a coventant between a group of followers and the Lord.
My view is that judaism is just a transitional period of what Prof. Hale called unnamed natural religion.
I simply refer to that unnamed natural religion by what I believe to be the most accurate term... Christianity.
Prior to about 30AD or 70AD there was no "natural religion". There was the worship of the true God, and there was worship of lots of other gods. Today we are left with two gods; the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob - what we call the Christian God, and the being opposed to that God.
This is a good discussion for Farmer Tom.
If I understand you correctly Nate, you are saying this. The greatest commandment is to love the lord and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. This is not something new brought about by Christ, it was always this way. People were always judged by their heart and attitude toward God. In that sense, the religion is not different now than it ever was.
Just as long as we are aware that the Judaism of the Old Testament (perhaps the modern equivalent would be Karaite) is very much different from the Judaism we know today (Rabbinic). Jesus bashed Rabbinic Judaism - *before* the new covenant was established.
Just being pedantic here.
You're overall point works, though.
We don't know whether Noah didn't avoid certain foods, esp. since the concept of "clean" and "unclean" animals were definitely known. The rationale for not eating blood would certainly apply to Noah who did give sacrifices, as well. The Sabbath was established at the Creation when the 7-day week was instituted, so it's possible he did. As for feasts, well, there's no reason to celebrate feasts when things like the Exodus didn't even happen yet. Perhaps, there were other celebrations. We don't know.
I'm being pedantic, but the overall gist of your comment still works.
Sarah... there is no reasonable standard by which Noah could've been considered Jewish.
"Prior to about 30AD or 70AD there was no "natural religion". "
Natural religion is exactly what Noah practiced. That is the ancient view of the matter as described by Eusebius.
I did not say he was Jewish, Nate.
GAH!!
Sorry darlin'... pedantics seem to be irritating me this morning.
I disagree with the concept of "natural religion". The phrase means that religious truth can be deduced based on reason and ordinary experience - this is quite contrary to what Scripture teaches. God's truth requires divine revelation, whether by Scripture or the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Mankind, being sinful, is separated from God and is unable to determine God's will - including the means of salvation.
Noah had divine revelation, thus, Noah did not practice natural religion.
Sorry Bill.. but the scripture is clear that Noah was pius before God the revelation. It was his righteousness after all is what he was chosen for.
I don't comment much here but Bill you are wrong.
While scripture teaches that we can not know His ways or understand Him in His totality, it does not teach that a divine revelation is required to seek Him out or to know He is G_d.
Scripture teaches that nature itself declares his glory and if we are silent the rocks themselves will sing His praise. Everything around us is a testament to His existence, the only thing preventing man from seeing it is his own willful rebellion.
While scripture teaches that we can not know His ways or understand Him in His totality, it does not teach that a divine revelation is required to seek Him out or to know He is G_d.
Yes and no, mostly no, and absolutely no in the way you seem to mean it. Man, in his natural state, is incapable of developing a saving knowledge of God. Man, in his natural state, is an enemy of God. Man is not inherently good, man is inherently sinful. Individuals are saved by God's grace and mercy, it has NOTHING to do with any knowledge we might glean, nothing to do with any action on our part whatsoever. God simply picks who He will save and who he will not save.
John 6:44;
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him...
John 6:65
...Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Ephesians 1:4-5
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will
I`m not a bible scholar ,but I disagree with you a bit Bill.Man in his natural state is an enemy of God?We were made in His image,we are unatural since being taited by the enemy and are trying to find our way back
tainted* sorry spelling
At the risk of being slightly pedantic, let me clarify that by "natural religion", I mean, as Nate surmises, that state of relationship between the true God and Man, his creation, before the time of Moses when that relationship was codefied, described and institutionalized, thus becoming Judaism. I did not intend to confuse this with the term "natural religion" as it is used by the Humanists.
As such, Adam, practiced natural religion and had direct revelation, as did Noah, Abraham, and Moses. All those following Moses can rightfuly be called Jews, (latinization of Judeans, which existed as a dominant kingdom only after Moses).
If you wish to narrowly define all Christians as those who believed the promises of God and that Jesus was the promised redeemer, then the first Christians would be Mary, Joseph and that old coot who hung around the temple waiting for the redeemer to be born.
I prefer the previously mentioned definition of Christians as all those who believe the promise of God, that there would be a redeemer, which would include many people, unnammed in the Bible but going back before Moses certainly.
That is my take on it. You are all welcome to disagree without fear for your salvation.
And why were early Christians required to be circumcised?
Bill | 07.06.09 - 9:38 am | #
Because they were stupid.
Thank you Prof.
Bill,
Was there any point in which I said "saving knowledge"? Nope, did not, Thank you for playing the game. You are showing your Calvinistic colors quite well.
As you are probably aware most of us here do not buy into Calvin's teachings. The Word states that G_d is not a respecter of men, it also teaches that His desire is for all men to be saved, so how does this line up with Calvin's teaching on predestination? I n order for G_d to pick an choose who will be saved he has to be a respecter of men deeming who is worthy and who is not. I think that what is lacking here is our understanding of the meaning of the original wording of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. If G_d is so capricious that He simply picks and chooses who will be saved, why go through the elaborate ordeal He went through. Why not just say you, you and you over there, you will join Me for eternity. You have no choice. The rest of you can rot in hell. That does not line up with His desire that all men be saved.
We reading of the Word leads be to see that all men are wooed by the Holy Spirit. Some such as myself and others here will heed that call and Follow Him. Most will walk away rejecting the free gift believing the lie that it will cost them too much. My personal understanding of the predestination argument is that G_d knows who will reject Him and who will not.
But I digress Nate's post was not about the free will vs. predestination argument. It was about the fact that our faith (what we believe) did not start when Yeshua walked on this planet in His human body, it did not start when Moses was given the Law, It did not start when Abraham was called out. It started long before then at the dawn of man. there have been men of faith throughout the Word who had no access to the scriptures, but understood He existed and sought Him. Our very nature seeks Him as He is our Creator. We in our natural form are not the enemy of G_d, but we in our sin corrupted state are separated from Him. In essence making us His enemy by virtue of the fact we cannot abide in His holiness in our less than perfect sinful state.
"We reading of the Word" was supposed to be "MY reading of the Word"
Must learn to proofread better.
"Our very nature seeks Him as He is our Creator."
I would tend to agree there. Even when my head told me there was no God, there was still a longing for Him and a vague sense that He was there. It was quite vexing at times.
I imagine for the "hard-core atheists" it is absolutely infuriating and that's what makes them the assholes that Vox refers to. Nothing else explains their fury at the creator God and His Son, while excusing every other expression of the supernatural. (Please excuse the expression this time, Nate.)
Must learn to proofread better.
Eaglewood | Homepage | 07.07.09 - 10:52 am | #
Why? Seems like an aweful lot of fuss over such a little thing.
Why? Seems like an aweful lot of fuss over such a little thing.
Professor Hale | Homepage | 07.07.09 - 12:58 pm | #
I am just a little too perfectionist at times, and little mistakes that I can't fix vex me.
First, to dispense with this "Calvin Says" nonsense; The genius of Calvin was that he was the first notable person to say "Hey, how about we see what the Bible REALLY says about this." Calvin did not rely on his opinion to form his views (in marked difference to most theologians) and he did not rely on church tradition, Calvin actually went through scripture and noted all the major themes, and used this to construct a Biblical worldview. So, if you disagree with Calvin, you're disagreeing with a very solid Biblical argument, you are not disagreeing with Calvin's opinion. Not to say that Calvin's interpretation is infallible, but it's by far the best to date.
So if you disagree with Calvin's interpertation of Romans chapter 9, then you can offer your own interperation, but it has to square with the balance of Scripture - as Calvin's view does.
The trap you seem to have fallen into is proof-texting, instead of letting the words speak for themselves.
I am just a little too perfectionist at times, and little mistakes that I can't fix vex me.
Eaglewood | Homepage | 07.07.09 - 1:23 pm | #
I have the same problem, but not about being a erfectionist. I type fast and sometimes my fingers get dyslexic, hitting keys out of order. Othertimes, I don't see the mistakes until immediately after I hit send. Then it is too late.
"Calvin did not rely on his opinion to form his views"
Really?
Calvin and those who followed him believed that they served God by murdering those who did not share their take on Calvin's views. In fact they believed they could not help but commit murder in the name of God, as it was God Himself willing them to kill all who would not submit to Calvin's opinions.
"it has to square with the balance of Scripture - as Calvin's view does."
Please square mass murder in the name of Jesus with the balance of scripture.
Investigate these verses:
Matt 7:16-20
Matt 19:18
Before Romans 9 there is this little section of Romans 1:28-32. How is it that Calvinists missed the first chapter in their rush to claim God made them do it?
The point of Romans isn't that God randomly pics and chooses people, but that He has established a way by which all may approach and know Him, just as He declared to Abraham and as He constantly revealed through scripture.
Claiming "God made me do it, I can't resist His will", isn't great theology, its psychotic homicidal mania as Calvin and his ilk demonstrated.
Thank You Res.
Saves me the trouble of having to refute the idea that Calvin is the be all and end all in Theologians. Calvin did have a preconceived idea that only certain people can get into heaven and that they are hand picked by G_d. The fact that his drivel is still around amazes me and is one of the reasons so many people walk away from the faith. "It was ordained before time began."is a phrase I hear often about people who walk away or are never saved. It is CRAP and a lie from the pit of HELL. We let people walk away, and then console ourselves with "maybe G_d just does not want him saved". Please Don't get me started on the HARM Calvinism has caused over the years.
Bill,
I find it interesting that you have claimed that I am prooftexting. I have yet to sit down and actually provide any verses to back up my beliefs. I do on occasion but generally not in quick comments on someone else's blog. Bill you know very little about me or the calling upon my life, but I will tell you this, one of the things He told me was to lean upon the Spirit when it comes to understanding the Scriptures, and not to listen to men and their biased and incomplete understanding. All men including myself have bias in what they believe period. We must all guard against it and listen to the Author of the Word, not the men who try to interpret it. This is the first thing I teach. The second thing is in studying the scriptures context is everything. I am happy to give my opinions on the Word but I claim no authority. That goes to the One who wrote the book.
Calvin never could make that claim with any honesty, and Bill your claim the Calvin holds some kind of final authority on what the scriptures say is reprehensible.
As Calvin has been noted to have those who disagreed with him put to death. Please reconcile his theology to 1 john 3: 1-15
1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.
3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10
Haloscan stinks
10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;
12 not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous.
13 Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.
14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
Bill,
I need to apologize for my behavior. I just get very upset when anyone makes the asinine claim that if you disagree with so and so then you are disagreeing with the Word.
I find blind support of any theologian or any one man to simply be a sign of a lazy intellect and I lost my cool. For that I apologize. I still believe Calvin to be wrong and the fact he had people put to death for disagreeing with him has me questioning Calvin's redemption.
I asked you not to get me started on Calvin, and look what has happened. Nate's post was not even about Calvin.
Can you in any way dispute that men such as Noah were men of faith before their recorded divine revelation?
I am scratching my head Bill. How does Romans 9 in any way shape of form prove predestination per Calvin?
I can see where G_d had quit trying to woo the wicked that have completely walked away from Him, but how does it prove that G_d has ordained that these doers of evil will be such. Please, Bill I thought you could do better than that.
By and far Romans 9 even goes so far as to prove Nate's point about the self evidence of G_d's existence.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
And out of the wood work crawls Res Ipsa... carrying a very large stick.
There are numerous interesting rabbit trails here. But for the moment, I'm going to address the original point.
While I understand what Nate is saying and would agree with the principle in theory, I would not call it Christianity. Rather I would describe it as worship of Jehovah God. the (I Am That I Am)
And we see clearly in Hebrews that prior too the revelation of Scripture, there were men of faith who acknowledged, believed and obeyed the limited understanding of that God, by faith. And that faith was counted as righteousness.
Enoch, Abel, Abraham, Job all had some kind of knowledge about God, without the Scripture.
Furthermore, Hebrews shows us that Christ was superior to Melchisedec, a priest of the most high God.
So we know from Scripture that without the specific revelation of Scripture, men were able to know and believe in Jehovah God.
Even prior to that though, there is the commonly called proto-evangel, in Genesis 3:15. This passage points to the coming Messiah even before the flood. So we know that Christ, was central to the plan of God from the very beginning. Regardless of what term you use to describe it, there was a plan which involved Christ from the moment of mans fall into sin.
BTW, I would add after rereading all the comments, that somehow God had revealed to Adam and his decedents certain requirements related to worship. See Cain and Abel.
Eaglewood,
I believe that one point of Romans is that God, from the beginning of time wanted all men to know and worship him. I think that a reading of scripture from Gen forward would agree with this point of view. God used various men and methods to accomplish this.
If you (as I do) believe God to be the same yesterday today and tomorrow, then it is easier to see certain themes in both the old and new testaments. For example: God gave much grace in the OT but it wasn't contingent on the person of Christ, rather it was a response to faith and/or humility.
In our time the fullness of God's plan has been shown to man. He expects us to accept it by faith, through the person of Christ. When we do so we can have a relationship with Him, if we choose. I agree that God predestined a plan, forknew who would accept it and gave all free will to do as they wished with it. One of the aims of Romans is to demonstrate that point to the reader. Calvin brought a series of questions to his study and assumed his questions were the cornerstone of God's concerns as well. They weren't and that was the first place he went wrong.
I think to a degree this ties in with Nates original post. God wanted a relationship with man from day one. He pursued that relationship down through the ages with different men and through different means until he could teach him faith and provide for him a perfect system that would forgive sin and call man back to the relationship God intended from before the fall.
What Res Ispa said,
AMEN
I expected more from Res Ipsa than a weak ad hominem attack followed by a tortured agreement with one of Calvinism's main points - predestination.
Yeah, Calvin had people killed. What of it? You're suggesting this is a bad thing? Killing someone for blasphemy is not Biblical?
Res, have you looked into this at all? I can't believe you paraphrase the Calvinist position, declare that that's what you believe and those Other Guys are idiots, and expect to get away with it.
Res sez;
I agree that God predestined a plan, forknew who would accept it and gave all free will to do as they wished with it.
And the Official Calvinist Position is;
God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
So, Res, I suppose next you'll say that Sola Scriptura is a damnable heresy, rather we should look to the Bible instead of what Calvin wrote, and Sola Gratia is just warmed over Catholicism (being Latin and all) and contrary to Calvin's teachings we are saved by grace alone.
"Yeah, Calvin had people killed. What of it? You're suggesting this is a bad thing? Killing someone for blasphemy is not Biblical?"
You're not seriously advocating killing people because of blasphemy, are you? You really believe he was justified in doing those things? Your belief is blasphemous in that it states that God forces people into Heaven and others into Hell, when in reality: we get to choose! God does not pick and choose people for salvation, He wants ALL to be saved, so if He has the capability of picking some for salvation, why not all? Why do some go to Hell? According to your beliefs, He obviously does not care about free will, so why should what a person wants matter?
You're not seriously advocating killing people because of blasphemy, are you?
No, I'm asking if there's Biblical support for the idea.
Just to be clear, the Bible does support the death penality for blasphemy.
Leviticus 24:16;
And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.
And Jesus also supports OT law, includign the death penality, as noted in Matthew 15:3-4;
He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’
As Calvin has been noted to have those who disagreed with him put to death. Please reconcile his theology to 1 john 3: 1-15
Sure, piece of cake. But first, what is the big deal about killing people? Christians have been killing people since there were Christians. God commanded any number of people to be killed, God destroyed entire cities, entire nations, entire races. There's quite a list of transgressions that list death as the penalty.
So, back to 1 John.
Verse 8;
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The work of Christians is to destroy the work of the Devil. Note that this is stated pretty explicitly. Now, as to the people that Calvin had killed, what exactly were they doing or preaching? The most notable was Servetus, who was preaching that there was no Trinity, that Christ was not God, that Christ was fully human and that the Spirit was simply another aspect of the Father, not distinct. Servetus was tried, convicted, and burned at the stake. In all, over a span of either five or fifty years, between thirty and sixty people (depending on whose numbers you believe) were put to death for heresy or similar crimes, out of a population of about twenty thousand. But the key point is that Calvin didn't do it. Calvin was a priest, influential, but not a member of the civil authority. All those people were arrested, tried, convicted, and executed without Calvin's intervention. The only one he was personally involved with was Servetus, who was arrested at Calvin's church, and who Calvin wanted beheaded, but he was burned at the stake instead. The other notable one would be Jacques Gouet, who was actually an insurrectionist and threatened to kill Calvin as he viewed Calvin as a Frenchman that was unduly meddling in Swiss affairs (Gouet was also French). So rambling on about how Calvin had these people killed is simply a non-starter. First; maybe they deserved to die, maybe they were all Catholic child molesters. Second; Calvin didn't have much to do with 99% of the deaths. Also, at this time death sentences were commonplace, this was, after all, at the height of the Catholic inquisition and smack in the middle of any number of wars, rebellions, insurrections, etc.
So, back to 1 John 3.
Verse 8;
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The 'he' in "that he might destroy" is referring to the Son of God, who is Jesus. It was (and is) Jesus' work to destroy the works of the devil.
The reader is called 'children of God', çhildren', 'little children' (and the author includes himself) throughout the chapter, so to suddenly refer to 'Son of God' as Christians in general doesn't fit. (My version makes it easy and capitalizes that 'He' that refers to the Son of God.)
So, back to 1 John.
Verse 8;
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Wow Bill you really tortured the meaning of that verse. Yeshua's work on the cross is what destroyed the works of Lucifer. He is a beaten foe.
How does that equate to saying we should kill someone because they were teaching what you believed to be blasphemy? Which denomination today has it correct? The Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, or maybe 7th day Adventists? Please pick wisely as the rest just might be preaching blasphemy. Am I preaching blasphemy if I advocate that man has a free will and can choose his eternal destiny for himself? If I am, then based upon your condoning of Calvin's actions why are you not advocating for my death?
My point had to do with verse 15. A person who advocates for the death of another man simply because the man's teachings are blasphemous in your eyes is advocating murder.
Bill,
Quite frankly I could care less about Calvin, or any other Theologian. It is not what this post was about. You can defend Calvin till you are blue in the face and it won't change what I have read for myself and what the Spirit has shown me. Again I trust the Author more than any man on this planet. If you wish to cling to Calvin as the final authority on the Word, be my guest. I will continue to go to the Source.
You still have not refuted the fact that Romans 9 does not support your position, but actually support's Nate's and mine, that our faith though not always called what it is today is much older than Abraham, and calling it an Abrahamic Religion is incorrect.
See Eaglewood, this is why you get spanked in arguments and don't even know it. Your attack against Calvin wasn't that his interpretation of scripture was wrong, but that he had people killed - that was your entire argument. When I show that; 1) Scripture supports killing people for blasphemy, and 2) Calvin didn't have much to do with the killings, your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly while trying to change the subject. And, THANK GOD, we don't have to rely on you to define blasphemy. Blasphemy is in the dictionary, or you can refer to any of a few dozen respected decisions on the subject if you want the verbose definition. Essentially, there are two ways to commit blasphemy; the most obvious and by far the most common is to assume for yourself attributes of God, such as being able to forgive sin, perform miracles, etc. The second way to commit blasphemy is, as stated in Exodus chapter 20 verse 7; "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain..." This would be better phrased as "You should not use the name of God for vain (self-indulgent) purposes". What this means is that blasphemy is claiming that you got a message from God when in fact you're simply stating your wishes, as for example; saying "God told me I should be a missionary to barkeeps, prostitutes, and beach bums in Australia, and He told me that you should send me money every month for support". So, if the Baptists, Lutherans, et al are claiming that they can forgive sin, or that they got a special message directly from God that nobody else can verify, then they're blaspheming. Modern examples of blasphmey would be Joseph Smith, Marshall Applewhite, and of course, Jim Jones.
Romans 9 states, IMHO quite clearly, that salvation is from God, it is not an accident of birth (being Jewish or being born to Christian parents), it is not a matter of keeping the law, it is not a matter of wanting to be saved - Romans 9 is clear; salvation is a gift of God given to whom He chooses.
"The most notable was Servetus, who was preaching that there was no Trinity, that Christ was not God, that Christ was fully human and that the Spirit was simply another aspect of the Father, not distinct."
"Essentially, there are two ways to commit blasphemy; the most obvious and by far the most common is to assume for yourself attributes of God, such as being able to forgive sin, perform miracles, etc. The second way to commit blasphemy is, as stated in Exodus chapter 20 verse 7; "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain..." This would be better phrased as "You should not use the name of God for vain (self-indulgent) purposes"."
Based upon the definition you just gave, Servetus did not commit blasphemy, Bill. A case could be made for heresy but not blasphemy. but that is not my point. Why have a man put to death because his teachings are wrong? Why not show him to be the heretic he is and be done with it?
Again it is off topic. My fault I should have never mentioned Calvin. The people who defend him would rather go to their graves defending him rather than admit Calvin just might be wrong. Your first statement about him kind of proves the point. Every person has bias including Calvin. Calvin brought his bias into his interpretation of the Word and your statement that he did not is intellectually dishonest. Whether or not Calvin is guilty of murder is beside the point and irrelevant to the topic.
Yes I get emotional, so what, I would gather that you are not a robot either, hence your emotional attachment to Calvin and his doctrine. To admit that Calvin might be wrong is to admit you might be wrong and then you might have to think for yourself rather than rely on Calvin.
I will have more on Romans 9 later.
"Romans 9 states, IMHO quite clearly, that salvation is from God, it is not an accident of birth (being Jewish or being born to Christian parents), it is not a matter of keeping the law, it is not a matter of wanting to be saved - Romans 9 is clear; salvation is a gift of God given to whom He chooses."
This is simply incorrect, Bill. You are taking one verse and interpreting it in a way that completely ignores numerous other verses that explicitly shoot down your theory. Salvation is a gift to all people. God is actively trying to save each and every person, He does not wish anyone to perish, but that all might be saved. If God wants everyone to be saved, why is He sending people to hell?
Bill,
Rather than write out what I believe on Romans 9 I will let this conclusion of the Armenian position suffice. I know this makes it look like I am leaning on a specific theological outlook, but the summation more eloquently states what I have believed long before I knew there was even such a thing as an Armenian position on predestination.
Conclusion
So, to sum up, according to the Augustinian/Calvinist interpretation, which assumes faith in Christ for salvation and arises in opposition to Pelagianism and later the medieval Catholic church:
* Paul begins by agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to salvation through faith in Christ (9:1-5).
* Paul’s solution is that not all of Israel is Israel; i.e., not all of Israel is elect (v. 6).
* Paul demonstrates God’s prerogative to elect whomever he wills by having elected Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau (vv. 7-13).
* God has mercy only on those whom he chooses to have mercy, and hardens the rest, as exemplified by Pharaoh (vv. 14-18 ).
* At this point, Paul hypothesizes a questioner who articulates the Arminian contention: if God has chosen to harden someone like Pharaoh, how can God then judge him for what he was predestined to do (v. 19)? Paul rebukes the questioner for impiety, and uses the potter-clay illustration to reiterate that God has the right to elect some and reprobate some as he deems fit (vv. 20-21).
* Paul then adds, as a supporting argument, the fact that when God chooses to reprobate someone like Pharaoh, he has to bear patiently their sin and arrogance, but does so, in order to demonstrate his glory to his elect, which turn out to be among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews (vv. 22-24).
* He thus brings the discussion back to the issue of Jewish unbelief in Christ, from which his discussion of election has been an excursus.
From that point, the rest of the chapter is interpreted with regard to the Jew-Gentile question and salvation by faith, as opposed to works, without explicit reference to election (vv. 25-33).
The present interpretation that I have given recognizes the significant paradigm shift that takes place in the first century with regard to the identity of the people of God. It contrasts with the traditional one chiefly in terms of keeping the dominant issues of the Jews and of salvation by faith in mind throughout.
* It begins, as before, with Paul agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to faith in Christ (vv. 1-5).
* He has to confront the Jewish objection that, if his gospel were correct, it would mean that God’s promises to the Jews had failed. His response is that God’s promises have not failed, but others are inheriting the promises, because not all of Israel is Israel: i.e., not all of Israel has followed Abraham in faith (v. 6).
* Ethnic descent from Abraham is not enough to be considered “Abraham’s children,” as the examples of Ishmael and Esau demonstrate; Israel has already been granted unmerited blessings as compared with other descendants of Abraham (vv. 7-13).
* Therefore God is not unjust if he now excludes those descendants of Jacob who do not come to faith, because anyone he blesses, even Moses, is a recipient of his mercy (vv. 14-16). God may choose to spare for a time even someone like Pharaoh, whom Go
* Therefore God is not unjust if he now excludes those descendants of Jacob who do not come to faith, because anyone he blesses, even Moses, is a recipient of his mercy (vv. 14-16). God may choose to spare for a time even someone like Pharaoh, whom God has chosen to harden—knowing that he will harden himself in response to God’s challenge—in order for God to glorify himself through that person, who can be viewed as both an example of God’s mercy and hardening (vv. 17-18 ).
* The implication is therefore that the Jews have been given mercy in the past but are not guaranteed mercy in the future if they do not come to faith in Christ. The hypothetical questioner asks why God still blames the Jews, if He has hardened them (v. 19), refusing to recognize that the Jews are hardened just as Pharaoh was hardened, by their own stubborn refusal to repent. Paul therefore rebukes them, and uses the potter-clay illustration to point out that God has always dealt with Israel on the basis of its repentance, and it is only those who refuse to repent who argue back to God that he made them as they are (vv. 20-21).
* Paul then points out that God has to bear patiently the “objects of his wrath”—the unbelieving—in order to make his glory known to the “objects of his mercy”—those who come to faith, which he specifically identifies as having come not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24). The supporting quotations from Hosea and Isaiah make clear the point: that many of those whom the Jews had considered excluded from the covenant (the Gentiles) would in the end be included, while many whom the Jews had considered included in the covenant (themselves) would be excluded (vv. 25-29).
* The basis upon which Gentiles have been included and Jews excluded is made explicit in vv. 30-33: it is that the Gentiles are obtaining righteousness through faith, while the Jews have pursued it by works.
Pros and Cons
It may be argued against this interpretation that the traditional one reads more simply from the text in Romans, and that it does not interject issues of ethnic Judaism or justification by faith, neither of which are clearly referenced in the central passage (vv. 14-23). To this, it may be responded that the traditional interpretation may read more simply by virtue of one’s familiarity with it, and because it assumes certain interpretations of the OT quotations which are simple but are demonstrably false, once the contexts are understood. The issue of ethnic Judaism dominates chs. 9-11, and thus can safely be assumed in a short passage that doesn’t reference it explicitly; while justification by faith is the dominant theme of the book of Romans as a whole, and it is the Israelite rejection of justification by faith that provokes the present discussion. On the other hand, the traditional interpretation reads into the text the assumption of unconditional individual election, which is a debatable doctrine, certainly not a major theme of Romans 1-8, and not followed up as a theme in Romans 9:25ff.
In essence, Paul is telling ethnic Israel something very close to what Reformed interpreters see. He is telling them that God has the right to choose whomever he wills to be among his covenant people. But he is not telling them this because God has chosen not to elect most of them. He’s telling them this because the paradigm for inclusion in the covenant people has shifted, from national Israel following the Law to anyone who comes to faith in Christ. Israel feels betrayed by this paradigm shift, so Paul explains that God has no obligation to the physical descendents of Abraham; rather, Paul demonstrates from the Old Testament that his relationship to Israel has always depended upon repentance.
Commenting by HaloScan
