I would advise any reading this thread not to hinge their belief of Calvinism on this verse or discussion alone. ( Eph 4:14 ) This is a very deep topic. I would also council against taking this sort of scriptural meat on when you know you have other sins or deficiencies in your service to Christ that need resolving.

Plainsman -- On "Scripture-Snipping": I agree with your point about consulting the body of scripture instead of deriving an entire theology from one passage which is likely taken out of context to begin with. You are correct to caution against this generally. But does your caution in the context of this thread mean that you think it has been done here? The whole point of this thread is to get feedback, so if you've got some scriptures that you think contradict the interpretation of Romans 9 I've proposed, then by all means let's have 'em.

In fairness to the interpretation I've presented, and lest it be forgotten that I have actually referred to other passages of scripture besides Romans 9:19-20, I will list the passages that I've used on this thread that I think are harmonious with my interpretation of Romans 9 (in order of their appearance):

The rest of Romans 9
2 Peter 3
Exodus 4:21, 7:13, 14:4 (Romans 9:17)
Isaiah 55:10-11
Ephesians 1
Romans 8:29-30
Ephesians 2:8-10
Romans 5
Acts 5:31
Acts 11:18
2 Timothy 2:25-26
Titus 3:5
Romans 3:9-18
Romans 7
Acts 18:27
Philippians 1:29
Romans 11
Romans 6
Romans 8
Ezekiel 37
John 6:35-40,44,65

Those are just the ones used in this thread. So, yes -- I aggree it would be imprudent to accept the "simple answer" if that answer is not reflected in the body of scripture; however, I am finding the body of scripture to support the simple answer, and am anxiously awaiting feedback to the contrary.

Plainsman-- On Priorities: I think I disagree with you, however, when you say that we should not take on this "meat" before curing other sins and deficiencies in our lives. Here's why.

The nature of sin, grace, election, justification and salvation are among the most foundational elements of the Christian faith. I mean, if you believe that you're saved by grace through faith, but your concepts of grace and faith are unbiblical, then what exactly is it that you believe?

As another example of the same thing, you could just as easily say that a study of the deity of Christ is "complex" or "meaty," yet in reality it is a foundational premise upon which your faith must be based -- that is, until you have a biblical understanding of the deity of Christ, you essentiall have no faith. The faith that you DO have is, well, faith in what?

Now, I can see your point as applied to, say, a study of the plethora of Hebrew poetic symbols used in prophecy. Sure -- get grounded in faith first, and then work that stuff out later. But you can't say that about faith itself, or grace, or the nature of sin, etc. THOSE ARE NOT MEAT-- they are the milk. If you're choking on the milk, then by all means, STOP whatever else you're doing and fix the milk problem first! I mean, the nature of grace and justification was the very issue Paul said had kept so many Jews from faith in Christ! They sought justification through another means! And it did not matter that they were so religious in other ways, because they choked on the milk. THIS milk.

(continued...)

(...continued) Nobody says to a baby "Grow up first, THEN I'll teach you how to drink milk without choking." And yet you seem to have suggested "Resolve your sin first, THEN learn about grace." ?!? ?!?! That's quite literally impossible. And I understand the concern-- if I'm wrong, and the unwitting Pelagian follows me down the path, then he's wrong too. Yet, of equal concern should be this: If I am right, then the Pelagian is still in his sin, having gone about trying to establish his own righteousness through obedience to the law, instead of submitting to the righteousness of God by faith. Either way, I think this topic deserves some priority, especially considering the fact that every Pelagian friend of mine I've shared this with (elders, preachers, and regular joes like me) has either admitted being stumped or has just refrained from comment altogether when confronted with what I've presented here. Even if there is a body of Pelagian scripture, there does not appear to be a body of Pelagians that know about it.

One more thing -- a few folks have asked if it really makes a difference whether we believe in Unconditional Election or not. I mean, both Calvinists and Pelagians go to church, take the Lord's Supper, get baptised, sing songs, etc, right? So what's the big deal? Well, I am hoping that we can see the "big deal" involved with an unbiblical concept of the foundational elements of Christianity, regardless of how visible it might be from day to day. But if that's NOT a big deal for us, then I must ask--how dare we place both Calvinists and Pelagians on the same plane, accepting them both into the fellowship of faith regardless of the fundamental rift between their theologies, and then turn right around and openly condemn (and adamantly refuse to worship with) a man for something as shallow and relatively inconsequential as his view concerning orphanages? If scriptural authority is going to mean anything at all, it has to mean it at the very beginning, at the foundation. Otherwise, any attempt to adhere to scriptural authority is just another Pharisaical gnat, flailing in the trap, watching the camels pass through.

So you're saying the 'pelegian' needs to address this issue first as nothing else is as fundamental?

What I am saying is that it would be unwise to take on a deep and difficult topic such as this if you know you are living in sin. In such a case you should be putting your energy and focus into fleeing from your sin, not in engaging in such theological discusions as they profit you not. Would you council a sinful person to continue in that while they study Calvinism?

On "Scripture-Snipping": I do not yet know if that has been done here. I am in the middle of studying this issue and have not yet come to any conclusions. I am dedicating tomorrow to the study of God's Word and hope to have some reply for you soon.

Plainsman, I understand what you're trying to say about priorities. But we're not communicating well on this point. Let me try again. I agree that the resolution of the problem of sin is man's first priority. But think about this for a moment -- can a man resolve his sin without a proper understanding of how sin is resolved? No. He cannot. A man must first understand how sin is resolved before he can go about resolving the sin issues in his life, right? That being the case, then it follows that seeking out biblical truth about the resolution of sin (while not more important than the actual resultion itself) takes priority, because it is prerequisite. So, if the issue at hand is the nature of sin, grace, and justification, then it doesn't matter how "theological" that issue might seem -- it is prerequisite to all that is essential, and therefore ought to have some priority.

Long shot,

I am a little confused by your intentions. You started by asking for clarification of Rom 9, yet you argue from an assumption of Calvinism. Are you looking for an understanding of Rom 9, or do you wish to debate the many fine points of Calvinism. If it is the former, I shall work to post an explanation. But if it be the latter I would respectfully request that you first post a straight forward explanation about what Calvinism believes as you see it, defining the terms and beliefs with scripture references. That way we can focus our discussion on what the Bible says and not get distracted by misunderstandings born of the multitude of various beliefs on this issue. Quite frankly, I don't really know exactly what Calvinism, Pelagism, or any other named variation thereof believes.

thank you

Plainsman -- on "wolf or sheep?":

My intentions now are the same as they were expressed to be from the very beginning of the thread. In the thread opener, I wrote "Please share your thoughts with me, and maybe clean this up for me a bit. And in case you don't know me (or do, but have forgotten), keep in mind that I learn best through discourse and examination. In other words, Be mature about how you handle my examination of your comments, with the understanding that I desire to pick your brain for my edification..." And a few posts later, I wrote "Please understand, folks, that I'm asking the hardest questions I know to ask (hoping that you will also give the best answers you know to give) so that I can sort this all out for myself. By all means, please do punch back, and vigorously." It should have come as no surprise therefore that I would play the devil's advocate with this issue -- that's what I said I was gonna do. To answer your question, I'm asking for clarification on Romans 9 BY arguing from the Calvinistic assumption.

Of course, there's more to it than that. The whole point of starting this thread was that I had run into a wall, theologically speaking. As I explained in the thread opener, I have been unable to escape the interpretation of Romans 9 that I've presented here, so I have turned to my brethren in the COC for input. (Why do you think I chose pleonast as my media? It ain't because of the aesthetics.) I started the thread hoping someone would be able to talk me out of the conclusions I've felt forced to accept. (I mean, conclusions are conclusions, and once they're drawn, then ramifications follow close behind. I'm not afraid of that, but I can't honestly say I'm thrilled about it either.) Few people in the Church of Christ have bothered to try, and several have plain admitted to being as stumped as I am. Some stay in the fight in that they remain adamantly opposed in principle; however, after a year of my own study, 47 days and over 170 comments on pleonast, 3 elders, a deacon,a preacher, and my own dad, I'm still waiting for someone who will offer a non-Calvinist explanation of Romans 9 and the other passages I've mentioned, and stick around to talk about it. In fairness, you (Plainsman) did offer the Hamilton article. But it's not worth much without someone willing to answer my objections to it. I can write all kinds of articles like that all by myself -- that's where I came from. I don't need someone to present that stuff to me -- I need someone to defend it from the things that have caused me to reject it.

Another thing: you have to understand that I've been studying this issue like a mad dog lately, and as a result, my learning curve is incredibly steep. And that means, of course, that I'm not in exactly the same place that I was in 47 days ago. Understandable? Sure. Disingenuous? Just because the rest of the sheep have no answer doesn't make me a wolf

(...continued) Brother, if you've got an explaination of Romans 9, well, please don't wait another 170 posts to lay it out here. But I've got to be honest and say that I'm beginning to believe that I've already seen the best there is to offer. I am still open to hear more -- that's why I'm keeping this thread up. But the time and events that have passed since the beginning of my study have only convinced me more of the truthfulness of what I've presented here. My fear is (and has been) that once the "Calvinist" label gets applied, then all communication will just end. I see that as tragic on two counts: 1)If I'm wrong, no one will bother to show me, and 2)If I'm right, no one will bother to look.

But if I'm right, and this is the truth, then I have no choice but to embrace it fully, and praise God for His grace in showing it to me, with the understanding that where He leads is best, regardless of how it might look to me at first.

Longshot, I asked because I was trying to figure out the best direction to approach this from. As to my delay: this is a very big subject, bigger and meatier than any I've yet taken on. The more I study the deeper the hole goes. I could have posted a few things already, but I don't like to go at anything halfway. I don't want to post an something ill-thought out and therefore wrong. But I'll see if I can fire back a few things.

repost (quoting longshot)2) From the Calvinist perspective, man's condemnation of himself is not against his will. Now, Calvinists do teach that man's will is limited by his sinful nature in such a way that he cannot will to do only good (Rom 8:7-8, Rom 7:9-25), but this is by man's doing. Therefore, it is not in fallen man to desire good and not evil. And so it is that while man exercises his free will, his free will is limited *to* sinfulness *by* Adam's sin. However, through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, man's freedom to seek and do God's will is restored and perfected, by Christ's righteousness (Rom 5:the whole thing). In all cases, man acts according to his own will. But the unregenerate man only wills to his own destruction (Rom 6:20), until, through God's mercy, his freedom from sin is given (Rom 6:22). Personally, I'd much rather God sovereignly elect me unto righteousness than allow me to remain "free" in my slavery to sin. I mean, just look at Romans 6:20 -- the unregenerate man is free from righteousness! If that's what the Pelagian's much-acclaimed "free will" is, then I say "Freedom shmeedom."

Longshot, you seem hold that man has free will, but limit his free will to exactly one choice. Which is, no choice at all, and therefore not free will. Now I've read many a Calvinist who has agressivly attached even the hint of the idea of free will. Why do you attempt to hold to it? And how does Rom 6:20 teach what you say it does? What choices can a man make? Do the elect then still have a free will, just one limited to rightousness? Did Adam have a completely free will? How did Adam's sin constrain our choice to sinfulness?

Longshot, you once stated to me that Calvinism, while based on error, is logically consitent within itself. Put another way, the 5 pts stem from each other and if you beleive one, you must logically beleive the rest. Do you still beleive this to be true? I have also heard this said by several Calvinists, usually when they are trying to convice Arminians to adopt another point or two.

plainsman, on slippery slope:

Yeah, I think I still agree with that. I mean, if man is in fact dead, then he can't raise himself, so it follows that if he is to be raised, someone else must raise him. If man is a slave to sin, it follows that someone else must buy his freedom. And that leads you to unconditional election. Etc.

But to call it simply a self-supporting theological construct is to miss the point. The fact is that the bible teaches 1)that we are dead in sin, 2)that God shows mercy to those whom He will, 3)That not the children of the flesh, but rather the children of the promise are counted as the seed, 4)That election is immutable and precedes faith, and that 5)That the ones whom God has predestined will certainly be glorified, and will by no means be cast out. Okay, so maybe that looks a whole lot like TULIP -- what of it?

plainsman -- on Free Will: I will answer your question with two questions. Prior to his conversion, is a man dead in sin or isn't he? How many options does a dead person have from which to choose?

Plainsman -- On Romans 6:20: You asked "how does Rom 6:20 teach what you say it does?" Well, uh, what did I say it teaches? All I did was quote part of it. What did you think I was saying that it teaches?

Here's the whole verse. "When you were slaves to sin, you were free in regard to righteousness." That means when you belong to sin, you belong to sin and no one else. No one else enslaves you, just sin. You're "free" as far as everything else is concerned. Plainsman, if you're my slave, then that means you are NOT Bob's slave. You're free in regard to Bob. You take orders from me, not Bob. Simple concept. And as Jesus taught, the only way to successfully plunder a strong man's goods is for a stronger man to come bind him first. This is important: God is the stronger man, not you. And you are the goods being plundered, you are NOT the stronger man.

I read your first blog about your FC '96ers well, I guess since I am an FC '97er I can't be bald or fat so that is great. I found you on a friend's friend list. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving! Glad that you were fruitful and multiplied! I did the same (stopped at 3, though). Very cute!!

Hello Misty Morning....How are you?? HOpe all is well Charlie! It's been a long time! I just found Sarah's webpage and hope to hear back from her! You guys have cute kids! Glad to see how God has blessed you! This is Jenny (Burleson) Prasad. AKA: Jenai from FC.

The good lord gave you such an encredible brain. It is a shame you are using it to question him instead of obey.

Not bald, not fat! 5"10 178. Ok So I am trying to get into better shape- but still not fat! How you doing man? Things here are good. Aj is in Ireland for two weeks so I am baching it for a while. Works starts tonight - open house. Oh did you know that I am a PE coach now? I am. Look us up next time your down here. We have tons of room, even for families as big as yours!

Oh, no! You di-int.

Been hiding in Ms, Al, Ky, and Florida. I work for the Florida College Academy, AJ teaches at FC. Not a whole lot to tel, well, not much that can be posted here. the last 12 years have been very ery interesting. What are you up too.

ha ha ive never heard that saying but now i do lol ttyl

p.s. i like ur kids pic there cute!!

just fat