For the benefit of the reader, I wish to elaborate on something Brother Stephen stated in his most recent post below.
He writes:
"But, they admit that eternal salvation, in all its parts, including election, calling, justification, and sanctification, has been Paul's topic in the chapters leading up to the tenth chapter. Thus, they have a problem making the "salvation" of the tenth chapter into a different "salvation" than mentioned in the preceding nine chapters. How can they legitimately do this? Is there anything in the context to indicate that Paul is now going to talk about a salvation which is not eternal? Romans chapter ten begins this way."
A severe problem for those within the anti-means camp is here demonstrated by Brother Stephen. If the Apostle Paul has been developing eternal salvation in the chapters prior to the tenth, should we not expect him to continue with this thought as he enters Romans 10? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that he would proceed forward with the foundation he has laid, than that he would do an about face on his readers? The answer is obvious to anyone not guilty of eisegesis.
I wish to recall the thought of mine in my latest Time Salvation Challenge in which I stated that the way our innovators handle the book of Romans is like a tennis match. They find themselves alternating back and forth between eternal and time salvation throughout the book. I probably will make a separate posting demonstrating this more fully in the future, but for now let me simply summarize.
In Romans 9, according to this teaching, it is affirmed that Paul is writing of eternal salvation. As the Apostle Paul begins chapter 10, however, we find that he has pulled a switch on us! He is now going to write of a salvation completely different than the one he has been treating of. Since human and gospel instrumentality are mentioned, Paul must now be writing of time salvation!
So far so good throughout the chapter.
Unfortunately, as we read the opening words of chapter 11, we confront the doctrine of election and the wonderful declaration that salvation is all of grace(v.5-6). Therefore, Paul has switched back to eternal salvation!
Hold on, we’re not done yet.
Paul then mentions himself as an instrument in salvation in verse 14 stating “If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them”, which must mean that he has returned back to his doctrine of time salvation!
If you can picture a tennis ball going back and forth across the net, you’ll get the idea.
It is because of such butchering of God’s Word that I claim my deliverance from such teaching that very thing. A deliverance.
No comments:
Post a Comment