SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
ECT Rom 3:3 and 9:6 on God's constancy
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
:chuckle:
heir
TOL Subscriber
You're wrong. It's the reason Paul was sent to the Jew first and also to the Greek all the way through the Acts period.
I study daily. And please don't call me "your heirness". It's a term that is used by others who actually appreciate my contribution to the ministry here.
Problem is Paul is referring to Israel's Unconditional election there.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Problem is the Jew had the advantage in Romans 3:1-2 KJV
Paul was sent to the Jew first all through the Acts period and Romans 11:5 KJV is why!
themuzicman
Well-known member
The KJV is a bit vague in verse 26
It's a technical difference, but an important one. The question is "in what way is Paul referring to?"
The way Paul is referring to is that some Jews were hardened so that the Gentiles could come it, but in this way, all Israel (remember from chapter 9, Paul says that not all who are born of Israel are Israel, but only those of the promise) will be saved.
Nope.
Paul's point in Romans 3 is in light of his later assertion in that same chapter - that God has concluded both Jrw and Gentile under sin.
His earlier point in chapter 3, together with his later point in that same chapter, both points of which he later more fully elaborates on in 9 thru 11 - is that the unbelief of most of Israel has not voided God's Unconditional election of grace: that there is their Believing remnant who's faith has given them a part in said Unconditional election...of grace.
He is talking about that Unconditional election of grace God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
heir
TOL Subscriber
So Paul never gathered in a remnant out of Israel according to the election of grace?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh is not good on what that promise's contents consisted of. Most MAD's think it is a stretch of 'ethne Israel in its land.' He is right about the remnant, and it is its own group of people that is both Jew and Gentile. It is another 'Israel.' It has a mission: evangelism of the world and proclaiming that Christ is its Lord.
(Heh heh; time for a little fun with the MADs...)
I often find it amusing that as eager beaver as the various MADs on here ever are to comment on one post or another; it is often the case that when ever you and or STP and I butt heads on some of the seemingly more advanced issues and or phrases like "according to the election of grace" most of them have nothing to say :chuckle:
Your little club is comprised of rookies :crackup:
Heh, heh...
The Cheshire Mad Cat
I lost my library card?
The dog ate my homework?
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum?
The Shadow knows?
Interplanner
Well-known member
That late Rom 11 quote is not about the 2nd coming. It is about the net result down through history of those who believe, but not the 2nd coming. The Isaiah passage is being quoted as fulfilled already.
heir
TOL Subscriber
My question is in response to you saying that the remnant of Romans 11:5 KJV is referring to the little flock and not anyone in the Body. The question I posed to you was and is a good question. How about answering it?
It is not another Israel.
It is believing Israelites within the whole of Israel.
The Israel of GOD.
It would be equivalent to saying "Gun toting Americans".
It is a category of America within the whole of America.
Not a darn thing wrong with being a rookie when it comes to sincere studying of scripture.
It is admirable, not something to be ashamed of; and it is a poor choice of word to use for those in the BOC.
No one in the BOC should have the attitude that they are superior or more advanced in any way.
Not all follow your theory of "patterns" to study, and yet they ended up in the BOC anyway.
Just because your approach worked out for you does not mean your way is the standard all must meet.
Tell us, Daniel, what title do you give yourself?
Unless I read his take on it wrong, I noticed that in contrast to your view on another issue - the sense of Romans 11's cutting off and grafting in again - Musti and I appear to hold a similar "Stam" like kind of a view on the sense of said cutting off and grafting in again.
I'm waiting to see what other MADs might have to say about this "election of grace" understanding, also.
You already know I do not hold your view on that.
Why should you and I have all the fun? :chuckle:
I appreciate your not holding back where you believe I am off on one understanding or another, heir.
Iron is not going to sharpen iron if one of the swords is ever running off rather than staying in there duking it out until what remains standing is the truth.
Like I said, I'm just waiting to see what other MADs who might step up to the plate to share their perspective on that might have to share.
Lol - not that I expect all will be able to (sheesh; what a serious lot).
And this (MAD going back and forth with MAD) sure beats going back and forth with incompetents like dodge and his endless kind.
Again, I do appreciate that much about you.
You're still off on your "election of grace" understanding, though :chuckle:
heir
TOL Subscriber
You accused me of "distorting the truth" because of my understanding of this particular topic and are stalling the conversation by not answering the question. Please answer it.
So what; you accuse me of same.
I don't fall apart; why should you?
Iron sharpeneth iron.
And...I am waiting for other MADs to share there thoughts on who Paul was referring to (by his phrase "the election of grace" in Romans 11).
Tribulation worketh patience, heir - have some - on me :chuckle:
heir
TOL Subscriber
I'm calling you out on your bogus accusation. Answer the question and get on with it or shut up.
Just remember to take what you dish out - and I'm waiting for the other MADs...so there. :chuckle:
heir
TOL Subscriber
I know what Paul preached in Acts, to whom and why. I'll take your refusal to answer as you have no answer.