Biblical Election and Predestination

[JayR]

"Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teaches in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."

Drew, you are sowing God's word to your flesh, and you are reaping corruption as a result. You aren't understanding it in truth, and you are twisting it by turning His word into brain surgery. It really isn't as complicated as you make it out to be, and by leaning unto your own understanding and not trusting in the Lord to teach you you are being bequiled and believing in radically false intepretations. When you sow to the Spirit you will KNOW the truth because the Father will teach you, but when you sow to the flesh you will reap corruption, which you have absolutely done. I'm warning you as I would want someone to warn me if I were doing the same. No other verse exposes you to what you are doing other than this:

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding."

 

[mutzrein]

What I am questioning though, is the leap that is made from what scripture calls ‘destruction’ to what you seem to conclude is judgment, resulting in hell. Even John 3:16 – perhaps the most quoted verse in the bible - speaks of these, ‘perishing’. Why is it then, that ‘perishing’ and ‘destruction’ is interpreted as everlasting punishment in hell?

The context is talking about election to salvation and the election to damnation, so the word destruction clearly is talking about punishment in hell. The phrase "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" contrasts with the phrase "...the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory..." and clearly it is talking about punishment in hell, just as the other phrase is clearly talking about election to salvation.

What do you mean the word ‘destruction’ is clearly talking about punishment in hell? It is not clear to me and I certainly don’t see how the context indicates as much. What context are you talking about?

 

[JayR]

"Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who are you that reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?"

Notice how Paul argues specifically against an individual man that he has no right to reply against God. Why would he do that? On your view he should be addressing an entire nation. Why doesn't he say, "Nay but, O Isreal, who are you to reply against God?" Because he isn't talking about Isreal, he is talking about God having the right to have mercy on the creatures whom He will have mercy on and to harden the creatures whom He will harden. We are given principles here regarding God's will and the power of God in the salvation and rejection of men. He has mercy on who He will have mercy and He hardens whom He will. He does all things according to the counsel of His will, including choosing to elect some as vessels of honor prepared for glory and some as vessels of dishonor fitted to destruction.

"According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...In whom we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His will."

 

[JayR]

What do you mean the word ‘destruction’ is clearly talking about punishment in hell? It is not clear to me and I certainly don’t see how the context indicates as much. What context are you talking about?

"Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?†But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?†Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? "

He is talking about having mercy on some, and hardening others. Saving some, and not saving others. Paul forsees the individual lost man arguing against that claiming that it isn't his fault that God made him like that, but Paul answers that God has the right to do what He will with His own creation. God can make some as vessels of honor, whom He will display His mercy to, and vessels of dishonor, whom He will pour His wrath upon. God wants to make His wrath and His power known, and He is going to do so by pouring it upon the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. That is what these were made for, so that God could display His power and wrath in executing perfect justice upon them. Never forget that every single man and woman on this earth deserves to go to hell aside from God's grace. God choosing to save some by drinking their wrath for them and to give justice to others according to the counsel of His own will is a demonstration of an amazingly gracious and loving God. God is going to make known the riches of His glory on who? On the vessels of mercy, as opposed to the hardened vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, whom He will show no mercy to. These vessels of mercy are clearly God's elect prepared for salvation, and in contrast to that, the hardened vessels of wrath prepared for destruction who complain that it isn't their fault that God made them thus, are clearly prepared for hell. What is the reason for God to prepare some for hell? Paul answers, "...that He might make knwon the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand to glory..." If God were to save everyone and to elect everyone and to predestinate everyone to glory, then the vessels of mercy would have no concept of the glory of God's wrath and justice. The only way for the fulness of God's glory to be fully manifest to His people is if He makes a demonstration of His wrath and His power and His hatred for sin by condemning the vessels fitted to destruction. Without such a demonstration, some of the glories of God would be withheld from the knowledge of His people, and there would be a void within them. In order to fully know their perfect God and the His entire glory, they must know His wrath and His power, because they are both glorious and necessary in order for the vessels of mercy to worship as they ought, without this demonstration, there would be a void in worship, and it would be incomplete, because a God not fully manifest to His people is against the will of God, and His worship will be perfect, because He will see to it that He is made fully manifest, with no parts withheld from the knowledge of His people.

 

[mutzrein]

What do you mean the word ‘destruction’ is clearly talking about punishment in hell? It is not clear to me and I certainly don’t see how the context indicates as much. What context are you talking about?

"Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?†But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?†Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? "

He is talking about having mercy on some, and hardening others. Saving some, and not saving others. Paul forsees the individual lost man arguing against that claiming that it isn't his fault that God made him like that, but Paul answers that God has the right to do what He will with His own creation. God can make some as vessels of honor, whom He will display His mercy to, and vessels of dishonor, whom He will pour His wrath upon. God wants to make His wrath and His power known, and He is going to do so by pouring it upon the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. That is what these were made for, so that God could display His power and wrath in executing perfect justice upon them. Never forget that every single man and woman on this earth deserves to go to hell aside from God's grace. God choosing to save some by drinking their wrath for them and to give justice to others according to the counsel of His own will is a demonstration of an amazingly gracious and loving God. God is going to make known the riches of His glory on who? On the vessels of mercy, as opposed to the hardened vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, whom He will show no mercy to. These vessels of mercy are clearly God's elect prepared for salvation, and in contrast to that, the hardened vessels of wrath prepared for destruction who complain that it isn't their fault that God made them thus, are clearly prepared for hell.

I have to say JayR, what you have given me is just platitudes. The problem is you have started with a premise which says that there are only two destinations - heaven and hell - and you are trying to make everything fit it. Scripture plainly states that those who do not receive eternal life, perish. They perish because they are dead. This is the wrath of God – DEATH. This is the result of Adams sin. But Christ came that man might have life. This is the grace of God – LIFE. God is the God of the living – not the dead.

Where is the scripture which you say ‘clearly’ shows the non-elect are prepare for hell?

 

[JayR]

The problem is you have started with a premise which says that there are only two destinations - heaven and hell - and you are trying to make everything fit it

There are only two destinations, heaven and hell. God says that "death and hades" will be cast into the lake of fire in the final judgment.

This is the wrath of God – DEATH.

No. If you are suggesting annihilation, and that is what you think the wrath of God consists of, death and eternal sleep, then you have absolutely no concept whatsoever of His wrath. God's wrath brings abject terror into the souls of men. God's wrath makes the demons tremble. God's wrath is so horrendously aweful it goes beyond words, and far beyond death. God's wrath is eternal, and it is just.

This is the grace of God – LIFE.

It sure is, but only the elect are going to get it.

Where is the scripture which you say ‘clearly’ shows the non-elect are prepare for hell?

I already showed you, but you don't want to believe it. I can't change that. If you want to believe lies, I really can't convince you to believe the truth, all I can do is put it before you in hope that God will grant it to you. If you can't discern from the phrase, "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" which is conjuctively stated to being hardened by God- which is stated in contrast with "vessels of mercy prepared to glory" which is conjunctively stated to those whom God has mercy on, that he is talking about damnation, then I don't know what else could convince you. This is as clear as it gets my friend. The context is salvation by the election of God according to the will, mercy, and compassion of God. Therefore the phrase "vessels of wrath prepared to destruction" is absolutely speaking of the opposite of the context, rather than election to salvation, these are in the category of election to damnation.

2 Thessolonians also uses the term destruction in reference to damnation if that helps any.

Here is an excellent sermon on this passage from John Piper. Listen to it it will help you understand.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... e/2003/125
_How_God_Makes_Known_the_Riches_of_His_Glory_to _the_Vessels_of_Mercy/

 

[MarkT]

I think they are talking about being free as to will, not free as to sin. If they say they can exercise self control so that it would appear that they can choose to sin or not to sin, then I would agree with that. It takes self control which is like will power. Jesus said, 'resist the devil'. The only thing is that they are depending entirely on themselves.

I agree with most of what you say here. But Jesus also commands to "be perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect" and unconverted men certainly cannot do that, let alone resist their master. Jesus gave that command to His people, and the only ones capable of obeying that command are those who God empowers by His grace to do so.

Unconverted? Don't you mean born again? When you say, 'empowers', I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the power of the Holy Spirit?

What does Paul say of the churches of Macedonia? "For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own freewill' 2 Cor. 8:3

Yes, absolutely, because becoming free from sin solely by the power of God they are now capable of choosing righteousness from the regenerated heart that God has placed within them.

Well, it's because they had the love of God in them.

Jesus said that, 'when any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart.'

Take understanding. Understanding is something like receiving a gift. If I say something that strikes you as being particularily wise or true, you will receive it, and it will stay with you. If I say something and you're unclear as to what I'm saying, then my words will not find a place in you. You won't receive them. Anyways, this applies to the word of the kingdom. I agree we were sinners while we were living in the flesh, but when we heard the word of the kingdom, we received it like a gift; that is, we received the knowledge of his Son and the promise of eternal life. It didn't depend on our exertion, but the word of the kingdom did open our eyes and give us hope. Jesus said, the word of the kingdom would be snatched away by the devil when anyone hears the word and does not understand it. So it depends on your understanding it first. You can't have a regenerated heart unless you understand the word first.

I know no one listened to God before Jesus and the people were gone astray, as the prophets said, but God gave his people a new spirit and a new heart, according to Ezekiel 36:26, so that his people could hear the word of the kingdom and believe. Notice I didn't say God gave everyone a new spirit of understanding. He gave it to his people; the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Now the disciples were not depraved men who hated God before they heard the word of the kingdom. They were believers who followed the law. The difference is, they had the spirit of understanding, and a new heart, so that when Jesus taught them, they understood. They were good soil. They were slaves of sin but I wouldn't say they were depraved in their minds. Yes, as Paul said, they were enemies as far as God was concerned, but they were chosen, for his name's sake; for Jesus Christ, to become sons of the Most High.

Human beings are not only incapable of freely choosing to follow God, but are repulsed at the idea, because they hate God, the true one atleast.

I wouldn't say that. If the words of God fall on good soil, then they bear fruit. I agree no one can follow the law perfectly.

No. God put a new heart and a new spirit in his people and he caused them to walk in his statutes and to observe his ordinances. We were called from the womb. You've got the right idea in part. It was only when we read the Bible that we came to our senses. Before that we were living in the flesh and slaves to sin.

I made that statement regarding unconverted men. Sorry for not specifying.

Yes, Absolutely, but he does this upon conversion. This is what happens when the carnal, wicked, depraved, God hating man who is part of the elect is saved by God in God's time according to the counsel of His will. Reading the Bible isn't what brought us to our senses. I read my Bible plenty of times in my unconverted state and then I went and lived like a demon. What makes us come to our senses is when God places His Spirit within us and regenerates our hearts.

When you came to your senses, and repented of your sins, and asked God to forgive you, then God put his Spirit in you. God doesn't put his Spirit into the old wineskin. You must be born again. I guess you can say reading the Bible is what opens our eyes. I agree this awakening comes to pass in time according to the will of God. I used to read passages from the Bible and they meant nothing to me. It wasn't until I sat down and read the whole thing that I came to understand. But I skipped the prophets for some reason. It wasn't until I read the New Testament that I understood why. You need the Spirit of God to understand the prophets, so if I had read the prophets before the New Testament, I wouldn't have understood the prophets anyway. So God gives us the spirit to read the Bible. Isaiah wrote, 'In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out of their doom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see' Isa. 29:18 And so it came to pass for me.

 

[JayR]

I know no one listened to God before Jesus and the people were gone astray, as the prophets said, but God gave his people a new spirit and a new heart, according to Ezekiel 36:26, so that his people could hear the word of the kingdom and believe. Notice I didn't say God gave everyone a new spirit of understanding. He gave it to his people; the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Now the disciples were not depraved men who hated God before they heard the word of the kingdom. They were believers who followed the law. The difference is, they had the spirit of understanding, and a new heart, so that when Jesus taught them, they understood. They were good soil. They were slaves of sin but I wouldn't say they were depraved in their minds. Yes, as Paul said, they were enemies as far as God was concerned, but they were chosen, for his name's sake; for Jesus Christ, to become sons of the Most High.

I do believe that faith is a gift from God which He gives according to His will in His timing when His people hear the Gospel, but I do not believe that they have the capacity to understand it by themselves. God gives them that understanding by His grace in His timing. It is purely supernatural. The Bible says that "no one understands". It doesn't say the elect understand, and nobody else understands, but "no one understands".

Also, you are correct in interpreting Ezekiel 36 in that God gives His people a new spirit and a new heart and puts His Spirit within them, but this is what happens upon conversion. This does not at all reflect a pre-conversion work of God, this is clearly and absolutely the work of God in regeneration upon conversion. This passage is born againism.

Unconverted? Don't you mean born again? When you say, 'empowers', I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the power of the Holy Spirit?

Unconverted means people who haven't yet been born again. Empowered by the Holy Spirit refers to God's regenerating work upon conversion when He causes us to keep His statutes and judgments.

When you came to your senses, and repented of your sins, and asked God to forgive you, then God put his Spirit in you.

When I came to my senses, it was because God gave me my senses. I didn't have senses before He gave them to me. God grants repentance as a gift, I didn't pull myself up by my bootstraps and free myself from the bondage of my sin, something that only Jesus is capable of doing, just like the Israelites didn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps and save themselves from being in bondage in Egypt. It took 10 supernatural plagues and the power of God to accomplish that feat. It is the same with repentance, it's supernatural and God given.

God doesn't put his Spirit into the old wineskin. You must be born again.

Ezekiel 36 is talking about what God does to you when you are born again. The moment you are born again He puts His Spirit within you, crucifies the body of sin, and regenerates you by giving you a new heart, a new spirit, and causing you to walk in His statutes and judgments. That is being born again. Now is that preceded by God-given repentance and faith? Yes, but the moment you believe with saving faith in the person of Jesus Christ, such faith being given by God, He seals you with the Spirit of promise and regenerates you as Ezekiel 36 describes.

 

[Drew]

You know its interesting. I post masses of material arguing from the Scriptures that Romans 9 has nothing to do with the election of the individuals to salvtion or to loss. You on the other hand do little more than assert your position, and do not respond to my posts that contain actual counteraguments.

Then we get a string of variations of the following from you:

"Drew, you are sowing God's word to your flesh, and you are reaping corruption as a result. You aren't understanding it in truth, and you are twisting it by turning His word into brain surgery. It really isn't as complicated as you make it out to be, and by leaning unto your own understanding and not trusting in the Lord to teach you you are being bequiled and believing in radically false intepretations. When you sow to the Spirit you will KNOW the truth because the Father will teach you, but when you sow to the flesh you will reap corruption, which you have absolutely done. I'm warning you as I would want someone to warn me if I were doing the same. No other verse exposes you to what you are doing other than this:

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding."

I have seen this strategy before. When someone's position on something is being effectively countered with scriptural argument, the response is to simply bash the person who has provided the successful counterargument.

I think you should realize how the readers will interpret this.

 

[JayR]

I think and know that you are more concerned about pursuading the readers to take your position regardless of whether it is the true one or not. You are in no way concerned about the glory of God and proclaiming His word in truth. Your mind is beguiled by the devil, and you have been soiled by philosophy and vain deceit, that's clear. Any true Christian will see that and not hear you, any lost man wouldn't believe the truth if it came from God Himself, unless God had ordained it, let alone me.

 

[Drew]

He is talking about having mercy on some, and hardening others.

Yes.

Saving some, and not saving others.

No. You are assuming that hardening is unto ultimate loss. In the case of Pharoah, I suggest that no one but you will disagree with my claim that the hardening at issue is the hardening to resist the efforts of Moses to free the people. By hardening Pharoah in this way, God can then effect a great act of redemption by splitting the Red Sea and freeing the Jews. Then God can, of course claim:

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

It is not sensible to suggest that God's name is glorified because he predestines Pharoah to hell. That kind of argument could work with Fred Jones of East Rubber Boot, Mississippi. Pharaoh has been picked for a purpose by Paul and it is a losing argument to suggest that the issue is anything other than the hardening of Pharoah to resist Moses.

 

[JayR]

What you fail to understand is that the reason that Paul even mentions the hardening of Pharoah is to display the principle that God is the one who hardens men against Himself. God hated Esau according to His election, and He loved Jacob according to His election. He has mercy on whom He has mercy, and He hardens whom He will. Pharoah is the perfect example of this, and from this example Paul draws the principle. Now God's mercy in the previous passages is clearly and absolutely speaking of His sovereign choice in freely choosing to have mercy on the creatures whom He will have mercy on according to His election, and save those undeserving creatures as He pleases. Therefore the term hardening which is spoken in direct contrast to mercy is absolutely and blatantly speaking of the opposite of mercy, which is judgment. God has mercy on whom He has mercy, and He hardens, and judges whom He will. He saves the undeserving creatures which He chooses to save according to His own will in choosing to have mercy, and He judges the deserving creatures which He chooses to harden according to His own will. Is there unrighteous with God? God forbid. An unrighteous god could choose to have mercy on those He chooses by freely and simply choosing to forgive them, but Proverbs 17:15 says that such a god would become an abomination for doing so. God went to the length of sending His only Son to drink the wrath of His people so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. He did this to display His righteousness. The righteousness of God's name is so important to God He would send His Son to be condemned rather than allow it to be slandered by justifying wicked men without satisfying justice. Do you really think that God would commit unrighteousness in having mercy on whom He will have mercy and to harden whom He will harden? God forbid. God's will is perfect, and righteous, and holy, and He is righteous in choosing to save undeserving creatures by His grace according to His will, and to choose to condemn deserving creature according to His will.

It is not sensible to suggest that God's name is glorified because he predestines Pharoah to hell.

God condemned Pharoah to death and hardened Him so that His people would suffer 10 long plagues to display His power and to proclaim His name in all the earth. Was that not sensible? Verse 22 says that God is willing to make His wrath and His power known to the vessels of mercy prepared to glory by condemning the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Is that not sensible? Are you daring enough to reply against God? Do you realize that you are the man whom Paul is speaking to in verse 20, in the sense that you have the audacity to dictate what God is righteous and unrighteous in what He chooses to do with His own creation? Who do you think you are to reply against God?

 

[Drew]

Notice how Paul argues specifically against an individual man that he has no right to reply against God. Why would he do that? On your view he should be addressing an entire nation. Why doesn't he say, "Nay but, O Isreal, who are you to reply against God?" Because he isn't talking about Isreal,.....

He Isn't talking about Israel, is he? Let's see what the context shows:

Chapter 9: Verse 1 to 5:

I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

Obviously about Israel.

Chapter 9: verses 6:

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Obviously about Israel.

Chapter 9: verses 7 to 13

7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Now here, it is not explicitly clear that Israel is the main focus. But, Paul's statment in verse 6 "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" is clearly the introduction to an argument about what really defines "true Israel". I will not argue the point - I will defer to the reader to determine whether these verses are:

1. A contintuation of his argument about Israel
2. A change of topic away from Israel to the general issue of God's treatment of individuals.

Then we have this chunk that is, admittedly, not self-evidently about Israel.

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction?

Verses 23-28

23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."[k]

Again, let the reader decide which is more sensible:

1. In verses 24-26, Paul is contrasting "true Israel" (made up of Jews and Gentiles) with "national Israel" - the "loved one" who is seemingly "set aside" so that God can call true Israel her loved one.

2. The loved ones are any who God elects to salvation with no relation at all to the question of "national Israel" vs "true Israel".

Verses 27-28 are xplicitly about Israel.

And now the end of the chapter:

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."

Israel's Unbelief
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Paul is clearly talking about Israel here.

Paul has opened the chapter with clear national Israel-focus. Paul has ended the chapter with clear national Israel focus. Let the reader decide: Is the stuff in the middle a departure from the Israel theme to a discussion of the theology of salvation of individuals with no relation at to national Israel?

 

[JayR]

"Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?†But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?†Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

He is speaking to an individual man who is raising objections to the fact that he can't resist God's will in hardening him, absolutely, and all of the arguments following are spoken to that individual, absolutely, and without a doubt. If you can't see that, there is more hope for a fool than of you.

"See a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope for a fool than of him."

 

[Drew]

"Notice how Paul argues specifically against an individual man that he has no right to reply against God. Why would he do that? On your view he should be addressing an entire nation. Why doesn't he say, "Nay but, O Isreal, who are you to reply against God?" Because he isn't talking about Isreal, .....

As if Romans 9 were not clearly focused on God's treatment of Israel, we see that the Israel focus continues in chapters 10 and 11. To adopt JayR's "thesis", when it can extracted from his occasional rants that I am beguiled by the devil, you need to hold that Paul has inserted a treatment of the theoloogy of pre-destination of individuals to salvation or to loss in the middle of what is clrearly a single integrated argument as to how God has treated Israel:

But, to add even more, here is stuff from Romans 10:

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelitesis that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

Obviously about Israel.

And here is the end of Romans 10

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"[h] 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world." 19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
"I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."[j] 20And Isaiah boldly says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."[k] 21But concerning Israel he says,
"All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Clearly Paul is focused on Israel.

And then from the intro to Romans 11:

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

Clearly about Israel.

7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written: [/b]God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."

Clearly about Israel - and guess what - about a hardening of those members of nation Israel who are not also part of "true Israel". Coincidence in relation to the potter and his clay pot? What do you think?

More in the next post.

 

[JayR]

I'm not even reading your posts. You are wasting your time and storing up more wrath for yourself by being a false teacher. I already know that you're wrong. God Himself has revealed this truth to me, and you who are proud and who know nothing who dotes about words and is more concerned about pursuading people of his own false interpretation rather than submitting to the truth because he is wise in his own conceit, is not going to pursuade me.

 

[Drew]

"He is speaking to an individual man who is raising objections to the fact that he can't resist God's will in hardening him, absolutely, and all of the arguments following are spoken to that individual, absolutely, and without a doubt. If you can't see that, there is more hope for a fool than of you.

Well perhaps you can explain to this "fool" why you insist that hardening is specifically in respect to ultimate loss. You seem to simply dismiss other types of hardening, you know, the types that we "fools" see when Paul gives the example of Pharoah whose hardening was obviously to resist Moses so that God could then act in history to rescue the Jews from Egypt.

 

[JayR]

Listen to this:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... s_Glory_to

 

[Drew]

Notice how Paul argues specifically against an individual man that he has no right to reply against God. Why would he do that? On your view he should be addressing an entire nation. Why doesn't he say, "Nay but, O Isrealful, who are you to reply against God?" Because he isn't talking about Isreal,.

Even more evidence that Paul is focused on Isreal in Romans 9. His argument about Israel continues into chapter 11 where he makes statements that really only make sense if the potter account is seen as being about what has happened to Israel. Just like pharoah, Israel has been hardened in the strange, yet wonderful purposes of God:

Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

Israel has been hardened to transgress so that salvation can some to "true" Israel, the very people who are clearly in view right as part of the potter account that JayR claims is about election of individuals to salvation or to loss:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

And if Paul is not intending the potter to be seen as hardening Israel in Romans 9, why does he write this in Romans 11?

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in

Had enough?

 

[Orion]

While listening to the link. . . . . .

1. If my heart and mind are flawed, in what way will we know that we are saved, because wouldn't even "good works/fruit", or testing yourself be an act performed by the mind or even the heart? If "many Christians believe in their heart and minds they are saved, but are not", how can any one know if we can't go by what we think in our minds, or feel in our hearts? Doesn't the Holy Spirit bring to your spirit what is true?

2. Only 10% - 15% of Baptists are actually saved?. . . . And that's just for that denomination?

3. 1 John is mentioned with the series of tests, so here we go...

a.) "....and we walk in darkness". . . We ALL have a lingering "darkness" in our hearts because we are human. ALL Christians, even the most religious, will have moments of "darkness". What is the "style of life that is darkness"... or rather, what is the style of life that is Godly, . . . . he really didn't answer that.

b.) "if we say we have no sin..." No one would ever say that. This one is a "no-brainer". "Humble, contrite of spirit and trembles at his word..." How do we absolutely know that the words in the bible IS from God? Can we really trust the words of a man and what he claims?

c.) "Keep his commandments...." "Walk like Jesus walked..." If it is just desire, interupted by falling from time to time, how is that different than normal Christianity? We all know to "be like Jesus". Jesus walked in the world, identified with the world, ate and fellowshipped with them, . . . He came to them where they were, which was the way they were reached. How often was Jesus harsh with people? How often did he speak to them with compassion . . . . forgiving them of their sins even before THEY asked him to? That was Jesus, forgiving people and loving them, even while they were who they were. That's the definition of a savior to me!

d.) "....hates his brother...." People should not hate people. No one is going to hate a fellow believer. But then he said that we should love "the others", or the unsaved, but why should we when God doesn't, .. . . according to Calvinist?
But the question, "would you rather be with people who talk about God, or people who don't." I try to be the same to anyone I am around. Again Jesus didn't ONLY talk to those who were his followers. I try to be a kind and loving to anyone regardless of belief.

e.) "if you love the world".... Do you love eating? That is something of the world. Do you love getting from point A to point B in your car? Doing so doesn't come from, nor glorify God, but I'm sure you love having that freedom of mobility! I understand what he's saying about "loving off colored jokes, or pre-marital affairs on TV. I will tell you that I enjoy looking at a beautiful woman. It doesn't bring me joy, though, because it is ultimately emptiness. I will be honest to say that I have laughed at some of the "things of the world". I enjoy listening to Jazz (non-lyrical) music. That's not glorifying God, but I find it to be wonderful sounding music.

I reject the notion that, "each time we sin, we crusify Jesus all over again". That act was done, paid for, and is over. To say it crusifies Jesus again, takes away from that power.

Breathing is the result of chemical responses in the brain resulting in respiration of organs. God may have created the mechanism, but it is our body that makes us breath. If God wants to stop that process, that doesn't mean he is keeping each of us breathing day by day.

* Finally, I find it amazing that Paul himself would say, and I paraphrase, "Those things that I know I should do, I don't do them, and the things I know that I SHOULDN'T to, those things I do all the time." And Paul was supposed to be one of the giants of Christianity. Maybe Paul was never saved. :-?

f.) "...embraces the fullness of Jesus" This is true. But again, aren't we taking the word of a man, claiming to have written the exact words of God, even when it MAY not be the truth? Departing from what was written by men doesn't mean the same as departing from what God actually says. Now, I know you'll take my words and say that I am not saved because I don't believe "the bible to be perfectly inspired". To me, it seems as though people worship a book more than God. There are some good guidelines in the bible and many that should be followed, but to follow it to a fault. . . . seems legalistic to me.

He talks about dressing to "enhance the beauty God gave you". Then he speaks of modesty. The human body (the female's, anyway) is beautiful and "modest clothing" doesn't enhance this beauty. I think he might have mis-spoken when he said "enhance the beauty...". "Clothing to bring attention to your face...."?? Now, I believe that women shouldn't dress in ways that is too sexy, this is true. I would rather have a wife/girlfriend dress nicely, not in something that overly draws attention of other men, but nice enough that her whole beauty is celebrated.

Anyway, I DO strive to live correctly. . . . or one could call, holy. It doesn't always happen, but I would rather do what is good over what is evil.

g.) "Do you love Jesus". Most of the time, I'm not even sure what love is. In my life, I "love" my family, but when I look inside myself to what that means, I would say, I enjoy their company. I love to see them doing well. I care about who they are and what they do. As for Jesus, outside of words written about him that are roughly 2,000 years old, I don't have any sense of Jesus. If I knew him, in person, I would have no problems with "enjoying his company, loving to see him do well, and caring about who he is and what he does." For me, just knowing someone through the letters put together inside a book, it's hard for me to gain that special type of bond that most would call "love". I really wish I DID have these same feelings as some of the Christians I know. It DOES bother me that I don't have that excitment in my life. :

4. If God can't be tempted, why the "40 days in the desert"?

5. Paul Washer seems overly sensitive that he would weep over a small rip on the page of a book.

6. To be a Christian, are we really supposed to be afraid all the time? :-?

7. Age doesn't equal "more glory", I'm not sure what this guy is talking about. :-?

8. If you're called by God, why would you have to "seek hard to find God"? If I am currently seeking hard to find God, . . .which I am, . . . does that mean I AM, in fact, called? Apparently not.

9. Remember that God created us sinners/flawed from the very beginning.

10. If I would have to grade my answers to the "test" in #3, a-g, I would have to say that I am not saved, . . . and what's worse, I can't find it in me to get to that point!! And it figures that, when I have endured so much rejection from people in my days, . . . . that I am also rejected by God, who hates me. :