ROMANS 4:5..."But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him..."... (scrutiny, belief)

[savedbysovereigngrace]

alabama:

Yes, I realize to whom the epistle is written, however that's not the point

It is the point. Paul is reminding them of God's saving Grace and Electing Grace. God Justified them when they were ungodly and enemies of His by Nature.

You see, even when the elect are enemies and ungodly by nature, they are reconciled to God ! How ? By the death of His Son.. Rom 5:


10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

The elect never were condemned as unbelievers, as the non elect are Jn 3:

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Therein lies the difference between the ungodly elect and ungodly non elect. The ungodly elect are never condemned because of Christ death for them..

And those who are condemned shall not never see life ! Jn 3:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Say that with me, Shall not see life !

Now the shall not see life is future, and the wrath abiding on him is present tense, so there is no hope in the future for them to see life, which means eternal life..

[AlabamaStorm]

Originally Posted by savedbysovereigngrace

alabama:

It is the point. Paul is reminding them of God's saving Grace and Electing Grace. God Justified them when they were ungodly and enemies of His by Nature.

You see, even when the elect are enemies and ungodly by nature, they are reconciled to God ! How ? By the death of His Son.. Rom 5:

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

The elect never were condemned as unbelievers, as the non elect are Jn 3:

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Therein lies the difference between the ungodly elect and ungodly non elect. The ungodly elect are never condemned because of Christ death for them..

And those who are condemned shall not never see life ! Jn 3:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Say that with me, Shall not see life !

Tell that to the Apostle Paul when you see him. Paul, as Saul, was also an unbeliever too. According to your interpretation, he will never see life, unless of course we first change what scripture actually says. You'll need to re-write both Joh 3:18 and 36 to agree with your doctrines. If you have a word processor, it wouldn't be to hard I suppose...

Have you thought of publishing your own bible with revised scriptures to suit your doctrines? Change the ones that don't quite cut it, remove the ones that contradict your theology and add a few of your own for good measure, to know that it's yours. Might even want to copyright it too.

You might even make a buck or two. I don't think the Lord would appreciate it though...lol.

Now the shall not see life is future, and the wrath abiding on him is present tense, so there is no hope in the future for them to see life, which means eternal life..

The elect were not condemned according to the spirit. However, they were according to the flesh, in Adam:

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Do you see that?

[AlabamaStorm]

savedbysoverigngrace - Look, the differences I have with you regarding election and limited atonement is not one of substance or application, per se, but rather it's extent. I don't believe God ultimately elected to reprobate. I believe it was a possibility, but that God choose not to do so.

I believe all men, all humanity, has been elected to life, and were justified in Christ from eternity. It's still unfolding and perhaps also waiting to be revealed in time.

I'm a supralapsarian in that regard, however without the doctrine of reprobation included. In this respect, I'm tagged as being a hyper-Calvinist. However I believe the application and scope of the atonement is universal in nature rather than limited, and consequently being universal will result in the reconciliation of all things back to God, and the ultimate salvation of all to His glory. No one will, in the end, perish.

That's how I see it presented in the scriptures, after many years of thought, reflection, personal study, prayer and calling upon Christ to reveal His truth in scripture to me.

You'll just have to accept that.

[savedbysovereigngrace]

alabama:

Tell that to the Apostle Paul when you see him

I am telling you what Paul wrote. You do realize that don't you ?

[AlabamaStorm]

Originally Posted by savedbysovereigngrace

alabama:

I am telling you what Paul wrote. You do realize that don't you ?

No, you're interpreting what John wrote with respect to what Paul said in Rom 5:10. There is a difference.

Look, Joh 3:18 and 36 explicitly state that the one who does not believe is condemned already and will never see life. You've interpreted that to mean it can only refer to the non-elect because of a doctrine that teaches that the elect have never been condemned. And that is not what the text tells us here or in Rom 5:10, or other parts of scripture. I understand that is how your doctrine sees it, but that is not what the actual reading of the text says.

Regarding Rom 4:5, you've interpreted that to mean "the ungodly elect" are justified, not the ungodly non-elect. However, again, that is not what the text says.

It is speaking of the ungodly, without a modifier, and as such being justified in the present tense. Not the past tense, regarding a nature they once had, as you've interpreted it, but rather present tense.

What you're doing here is starting out with pre-conceived doctrines and reading into scripture the doctrines you believe in. We all do it to some extent. However, you need to be honest with at least yourself with what you're doing.

[savedbysovereigngrace]

alabama:

No, you're interpreting what John wrote with respect to what Paul said in Rom 5:10. There is a difference.

Read what I posted, its from Paul..The elect, are reconciled to God by the death of His Son, even while they are enemies. They were never condemned by God. So they could not have been these Jn 3:

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

One cannot be condemned by God and reconciled to God at the same time.

And the flesh of the elect is not condemned for the sins Christ died for, He covered all their sins, of the flesh and the spirit.. Nothing about the elect is condemned.

The sins they commit in the Flesh, Christ condemned in His body on the Tree. Rom 8:

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

1 Pet 2:24

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.


The Flesh of the elect will shortly receive the adoption, it will be Glorified, evidencing that it was not condemned by God either, for it to shall experimentally partake of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

So nothing about the elect is condemned, not ever, and never was !

This shows your theory unscriptural..

[AlabamaStorm]

Originally Posted by savedbysovereigngrace

alabama:

Read what I posted, its from Paul

Again, what you've articulated regarding the scriptures you've posted is not what the text actually says.

First, it does not say "elect", but rather "we". Now, you might interpret the text to mean "elect" and then exclude something or someone you believe to be non-elect from that group, but that is not what the text actually says. What Paul actually is describing are believers in the present tense when the epistle was written: "we", to whom the epistle was written. Paul wrote the epistle about 2,000 years ago. Did he mean to exclude you and I, or any other believers in 2011, from "we"?

And, there are unbelievers excluded from "we" today that may will be called tomorrow and therein be included in the "we".

Do you know for a fact that all will not one day be born of the Spirit, be brought to faith and enter the Kingdom and therefor be considered "we"?

There are scriptures that state God will have all saved and brought to the knowledge of the truth. Why should we believe anything else?

[savedbysovereigngrace]

alabama:

Again, what you've articulated regarding the scriptures you've posted is not what the text actually says.

And nothing that the text actually denies..I have given you enough scripture, you deny it, so be it..

[Ilene Wright]

Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm

Again, what you've articulated regarding the scriptures you've posted is not what the text actually says.

First, it does not say "elect", but rather "we". Now, you might interpret the text to mean "elect" and then exclude something or someone you believe to be non-elect from that group, but that is not what the text actually says. What Paul actually is describing are believers in the present tense when the epistle was written: "we", to whom the epistle was written. Paul wrote the epistle about 2,000 years ago. Did he mean to exclude you and I, or any other believers in 2011, from "we"?

And, there are unbelievers excluded from "we" today that may will be called tomorrow and therein be included in the "we".

Do you know for a fact that all will not one day be born of the Spirit, be brought to faith and enter the Kingdom and therefor be considered "we"?

There are scriptures that state God will have all saved and brought to the knowledge of the truth. Why should we believe anything else?

Tried to rep you, too much for 24 hr period but I'll be back in the am. AS, there's really no one that I've seen that can say it quite the way you do....thank you for that.

[AlabamaStorm]

Originally Posted by savedbysovereigngrace

alabama:

One cannot be condemned by God and reconciled to God at the same time.

That may well depend on your translation of the word condemned and how that term "reconciled" is used within a particular text or context. I can think of many reasons why a person could be reconciled by God to Himself, and yet not reconciled of themselves to God. It's possible that condemnation, like reconciliation may be one sided, until the knowledge of the reconciliation is attained by the one already reconciled to God. Have you considered this?

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.