Link to J. White critique of Steve on Romans 9

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:42 am

Being a respecter of persons means to show respect to a persons actions.
God does not do that, and that is why we say God is not a respecter of persons.

It has nothing to do with God showing favor to persons based upon him respecting the persons actions, for that is what being a "respecter" means, but rather by His free and sovereign choice alone, for His glory and pleasure,IE with no respect as to a persons actions.

Now, God showing favor to a person based upon His own reason and purpose with no respect to a persons actions is God "not being a respecter of persons".

Arminians make the mistake of thinking that God freely choosing one person over another, is based upon "respect" of the person is the same as saying that God chooses one person over another based upon His own free choice alone, and nothing "not respecting" in the person, is the same thing. It is not.

Mark

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:56 am

Why would Paul need to endure anything to get the gospel to the elect if the elect are going to be regenerated and saved regardless?

Homer, this shall be my last post brother, and for that I am sure to be castigated again.

God ordains not only the ends, but also the means brother.
That is the answer, and how I wish Non-Calvinists would grasp this simple point, for it would make many discussions much more profitable between us.

Anyhoo, take care brother

Mark

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:09 am

Also, as there is no good in any man, then it is obvious that there is nothing in us to recommend us to God. (There is nothing for God to respect)
That is why Election is Unconditional btw.

Faith is necessary, but it is not a condition for regeneration. It is the fruit of regeneration. It is however a condition for Justification, which of course is by free grace and therefore follows from the gift of salvation.

We are Saved by,

1/ Grace alone
2/ Through faith alone
3/ By Scripture alone
4/ In Christ alone
5/ Not proceeding from ourselves
6/ But is a gift from God
7/ Which leaves no room for any boasting (ie One man doing something that another man does not do. Now that is God being a respecter of persons!)
8/ To the glory of God alone

Mark
Eph 2:8-9

Post by **_Sean** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:14 am

tartanarmy wrote:Being a respecter of persons means to show respect to a persons actions.
God does not do that, and that is why we say God is not a respecter of persons.

He did so with Cornelius. It was so surprising to Peter that God would reach out in this way to the Gentiles that he commented:

Acts 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Cornelius did what was right and feared God and was acceptable to Him. God sent Peter so that He and his household could hear, believe and be saved (since fearing God and doing good doesn't save you). He had to be born again, because he was not at the time he pleased God.

Post by **_PAULESPINO** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:34 am

Tartanarny wrote:

I see, only if you meet some kind of "subjective" criteria, based upon some "subjective" opinion about what it is to be "gentle" and "meek" etc, are you then "in some kind of way" a Scholar

!

Mark nobody can take away the intelligence of James only God therefore James is not just "in some kind of way" a Scholar , he is a scholar.

The only thing is that our actions affects the way people see us!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by **_Steve** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:13 pm

Mark wrote:

"Being a respecter of persons means to show respect to a persons actions."

This is just the opposite of its meaning, and I would appreciate any Calvinist presenting a passage where these is its apparent meaning.

The subject of God not being a "respecter of persons" (sometimes translated "there is no partiality") was discussed recently on another thread here (I don't have the link at my fingertips). It would be useful to find and read it in light of James' comment. The Calvinists use the phrase in just the opposite manner from the way the scriptures use it.

In scripture, the expression means that God does not show favoritism toward any category of people (e.g. Jews [Rom.2:9-11; Acts 10:34-35], or "Christians," who call God "Father," [1 Pet.1:17]) apart from consideration of their actual character and individual choices. A reading of the passages should make this obvious enough without my commentary or Dr. White's.

Post by **__id_1512** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:58 pm

Steve wrote:Mark wrote:

"Being a respecter of persons means to show respect to a persons actions."

This is just the opposite of its meaning, and I would appreciate any Calvinist presenting a passage where these is its apparent meaning.

The subject of God not being a "respecter of persons" (sometimes translated "there is no partiality") was discussed recently on another thread here (I don't have the link at my fingertips). It would be useful to find and read it in light of James' comment. The Calvinists use the phrase in just the opposite manner from the way the scriptures use it.

In scripture, the expression means that God does not show favoritism toward any category of people (e.g. Jews [Rom.2:9-11; Acts 10:34-35], or "Christians," who call God "Father," [1 Pet.1:17]) apart from consideration of their actual character and individual choices. A reading of the passages should make this obvious enough without my commentary or Dr. White's.

I just want to add my agreement here. As you say, Steve, the phrase is about partiality towards categories of people.

I'm not sure where Mark got his definition; it may have been a brief attempt at a reply without thinking it through extensively. I've never heard that definition before, and certainly not from Dr. White. (It's possible he has said something to that effect at some point, but I've not heard it.) There may be some people out there who do define it that way. If so, I'd be more than willing to listen to their argument--if Mark does think there's merit in his definition, I'll consider his defense. But my present view is as you say, Steve--it's a somewhat backwards definition. And unless you know otherwise, I would caution you against assuming that "the Calvinists" use it that way. As far as I know, it's just Mark. And if it is more than just Mark, that only means some Calvinists argue that way, not necessarily a large number or a majority. I rather doubt it's a view with a significant following.

God is definitely not a respecter of persons. We know that He saves from every tribe, tongue, and nation; from every class and caste; He chooses the foolish of the world to shame the wise. He saves Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female.

Post by **_djeaton** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:29 pm

Steve wrote:In scripture, the expression means that God does not show favoritism toward any category of people, or "Christians," who call God "Father," apart from consideration of their actual character and individual choices.

Can you expound on that in light of Romans 9?
D.

Post by **_Steve** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:39 pm

Good point. Romans 9 appears to be contradicting this general principle.

However, the principle applies, in the cases cited, to the specific favoritism of ultimate salvation. It does not deny that God may give temporal privileges to people without regard to their moral character. This is, in fact, the point of Romans 9: For a while, God gave to Israel, without reference to their moral condition, the earthly privilege of being God's national channel of redemption to the world.

This is indeed a form of favoritism, though this election is not merely a matter of privilege. Along with the privilege came responsibility, with its consequent judgment for failure. Many in Israel might, quite reasonably, have wished not to have been given these "privileges" and their attendant responsibilities (like Tevye, in "Fiddler on the Roof," who said to God, "I know, I know. We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can't You choose someone else?").

The psalmist observed that God appears to bless the wicked with prosperity out of proportion to any merit on their part, but came to realize that their end is not enviable (Ps.73). The only unmixed blessing is one that leads to eternal fellowship with God. It is in the dispensing of this articular favor that God is said not to be a respecter of persons.

If Romans 9 were about individual salvation, it would certainly contradict the principle that "God shows no favoritism" in the matter of salvation. In fact, the relevant section on election is all about God showing favoritism. The only way that Romans 9 can not be contradicting the oft-stated principle of non-favoritism in the matter of salvation is for it not to be discussing that subject. Fortunately for our passion for consistency, careful exegesis of the passage demonstrates that personal salvation is not in view in Paul's discussion about God's favoritism.

Post by **__id_1512** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:53 pm

Steve:

Strange. I find nothing in the "individual salvation" reading of Romans 9 that posed any barrier to my previous post.