Free will or no free will?

[unred typo]

LOL, I read the contents of the post without reading who posted it. Sorry. It does sound like something jack would say though.

Why would I disagree knowing you said it? I'm not partial to agreeing with one person over another if they share the same beliefs as I.

I agree with whom I agree and I disagree with whom I disagree. :-D

Well spoken. Can I quote you then? “You have shown here to not only rightly divide God's word but you also interpreted it properly.†:-D

 

[jgredline]

Sister and Javier, if I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

How do you see these verses in light of what you said above?

2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thess 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Thess 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

:smt074 Lets start of with context...Unless my memory lets me down, Pauls second letter to the Thess church was to correct some of their doctronal errors concerning ''future'' things..The day of the Lord (eschatology)...This section address the OT saints...Something they would have been familiar with...Isa, Eze, zeph, the prophetic books....Paul goes on to describe events after the rapture....Now what will be left here on earth after the rapture of the church??? ''ONLY Unbelieving Jews and gentiles because all of Gods children have been caught up, raptured...So what do we have left? (Remember also that I hold to a pre tribulation position so our escatology will differ some what) But what we have left are Jews whom God has blinded and Gentiles who choose to believe the lie....I am off the opinion that ''mostly'' Jews will be saved during this time...as God removes the covering from their eyes....I believe that there will be some, very few Gentiles who have heard the Gospel who will choose not to recieve the mark, but it will be very, very few...My take is that if they did not take the ''cross'' when it was easy, why would they take it when it is under severe tribulation???, Yet the bible tells us some will...some some will choose to take the mark and some will choose not to...

I can see where you were going with your question and unless we take the whole counsel of God into consideration, I can clearly see your point

 

[jgredline]

I agree with whom I agree and I disagree with whom I disagree. :-D

Well, you are ''free to choose'' whom you will agree and disagree with...

unread....I have enjoyed reading your posts on this matter...Surprised? me too... :-D

 

[Vic C.]

I can see where you were going with your question and unless we take the whole counsel of God into consideration, I can clearly see your point

God, already knowing these individuals would reject the truth, chooses the appointed time to seal their fate, by causing them to buy into the delusion. They were doomed either way. :robot:

 

[jgredline]

God, already knowing these individuals would reject the truth, chooses the appointed time to seal their fate, by causing them to buy into the delusion. They were doomed either way. :robot:

Yep, and that is we we said around page 8-11 or someplace there...

Did you notice that it is still staring at us? :robot:

 

[Vic C.]

Man, pages 8-11 were eons ago! :o

 

[Guest]

Yep, and that is we we said around page 8-11 or someplace there...

Did you notice that it is still staring at us? :robot:

can we replace it with another one? It scares me when it's red eye flashes... but not as bad as when the duck blinks at me! I am just waiting for it to say AFLAC.

 

[MarkT]

How do you feel that this is so different from Jesus speaking to Peter and addressing him as Satan, except that Peter‘s heart was not inclined to evil like Judas‘ heart was.

Completely different. Judas was a serpent, perhaps an angel of the devil. Consider what God said he would do, 'For behold, I'm sending among you serpents, adders which cannot be charmed, and they shall bite you.' Jer. 8:17 So with respect to their will, what would you say adders do? You don't have to force a serpent to bite. Serpents bite because it is their nature to bite. See, you have the devil and you have the children of the devil. Now if they are children of the devil, then they obey the devil; the devil is their lord or head. Serpents are born serpents. They don't become serpents. And serpents know their own. This is why Judas went to the Jews to betray Jesus.

 

[GMS]

This is a interesting article to consider by Matt Slick

THE MYTH OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL FREEDOM

No one denies that man has a will  that is, a faculty of choosing what he wishes to say, do, and think. But have you ever reflected on the pitiful weakness of your will? Though you have the ability to make a decision, you do not have the power to carry out your purpose. Will may devise a course of action, but will has no power to execute its intention.

Joseph’s brothers hated him. They sold him to be a slave. But God used their actions to make him a ruler over themselves. They chose their course of action to harm Joseph. But God in His power directed events for Joseph’s good. He said, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good" (Gen 50:20).

And how many of your decisions are miserably thwarted? You may choose to be a millionaire, but God’s providence is likely to prevent it. You may decide to be a scholar, but bad health, an unstable home, or lack of finances may frustrate your will. You choose to go on a vacation, but an automobile accident may send you to the hospital instead.

By saying that your will is free, we certainly do not mean that it determines the course of your life. You did not choose the sickness, sorrow, war, and poverty that have spoiled your happiness. You did not choose to have enemies. If man’s will is so potent, why not choose to live on and on? But you must die. The major factors which shape your life cannot thank your will. You did not select your social status, color, intelligence, etc.

Any sober reflection on your experience will produce the conclusion, "A man’s heart deviseth his way: but THE LORD DIRECTETH his steps" (Pro 16:9). Rather than extolling the human will, we ought to humbly praise the Lord whose purposes shape our lives. As Jeremiah confessed, "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jer 10:23).

Yes, you may choose what you want, and you may plan what you will do; but your will is not free to accomplish anything contrary to the purposes of God. Neither have you any power to reach your goals but that which God allows you. The next time you are so enamored with your own will, remember Jesus’ parable about the rich man. The wealthy man said, "This I WILL do: I WILL pull down all my barns, and build greater: and there I WILL bestow all my fruits and my goods. . . But God said unto him. Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee" (Luke 12:18-21). He was free to plan but not free to accomplish; so it is with you.

 

[unred typo]

Completely different. Judas was a serpent, perhaps an angel of the devil. Consider what God said he would do, 'For behold, I'm sending among you serpents, adders which cannot be charmed, and they shall bite you.' Jer. 8:17 So with respect to their will, what would you say adders do? You don't have to force a serpent to bite. Serpents bite because it is their nature to bite. See, you have the devil and you have the children of the devil. Now if they are children of the devil, then they obey the devil; the devil is their lord or head. Serpents are born serpents. They don't become serpents. And serpents know their own. This is why Judas went to the Jews to betray Jesus.

Jesus called the Pharisees and scribes and lawyers a generation of vipers, yet Paul was a self described “Pharisee of the Pharisees.†In Acts 6:7 it says that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.†Jesus called them vipers because they were apt to bite and kill, not because they were permanently destined to be sons of the devil. I think you are stretching the words viper and son of perdition beyond the deeds that Judas was bound to do because of his disbelief, pride and greed. I don’t see that means he could not have repented, even if it is unlikely given his tendency to betray even a great man who was his friend. Judas had free will to choose.

 

[unred typo]

This is a interesting article to consider by Matt Slick

THE MYTH OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL FREEDOM

No one denies that man has a will  that is, a faculty of choosing what he wishes to say, do, and think. But have you ever reflected on the pitiful weakness of your will? Though you have the ability to make a decision, you do not have the power to carry out your purpose. Will may devise a course of action, but will has no power to execute its intention.

Joseph’s brothers hated him. They sold him to be a slave. But God used their actions to make him a ruler over themselves. They chose their course of action to harm Joseph. But God in His power directed events for Joseph’s good. He said, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good" (Gen 50:20).

And how many of your decisions are miserably thwarted? You may choose to be a millionaire, but God’s providence is likely to prevent it. You may decide to be a scholar, but bad health, an unstable home, or lack of finances may frustrate your will. You choose to go on a vacation, but an automobile accident may send you to the hospital instead.

By saying that your will is free, we certainly do not mean that it determines the course of your life. You did not choose the sickness, sorrow, war, and poverty that have spoiled your happiness. You did not choose to have enemies. If man’s will is so potent, why not choose to live on and on? But you must die. The major factors which shape your life cannot thank your will. You did not select your social status, color, intelligence, etc.

Any sober reflection on your experience will produce the conclusion, "A man’s heart deviseth his way: but THE LORD DIRECTETH his steps" (Pro 16:9). Rather than extolling the human will, we ought to humbly praise the Lord whose purposes shape our lives. As Jeremiah confessed, "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jer 10:23).

Yes, you may choose what you want, and you may plan what you will do; but your will is not free to accomplish anything contrary to the purposes of God. Neither have you any power to reach your goals but that which God allows you. The next time you are so enamored with your own will, remember Jesus’ parable about the rich man. The wealthy man said, "This I WILL do: I WILL pull down all my barns, and build greater: and there I WILL bestow all my fruits and my goods. . . But God said unto him. Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee" (Luke 12:18-21). He was free to plan but not free to accomplish; so it is with you.

That is typical of Matt Slick. Pretty slick. Sliding around the truth of the matter. The fact is, we have the free will to choose what we want to do and God will judge us according to the intentions behind our actions, not just our deeds.

 

[MarkT]

Jesus called the Pharisees and scribes and lawyers a generation of vipers, yet Paul was a self described “Pharisee of the Pharisees.†In Acts 6:7 it says that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.†Jesus called them vipers because they were apt to bite and kill, not because they were permanently destined to be sons of the devil. I think you are stretching the words viper and son of perdition beyond the deeds that Judas was bound to do because of his disbelief, pride and greed. I don’t see that means he could not have repented, even if it is unlikely given his tendency to betray even a great man who was his friend. Judas had free will to choose.

I'm sure Judas thought he was choosing until he realized he was condemned. Matthew tells us he repented and returned the money. Matthew 27:3 As long as you keep thinking in human terms then it will look like Judas made a bad decision. But Jesus said Judas was a devil and he said the devil and his angels would be cast into the lake of fire. Judas was born to betray Jesus. He was a serpent sent by God. He didn't know it until he realized what he had done. Jesus said, 'but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.' Jesus told Judas he would betray him. Did Judas have a choice? Did the disciples have a choice when Jesus said, 'You will all fall away because of me this night.' Matthew 26:31 Did Peter have a choice when Jesus said, 'you will deny me three times.' Matthew 26:34 As for the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus said, 'you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.' They were false teachers and by their false teachings, they made their students twice the children of hell as they were. So they were sons of the devil. Jesus told them they were 'of' their father, the devil. This explains why they didn't know him. If God gives us the knowledge of himself it is because we are his sons and he loves us. It was given to the disciples to know the secrets of the kingdom but it was not given to crowd who followed him to know. Matthew 13:11

 

[n2thelight]

In the beginning of time, when that was isn't stated, God created everything in the Heavens and on the earth. Then some unknown length of time later, something catastrophic occurred that made God's Creation come to utter destruction, it became a wasted place. This destruction manifested itself among other things as a total flood. So complete was this destructive event that not only did the earth become an indistinguishable ruin, but even the sun stopped shining its light upon it, and all the earth was cast into utter darkness.

In that first earth age in which all our souls lived, satan rebelled against God and led one third of God's children to fight against him - Rev 12:4 "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth".

In this great war in Heaven which brought about the destruction of the first earth age, satan and his misguided bunch of blasphemers of course lost. God destroyed that first earth age. Your best documentation of that first earth age would be in the best account of it's destruction, found in the book of Jeremiah:

God was very angry at his creation because they had tried to overthrow Him. But he would have had to destroy one third of his children that had joined satan and rebelled against him Rev 12:4, and He did not want to do that.

So this second earth age, this flesh earth age, became necessary so as to allow every soul to come through it and make a choice between following God or following satan. Those are the only two choices, and if you do not make a conscious choice to love and follow God through Jesus Christ, then you have made a unconscious choice to follow satan with the ways of this world.

God placed a veil between this earth age and the first so that we cannot know what side we were on in that revolt, nor do we posses any memory of it. Once again, I must stress that this is not saying there is any reincarnations; the very concept of re-incarnation is blasphemy to God and Jesus Christ! Each soul can only pass through each earth age one time; just like we live in this earth age but we can also live in the next earth age, referred to as Heaven. Well why would it be so difficult to accept that there was one before this one, that made this one necessary? We are flesh now, but in Heaven we will be spirit, and in the first earth age we were also in spiritual bodies.

God also gave this earth age the benefit of a Savior; Jesus Christ. But at the same time He allowed satan an equal chance to deceive us again, or else, what would be the use of this earth age, which itself is nothing more than a proving ground, a place and a time for us to decide whom we will Love and follow?

You have free will to follow God or follow satan, you must ASK God to show you the True way. Many people wonder why God lets people become evil and to do harm in this world. As with everything God does there is a very good reason for this; God seeks only your true love for Him, everything else is incidental. The sole reason for our time here on earth is to determine if we will Love God or follow satan. You remember that in the first earth age one third of God's children turned against Him and chose satan? God remembers.

And, to have true love for God generate within us, God 'had to' give us free will to make a choice. God also 'had to' allow satan another opportunity to deceive us, otherwise, if God programmed us to love Him and not allow us to be tempted by satan once again then our love really wouldn't mean anything. You can't make someone love you and have it to be true love. And God abiding by His own rules accepts that some will forsake Him and instead turn to satan again; though God desires that none lose themselves "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt 18:14). He will not interfere with your free will, or it would not be your own free will!

In 2nd Peter 3:5-13 we see all three of the earth ages mentioned. By having them all three spoken of in order, in the same scripture, it would be impossible for someone to think that we are mistaking a complex combination of different scriptures and arriving at an unsound conclusion about three separate earth ages. The below are all given in order without a break.

2 Pet 3:5-13
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

This was the first earth age. The one God had to destroy because of revolt.

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This is this present earth age (second) that we live in now.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (KJV)

This is the third age yet to come (commonly referred to as Heaven).


Bible study by Nick Goggin

That certain were chosen for 'certain' things is unmistakable in the Scriptures. Below is just a couple of Scriptures that definitely show that 'certain' were chosen (predestined) for certain things (fates). I wont supply Old Testament Scriptures as I feel that we can all agree that Israel was God's chosen there.

Jude 1:4-5
4 For there are certain men [not all men] crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this ['once knew this?' They (not all) knew it from before (before this eath age)], how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. (KJV)

Rev 17:14
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. [not everybody, He is speaking of those WITH Him] (KJV)

John 15:16
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. [not everybody, He is speaking of the Disciples (and by extension, the Elect of the latter times)] (KJV)

I must hasten to add that since Christ's work on the cross, all can be adopted into eternal life through faith in Christ Jesus. However, 'certain' have been chosen, pre-selected by God, not to be more loved of God but to do a certain task in the end times in fulfillment of Scripture.

These are called the Elect of God. So then, that leads to natural question: Who are the Elect? Well, every single denominational group claims to be the Elect. The Catholics call themselves the one true Church, the Rapturists call themselves the saved 'saints,' the Mormons believe themselves to be the chosen of God, many cults believe themselves to be a special group of God's Elect. So why should I add to this confusion with an answer? other to say that God's Elect are those who know the truth about the identity of the antichrist in the final times (our generation).

But the main point is that while God's plan and prophecies MUST be fulfilled as prophesied, for "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), and the whole world shall worship the antichrist as it is written:

Rev 13:8
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (KJV)

Only God's Elect (by His grace and purpose) shall resist the antichrist. That is not to say that all who UNWITTINGLY worship the wrong Christ are damned, for there is a certain degree of innocence in ignorance. And we are not fated on an individual level to be deceived, but many do not study to their own undoing. Nobody is born damned, they become that way by their own free will actions.

Yes, Christ's blood is able to save all, but not all shall be saved. There are qualifiers with all of God's promises:

John 3:15-18
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He 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. (KJV)

 

[mondar]

And God abiding by His own rules accepts that some will forsake Him and instead turn to satan again; though God desires that none lose themselves "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt 18:14). He will not interfere with your free will, or it would not be your own free will!

I wrote a long reply to oneloves post and lost it.
BUMMER, DOUBLE BUMMER, AND EVEN DOH!!!
OK, my rant is over, now I feel better.

Rather then address the whole post again, I intend to only deal with Mt 18. The reference quoted as no free will in it at all. In the context the little ones are not making a decision of faith, but they are all those of faith. The "little ones" do not include any unbelievers.

6 But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.

The verse quoted from Mt 18:14 merely says that the people of faith will not "perish." Where in the world do you get free will out of this verse?

 

[unred typo]

I'm sure Judas thought he was choosing until he realized he was condemned. Matthew tells us he repented and returned the money. Matthew 27:3 As long as you keep thinking in human terms then it will look like Judas made a bad decision. But Jesus said Judas was a devil and he said the devil and his angels would be cast into the lake of fire. Judas was born to betray Jesus. He was a serpent sent by God. He didn't know it until he realized what he had done. Jesus said, 'but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.' Jesus told Judas he would betray him. Did Judas have a choice? Did the disciples have a choice when Jesus said, 'You will all fall away because of me this night.' Matthew 26:31 Did Peter have a choice when Jesus said, 'you will deny me three times.' Matthew 26:34 As for the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus said, 'you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.' They were false teachers and by their false teachings, they made their students twice the children of hell as they were. So they were sons of the devil. Jesus told them they were 'of' their father, the devil. This explains why they didn't know him. If God gives us the knowledge of himself it is because we are his sons and he loves us. It was given to the disciples to know the secrets of the kingdom but it was not given to crowd who followed him to know. Matthew 13:11

I’ve been trying to understand your post in the light of the topic here of free will. You say Judas is a devil, not a man, and from the day he was created, he was destined to betray Jesus? How is this proof toward mankind having or not having free will then? If you believe some beings were made for the sole purpose of being jerks and to be destroyed forever in eternal fires, and I don’t agree, btw, what does that have to do with the millions of people who have died never hearing the name of Jesus? Are you saying that God in his great love and mercy which cannot be fathomed, created these scores of humans for the sole purpose of torturing them forever and ever in hell? And you don’t think this is an absurd thing to believe?
Okay then. Please tell me you're joking or I have misunderstood you....

 

[mondar]

I’ve been trying to understand your post in the light of the topic here of free will. You say Judas is a devil, not a man, and from the day he was created, he was destined to betray Jesus? How is this proof toward mankind having or not having free will then? If you believe some beings were made for the sole purpose of being jerks and to be destroyed forever in eternal fires, and I don’t agree, btw, what does that have to do with the millions of people who have died never hearing the name of Jesus? Are you saying that God in his great love and mercy which cannot be fathomed, created these scores of humans for the sole purpose of torturing them forever and ever in hell? And you don’t think this is an absurd thing to believe?
Okay then. Please tell me you're joking or I have misunderstood you....

How can you say that God did not intend to create Judas and then destroy him? The fact that Judas was the object of prophecy and fulfilled prophecy demonstrates this, and also other scriptures demonstrate this.

No I do not believe in free will, but let me hypothetically take an Arminian position in this paragraph. Lets say Judas had free will, and God in his foreknowledge knew what decision Judas was going to make. I still see God as being in agreement with Judas because he choose Judas to be one of the 12. Then Christ placed Judas in that exact position where he could betray him. Its not like God just did not know what Judas would decide and got caught off guard. God was a part of Judas's betrayal all along even from an Arminian free will perspective. The prophecies were made, and God helped them be fulfilled. The scripture is clear that Judas was destined to betray Christ.

The scripture are also clear that God made some men for the purpose of judgment. Rm 9 says;
Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

The divine potter makes every vessel. God (the potter) chooses to make one lump for honor, and another for dishonor. Now its the same lump of clay, its not like one part of the lump is better then another part (neither is the difference that one lump made a better decision), its all in the potters hands.

The concept that Gods sovereignty does not extend to Judas Iscariot is unscriptural.

 

[Vic C.]

No I do not believe in free will, but let me hypothetically take an Arminian position in this paragraph. Lets say Judas had free will, and God in his foreknowledge knew what decision Judas was going to make. I still see God as being in agreement with Judas because he choose Judas to be one of the 12. Then Christ placed Judas in that exact position where he could betray him. Its not like God just did not know what Judas would decide and got caught off guard. God was a part of Judas's betrayal all along even from an Arminian free will perspective. The prophecies were made, and God helped them be fulfilled. The scripture is clear that Judas was destined to betray Christ.

While I am not full blown Arminian, I do understand most of their position and honestly, this doesn't fully represent them. God with foreknowledge, can never be "caught off guard".

I do kind of agree with what I set in bold above, although mincing words, I'd say chosen to betray over destined to betray.

The divine potter makes every vessel. God (the potter) chooses to make one lump for honor, and another for dishonor. Now its the same lump of clay, its not like one part of the lump is better then another part (neither is the difference that one lump made a better decision), its all in the potters hands.

Aah, this brings me back to the question I asked concerning Romans 9:21-23. Paul's decree; "where did he get this from?" was the question I asked that no one answered. To me, it's a misinterpretation of what Paul is trying to convey and it's a horrible, horrible decree. God does have the ability to reshape the very same marred vessel. It doesn't have to stay marred. Jeremiah 18:4-6 proves this.

 

[mondar]

Romans 9

Aah, this brings me back to the question I asked concerning Romans 9:21-23. Paul's decree; "where did he get this from?" was the question I asked that no one answered. To me, it's a misinterpretation of what Paul is trying to convey and it's a horrible, horrible decree. God does have the ability to reshape the very same marred vessel. It doesn't have to stay marred. Jeremiah 18:4-6 proves this.

Vic C.
Concerning your issue on Romans 9:21-23, I do not recall seeing what you previously wrote.

Concerning Jeremiah 18; it is a different context from romans 9. The two contexts have the words pot and potter in them but they are two very different contexts.

In Jeremiah, the prophet goes and observes a potter, and then an analogy is made concerning the pots. As Jeremiah watches this potter, the potter has an accident. There is a slip of the hand and he ruins the pot. However, the potter still makes something useful out of the pot. Jeremiah takes this reshaping as an analogy for what God will do with Israel. Israel is a ruined pot that God will remake into something useful. There is no reshaping of the pot in Romans 9. In Romans 9 God is the Potter and he makes only 2 kinds of pots. Some pots are made to be fit for destruction, and some are made for Gods mercy. There is no reshaping of a ruined pot in Romans 9, but the potter takes each vessel directly from the same lump of clay.

God does have the ability to reshape the very same marred vessel. It doesn't have to stay marred. Jeremiah 18:4-6 proves this

Vic, of course I would never deny Gods ability. God can reshape any pot he pleases. Yet there is no reshaping of pots in Romans 9. There is only the intentional shaping of a pot fitted for destruction in Romans 9.

Just look at the context of romans 9 a little. Why do you think Paul asks the question....
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
You are defending this by saying God would be unrighteous if he made a pot fitted for destruction. Your question is the very question asked in verse 14. Is God unrighteous if he makes pots fitted for destruction.

First, Paul quotes the OT as his support in verse 15.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

The point of this OT quote is explained in verse 16. Pauls says this OT reference means this...... 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. So then God can show mercy, or he can choose not to show mercy. The decision of Gods mercy is not up to man ("it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth") but the decision is up to God (God that shows mercy).

In verses 17-18 Paul will show the flip side of this coin. What happens if God refuses to show mercy? What happens if he chooses to harden someone. He begins with another OT quote
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Paul then also explains this OT quote by saying..... 18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
The point is that God can not only choose to show mercy, he can choose to harden. The typical argument against this is that Pharaoh was already hardened. I agree, but the point is why then did God raise him up to power? God raised him up to power to harden him. God could have chosen to make sure Pharaoh was a powerless popper all his life. God gave Pharaohs heart the all it needed to harden, and this was by giving him power. I agree that God did not wave some magic wand to make Pharaohs heart hard, he did not need to do this because all men are in rebellion and sinful. What God did, was to raise him up. By doing this, Pharaoh became the pot fitted for destruction.

You and the Pharaoh can say as the hypothetical person in verse 19...
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? You both can say, if God hardened Pharoah's heart, then why can God find fault. Does this not make God evil? You both think this hardening process in which God makes pots fitted for destruction implies that God is evil. Paul replies to both you and the hypothetical mans and your arguments in verse 20.

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
Vic, your complaint is the same identical complaint that Pauls hypothetical man is making. You both are saying that it is not right for God to harden hearts and make a pot fitted for destruction. Pauls answer to this complaint is found in verse 20. In essence, who are you to reply against God.... Shall the pot fitted to destruction say to God who formed it... "Why did you make me thus." The essence of your theology is you are denying that God would "make me thus." You are agreeing with Pauls hypothetical objecter in the context. You are saying God does not have the right to make pots fitted for destruction. Paul is not agreeing with you, read the next verse.

21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Rather then agree with you that God does not have the right to make pots fitted for destruction, exactly the opposite occurs here. Paul is affirming Gods right to make pots fitted for destruction. He is defending against people exactly like you who deny God has the sovereign right to make the pot as he chooses. The claim in verse 21 is that God has the right to make pots for honor, but he also has the right to make pots for destruction. You deny exactly what Paul is affirming.

Vic, in this entire analogy in Romans, it is not the pot that makes all the decisions. Who has the free will, the pot, or the potter? If the pot has free will to choose what kind of vessel it will be, then the potter has an impotent lack of free will. Vic, do you believe in a potter that cannot make decisions? I absolutely believe in free will, but I believe in the free will of the potter, God. Is not your position that God cannot make a pot fitted for destruction an assault on the free will of God?

In any case, any hermeneutic that imports an analogy from Jeremiah 18 and changes the analogy in Romans 9 to make it fit some other passage is a mistaken hermeneutic. As long as something is similar about a parable or analogy can I import the theology into a separate context? Well, I wanted to go through romans 9, and I did.

The end.

 

[Vic C.]

Thanks monder. I already understand the Calvinistic interpretation and I still disagree somewhat with it. I still contend that Paul is showing the Romans how the Lord dealt with Israel of old and why they (the Romans) are now part of God's plan. I'm pretty much convinced that Roman's 9, 10 and 11 are mostly about how God dealt with the Israelites.

First, Paul quotes the OT as his support in verse 15.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

I have NO problems with that; it support the verse that says God is no respecter of persons. It doesn't support the idea that God purposely creates from their beginning, some to show mercy and some not. Still not seeing where Paul actually says that this is what God does. I will agree that God chooses to do this where and when He sees the need, according to His will and overall Plan for mankind.

21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Rather then agree with you that God does not have the right to make pots fitted for destruction, exactly the opposite occurs here. Paul is affirming Gods right to make pots fitted for destruction. He is defending against people exactly like you who deny God has the sovereign right to make the pot as he chooses. The claim in verse 21 is that God has the right to make pots for honor, but he also has the right to make pots for destruction. You deny exactly what Paul is affirming.

You totally misrepresented me there... nowhere have I ever claimed God has no right to do as He chooses. What I do say is that just because God has the sovereignty to do this, doesn't mean He does it. Just as I would agree it's dangerous to place way too much emphasis on man's ability to choose, it's equally as dangerous to overemphasize the sovereignty of God. I happen to belong to a non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist church and this is what we believe.

Besides, I still contend that is way outside of God's nature. I'm much more inline to agree with Clarke's interpretations on this that Calvin's doctrines.

Here you are:

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerom9.htm

 

[mondar]

Thanks monder. I already understand the Calvinistic interpretation and I still disagree somewhat with it. I still contend that Paul is showing the Romans how the Lord dealt with Israel of old and why they (the Romans) are now part of God's plan. I'm pretty much convinced that Roman's 9, 10 and 11 are mostly about how God dealt with the Israelites.

Romans 9 is obviously related to Israel. 9:4-5 begins with many promises and possessions of Israel.
4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

The question is to whom does all these covenants belong. To whom does all these blessings belong? Do they belong to the entire nation of believers and unbelievers, or do they belong to the remnant?

In verse 6 the principle is expressed that these blessings do not belong to the entire nation, but they belong only to some Israelites. They belong to believing Israelites (if you will). This means that there are elect people within Israel, and non-elect people within Israel. 6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
What Paul is saying in Romans 9:6 is that the non-elect within Israel are not Israel.

Then Paul gives illustrations about how these promises belong only to individual Israelites, and not to the entire nation. The first illustration is Ishmael and Isaac in verses 7-9. Then in verse 11 Paul mentions what the issue really concerns, it is about the election of individuals within Israel. The illustration of verses 10-12 are about Jacob and Esau. Both were of the proper genetics, but only Jacob was elect or chosen by God.

I say these things as a dispensationalist myself. Yet my more arminian brothers just ignore the passage and say "its ALL about Israel." No, it is about the elect remnant of Israel. Unbelieving Israel does not inherit the promises of God. The promises of God were to elect individual Israelites within the nation.

This is important, because Romans 9 does have obvoius implications for gentiles that are elect. Why many of the promises are not directed to Gentiles, we come under many promises. (This would be a massive and long project to explain) This is Pauls point in 9:24
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

If the passage is ALL about Israel, what do we do with verse 24? The bottom line, is that while the passage discusses a subject related to Israel, this does not mean it is unrelated to individual elect people. To say "its all about Israel" is neither exegetically correct, and seems only a technique to avoid the teachings of Paul in this passage.

MAJOR QUESTION-----------------
When we get to the later part of Chapter 9 and it talks about the pots and the potter, who was Pharaoh? Was he a nation? Was he Jewish? Was Pharaoh the ruler over Israel? It seems totally a tradition unrelated to the text to say "it is all about Israel. The Pharaoh is one of the pots fitted for destruction.

You totally misrepresented me there... nowhere have I ever claimed God has no right to do as He chooses. What I do say is that just because God has the sovereignty to do this, doesn't mean He does it.

vic C.
Do you really want to make this statement? Do you really picture God as a sovereign God who is up in heaven restraining all that sovereignty? You admit he is sovereign, but God is probably all red in the face from the strain of holding all that sovereignty back. How can God have the ability of being sovereign, and not actually be sovereign in practice?

Just as I would agree it's dangerous to place way too much emphasis on man's ability to choose, it's equally as dangerous to overemphasize the sovereignty of God.

Interesting proposition. I think you have the equasion correct. As more emphasis is placed on mans ability, less emphasis is placed on Gods sovereignty. I dont want to place any more emphasis on either then the word of God. I am sure we both agree with that. The word of God clearly indicates that God hardens hearts. We are all going to have to deal with it.

I happen to belong to a non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist church and this is what we believe.

Besides, I still contend that is way outside of God's nature. I'm much more inline to agree with Clarke's interpretations on this that Calvin's doctrines.

Here you are:

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerom9.htm

I would go to a "founders" SBC Church if there were one in my area. I am aware of the free will baptists in the SBC. I have not read Clarks stuff yet, but I have read Geisler's (who I would call Arminian) "Chosen but Free." I have read a debate book by Dave Hunt (worse then arminian, probably pelagian) and James White. I payed $10 for the White vs Hunt book, but I should ask for $5 back, Hunt was awful. To be honest, I have yet to see a good exegetical, contextual defense of arminian free willism.

Why is it outside the nature of God to be sovereign? I see no difference between your position and Pauls imaginary detractor in Romans 9.

Gotta go.
Mondar