Free will or no free will?

[MarkT]

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).

Well as far as election goes, it's God's will that some are called to be saints and apostles. It's true that God rewards them who seek him. So what can we say? It is as it is. But let's say everyone has a calling. Not all are called to be teachers. Not all are called to be prophets. But according to rank, the apostles and the prophets come first. So what should the other members say? Is God being unfair? Not at all. God made us for his purpose. However, as Paul said, 'earnestly desire the higher gifts.' 1 Cor. 12:31 But at the same time we must not think more highly of ourselves than the measure of faith God assigns us. Romans 12:3 So if it is God's will that some should obtain a level of faith equal to the apostles, then that is the way it is supposed to be. So let's look at it in terms of rank. Some men have been given a higher spiritual IQ than other men. They understand and so they know that they are chosen. Someone of a lesser rank might think that they chose God according to their freewill; choosing, of course, being a human activity. However the spiritual mind is given to know the spiritual things and the spiritual mind understands the activity of the spirit. I know that we were all compelled into the church.

We all have different functions. It's Ok to think you chose and that you have freewill. You're still a Christian, but of a lesser rank. But it doesn't mean you can't climb the ladder so to speak, assuming you have the spirit to do so. So growth in understanding and knowledge is possible and at an advanced level of understanding, the elect are given to know that they are chosen.

 

[unred typo]

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.

Hypotheticals! We love those. You make a lousy Arminian, btw. Let me play God for the sake of illustration. ( Heh heh…I promise not to let it go to my head… ) I made a prophesy that “He that eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me.†Now as I look at hearts around 30 A.D. I see Judas’ heart is set on money, prestige, and political power. When I look at him I can see that Judas sees the potential of acquiring those things by following Jesus, so I lead my Son to choose Judas to become a disciple. If Judas had chosen to follow another leader to attain his greedy goals, I could pick some other Thomas, Dickatorious, or Harrius. I have a list of at least a hundred that I had planned on removing from the book of life for deeds above and beyond the pale of evil slated for today alone. There is nothing set in stone that it has to be this particular jerk, only that he eats bread with Jesus and betrays him, right? John 13:18 The thirty pieces of silver is a piece of cake. Judas just needs a suggestion to his greedy little mind that there is money to be made by pointing out Jesus’ solitary place where he can be seized without a lot of people around, since the Pharisees are afraid of crowds. I put the price into the minds of the Pharisees to fulfill scripture. Some of them thought they should offer 15 and Judas would have probably taken it but I made them decide on 30. For the prophesy, you know.

There are not a lot of times or dates in the prophesies to keep in line but I have no problem using the desires of men to accomplish my goals anyways. How many thousands of men would have fit nicely into Judas’ sandals? Finding a few good men may be hard but getting one capable of such betrayal is pretty easy. He was the man of the hour hand picked right then on the spot. I did not have to create Judas in eternity past for the sole purpose of playing the traitor here. What kind of a whimpy god do you take me for? Sure, I can make you eat worms if I want to. Lucky for you I’m a merciful god.

Just because I can tweak your will to do my bidding, does that mean that you have no free will? You wish. You have free will and as you know, with this power comes responsibility. I’m not going to be the blame for the dumb choices you make. You make the right choice, and I’ll help you but the decision is yours to make.

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 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.

What are we talking about here? Read with me: “for honor, and another for dishonor.†Does this say “for salvation, and another for damnation� Nope…but if you go down a few verses you might try that again. Let’s cut to the chase. Romans 9:22-23 says “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?â€Â

How God uses you in this life has nothing to do with your final reward. Even stubborn ole Pharaoh could have repented after God was finished using him to “show God’s power in him, that his name might be declared throughout all the earth.†What you will be judged on is your attitudes, your actions, your desires…all you. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, so why would he create them wicked just so he can destroy them in hell forever?
He created us all with a free will and those who choose to be wicked he uses to do dirty deeds that help him display his power and put the fear of God into those who take it to heart. If he killed off all the wicked as soon as they showed their wickedness, he would not be able to use them as examples to the rest. Even when he uses the wicked, sometimes they afterward turn from their wickedness and he can lead them into the right way. Some of us have to hit bottom before we repent. Just like gnocchi, God has to turn up the heat before we rise.

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

Yup, and the concept that I said such a thing is what we call a straw man.

 

[Vic C.]

What are we talking about here? Read with me: “for honor, and another for dishonor.†Does this say “for salvation, and another for damnation� Nope…but if you go down a few verses you might try that again. Let’s cut to the chase. Romans 9:22-23 says “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?â€Â

Unred, I don't know if you read what Clarke said in his commentary on these verses, but you just paraphrased him. 8-)

Here, I will just quote his words on v. 22, because it summerizes what he thought on this passage.

Verse 22. What if God, willing to show his wrath} The apostle refers here to the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and to which he applies Jeremiah's parable of the potter, and, from them, to the then state of the Jews. Pharaoh and the Egyptians were vessels of wrath-persons deeply guilty before God; and by their obstinate refusal of his grace, and abuse of his goodness, they had fitted themselves for that destruction which the wrath, the vindictive justice of God, inflicted, after he had endured their obstinate rebellion with much long-suffering; which is a most absolute proof that the hardening of their hearts, and their ultimate punishment, were the consequences of their obstinate refusal of his grace and abuse of his goodness; as the history in Exodus sufficiently shows.

As the Jews of the apostle's time had sinned after the similitude of the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and abusing his goodness, after every display of his long-suffering kindness, being now fitted for destruction, they were ripe for punishment; and that power, which God was making known for their salvation, having been so long and so much abused and provoked, was now about to show itself in their destruction as a nation. But even in this case there is not a word of their final damnation; much less that either they or any others were, by a sovereign decree, reprobated from all eternity; and that their very sins, the proximate cause of their punishment, were the necessary effect of that decree which had from all eternity doomed them to endless torments. As such a doctrine could never come from God, so it never can be found in the words of his apostle.

 

[mondar]

Unred,
To say what you said misses the entire context of Roman 9. The context has its topic in verse 6. The very first statement of the context makes it clear that the issue is the success of the promises of God. Verse 6 says "Not as though the word of God has taken non-effect." The effect of the word of God is the salvific promises found in verse 4-5. You might accurately say that the promises of Chapter 9 include more then the issue of individual salvation, but contextually you cannot say it is less. In verse 3 Paul speaks of being "accursed from Christ." This is a topic setter statement that cannot be referring to anything but salvation. It is impossible to read it any other way.

Now after this context Paul continues talking about salvation and election. That is the whole point of verse 30. Pauls words in Chapter 9 (especially in verse 24) imply that Gentiles are being saved also.

To say this is about honor and dishonor.... well, that is sad. When I saw you say that I realized you do not have the ability to read a context. I think you would say anything in the service of your humanistic, works oriented concept of salvation. You need to learn the grace of God much more deeply. I think I will stay off this BB for a few days. I am not really interested in this time in any dialog with you. Maybe later.

 

[unred typo]

VicC wrote: Unred, I don't know if you read what Clarke said in his commentary on these verses, but you just paraphrased him.

Here, I will just quote his words on v. 22, because it summerizes what he thought on this passage.

Maybe we are listening to the same teacher. I went to see the site you posted after you said I had paraphrased him out of curiosity but honestly, I’m not as much interested in what theologians have to say as hearing what the Holy Spirit teaches. I am happy to see that I’m not alone in my view but if I were the only one to believe it, it would not change the truth. The truth is the truth if no one believes it. Please don’t think I’m saying I have arrived at the ultimate truth of the entire counsel of God, but the truths that Jesus taught are simple and easy to follow. We are, and will be, judged according to what we do with the free will we have and the use of our ability to express it. The autonomy given to each of us by God can not be taken from us but we are truly servants of whom we choose to obey.

 

[unred typo]

Mondar wrote: Unred, To say what you said misses the entire context of Roman 9. The context has its topic in verse 6. The very first statement of the context makes it clear that the issue is the success of the promises of God. Verse 6 says "Not as though the word of God has taken non-effect." The effect of the word of God is the salvific promises found in verse 4-5. You might accurately say that the promises of Chapter 9 include more then the issue of individual salvation, but contextually you cannot say it is less. In verse 3 Paul speaks of being "accursed from Christ." This is a topic setter statement that cannot be referring to anything but salvation. It is impossible to read it any other way.

It may indeed be impossible for you to read it any other way than the way you have molded it into your brain. (It was also a problem that I had but am finally over. ) The context is without a doubt the promises of God to the Israelites. The promises referred to here are not about the salvation of the world, although, I agree, they are indirectly. The things that pertain to Israel in verses 4-5 of course are related to our salvation in that they are a fore shadow of the sacrifice of Christ and it is the blood of Christ by which we are cleansed from our sins when we confess and repent of them.

The statement you claim to be the topic setter in v.3 is Paul lamenting his actual brothers who are not following Christ but still trusting in the ceremonial law for salvation. These are his family, according to the flesh, and just as you may despair over your close family relatives who are not ‘saved‘, Paul declares that he would rather take their place in hell. It is the fact that they are Jews that has inspired this next chapter but I would hardly call Paul’s use of the term “accursed†the defining word here.

The context of the chapter is how the Jews are the chosen people through which “as concerning the flesh, Christ came†and how the sovereign choices of God in their position as ‘chosen’ have nothing to do with their merits as people. Paul insists that the choice God made for the earthly ancestral line of Christ, was not based on the works of the ones chosen. He then expands the idea that God is sovereign to choose whomever he wants to do his will, whether it is for honors or dishonors.

This chapter does not stand alone and Paul is famous for his rambling back and forth through his repetitious writings. In fact, if you read chapter 2, you will see a similar idea expressed and Paul continues in the same vein about how the position of Jew does not guarantee salvation and he points out, at length, that God is no respecter of persons and he will judge each person according to their deeds, Romans 2:6-11.

Mondar wrote:Now after this context Paul continues talking about salvation and election. That is the whole point of verse 30. Pauls words in Chapter 9 (especially in verse 24) imply that Gentiles are being saved also.

Verse 21 is still talking about the honor and dishonor of being chosen for a specific task. If we think back to Pharaoh, we see that the ‘vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction’ in this case are the Egyptians who suffered and/or died in the plagues, and in the Red Sea. We know from Rahab the harlot how effective this was:

Joshua 2:9-11 “And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when you came out of Egypt; and what you did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.â€Â

She also mentions the Amorites who were also fitted for destruction. Who were the vessels of mercy? The Israelites and even Rahab and her family/friends. But not all the Israelites were the ‘children of promise.’ This is the context of verse 6. In verses 24-26, Paul includes ‘us’ in this favored position as ‘vessels of mercy’ because both Jews and Gentiles can now be called ‘children of God’ because of their righteous walk and faith in his word and continuous cleansing of his blood.

You can see they are not automatically saved for eternity because they are vessels of mercy. As we know from scripture, the same vessels of mercy who came out of Egypt, also were later rejected and became vessels of wrath when they refused to follow Joshua and Caleb into the land.

Mondar wrote:To say this is about honor and dishonor.... well, that is sad. When I saw you say that I realized you do not have the ability to read a context. I think you would say anything in the service of your humanistic, works oriented concept of salvation. You need to learn the grace of God much more deeply. I think I will stay off this BB for a few days. I am not really interested in this time in any dialog with you. Maybe later.

No problem, Mondar. You need a break, I’m sure. It may take a few days of study to break the confines you have wrapped around Romans and free your mind to accept what Paul is really saying.

 

[MarkT]

Jesus called the Pharisees and scribes and lawyers a generation of vipers, yet Paul was a self described “Pharisee of the Pharisees.â€Â

I looked up where you got 'generation' and I think the King James Version is probably wrong about the word. In the RSV, Jesus calls the Pharisees a 'brood' of vipers which makes sense since they were serpents, the seed of the Serpent of Old/ the devil.

I don't think Jesus called the teachers of the law who came out to test Jesus a 'generation' of vipers. A 'brood' of vipers makes sense since he also told them that the devil was their father. In other words, these men were sons of the devil. God was not their Father. So these wise men were leading people astray. As the LORD said about them, 'How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.' Jeremiah 8:8 So Jesus was addressing them personally, calling them vipers and they were vipers, in spirit, being false prophets and teachers. The LORD said, 'They have rejected the word of the LORD and what wisdom is in them?' The answer, of course, is none. There was no wisdom in them. And, like Jesus said, they were teaching the traditions of men and, as a consequence, no one repented and the word of God was made void. The LORD asked, 'Why then has this people turned away in perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return.' Jer. 8:5 Remember what Jesus said, 'no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, "The old is good."'? Luke 5:39 Apparently the people were not interested in the new wine and they prefered the old wine. As far as Paul being a self described Pharisee of Pharisees, I think he said he was a Pharisee as the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection of the dead, the spirit and angels while the Sadducees did not. Acts 23:8

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.

Jesus called the ones who hated him and wanted to kill him vipers. Every plant is known by its own fruit and Jesus knew who he was talking to. He told them, if God was your Father you would love me but instead you want to kill me. John 8:42 No. The ones who came out to question Jesus were vipers, the sons of the devil. Jesus knew their thoughts. They were not destined to be sons of the devil. They were sons of the devil. And Jesus told them they were destined for hell. That's why they killed him.

 

[MarkT]

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....

I think you must have misunderstood me because I didn't say Judas wasn't a man. But what it has to do with freewill, I don't know. I think it has more to do with prophesy and predestiny, the fact that God knows who you are, than with freewill. There are some people who refuse to hear the truth and want to remain ignorant but what person would knowingly choose death? The reason they choose to not hear is because they don't know or don't believe. And yet there are some who do right by nature and they treat us with kindness. That counts with God. Like Jesus said, 'As you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Does God force anyone? No. So what? God is patient. He wants all men to come to the knowledge of his Son. Is God a thing to be chosen? Where does this idea come from? Is it based on the knowledge of God or of man? Does it come from knowledge or ignorance? From humility or arrogance? From God or the devil? Is the gospel the power of God? Yep. You can't renew yourself. Did God draw you? Did the book open your eyes? Did faith come by hearing? Did your knowledge of God come by understanding? Did you decide to be good soil? If so then what did you will?

Jesus preached the good news to the dead who were in Hades. I'm sure when he returns many more will repent and believe in him. Remember Jesus said the poor in spirit were blessed. He called them blessed. He didn't say they were condemned. And we see in Revelation, 'a great multitude which no man could number'. 'These are they who have come out of the great tribulation.'

 

[Bubba]

Jonathan Edwards writes how God elects those who will be with Him for eternity and how those who are not elect are passively left in their sin. He uses Romans 9:18 as a "spring board"
Bubba
Jonathan Edwards
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth" (Romans 9:18).

"THE apostle, in the beginning of this chapter, expresses his great concern and sorrow of heart for the nation of the Jews, who were rejected of God. This leads him to observe the difference which God made by election between some of the Jews and others, and between the bulk of that people and the christian Gentiles. In speaking of this he enters into a more minute discussion of the sovereignty of God in electing some to eternal life, and rejecting others, than is found in any other part of the Bible; in the course of which he quotes several passages from the Old Testament, confirming and illustrating this doctrine. In the ninth verse he refers us to what God said to Abraham, showing his election of Isaac before Ishmael - "For this is the word of promise; At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son:" then to what God had said to Rebecca, showing his election of Jacob before Esau; "The elder shall serve the younger:" in the thirteenth verse, to a passage from Malachi, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated:" in the fifteenth verse, to what God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion:" and the verse preceding the text, to what God says to Pharaoh, "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." In what the apostle says in the text, he seems to have respect especially to the two last-cited passages: to what God said to Moses in the fifteenth verse, and to what he said to Pharaoh in the verse immediately preceding. God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." To this the apostle refers in the former part of the text. And we know how often it is said of Pharaoh, that God hardened his heart. And to this the apostle seems to have respect in the latter part of the text; "and whom he will he hardeneth." We may observe in the text,

1. God's different dealing with men. He hath mercy on some, and hardeneth others. When God is here spoken of as hardening some of the children of men, it is not to be understood that God by any positive efficiency hardens any man's heart. There is no positive act in God, as though he put forth any power to harden the heart. To suppose any such thing would be to make God the immediate author of sin. God is said to harden men in two ways: by withholding the powerful influences of his Spirit, without which their hearts will remain hardened, and grow harder and harder; in this sense he hardens them, as he leaves them to hardness. And again, by ordering those things in his providence which, through the abuse of their corruption, become the occasion of their hardening. Thus God sends his word and ordinances to men which, by their abuse, prove an occasion of their hardening. So the apostle said, that he was unto some "a savour of death unto death." So God is represented as sending Isaiah on this errand, to make the hearts of the people fat, and to make their ears heavy, and to shut their eyes; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Isa. 6:10. Isaiah's preaching was, in itself, of a contrary tendency, to make them better. But their abuse of it rendered it an occasion of their hardening. As God is here said to harden men, so he is said to put a lying spirit in the mouth of the false prophets. 2 Chron. 18:22. That is, he suffered a lying spirit to enter into them. And thus he is said to have bid Shimei curse David. 2 Sam. 16:10. Not that he properly commanded him; for it is contrary to God's commands. God expressly forbids cursing the ruler of the people. Exod. 22:28. But he suffered corruption at that time so to work in Shimei, and ordered that occasion of stirring it up, as a manifestation of his displeasure against David.

2. The foundation of his different dealing with mankind; viz. his sovereign will and pleasure. "He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." This does not imply, merely, that God never shows mercy or denies it against his will, or that he is always willing to do it when he does it. A willing subject or servant, when he obeys his lord's commands, may never do any thing against his will, nothing but what he can do cheerfully and with delight; and yet he cannot be said to do what he wills in the sense of the text. But the expression implies that it is God's mere will and sovereign pleasure, which supremely orders this affair. It is the divine will without restraint, or constraint, or obligation."

 

[unred typo]

Bubba wrote on Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:48 pm:
Jonathan Edwards writes how God elects those who will be with Him for eternity and how those who are not elect are passively left in their sin. He uses Romans 9:18 as a "spring board"
Bubba

Jonathan Edwards:
In speaking of this he enters into a more minute discussion of the sovereignty of God in electing some to eternal life, and rejecting others, than is found in any other part of the Bible; in the course of which he quotes several passages from the Old Testament, confirming and illustrating this doctrine.

Sorry to inform you but the above statement is patently false. None have been elected to eternal life. If you will read Paul’s writings more carefully than your friend, Jon, you will see that some were elected to have preeminence over another (“The elder shall serve the younger.†) and some were raised to be made examples of his power, (“Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you†) while some had other honors and dishonors awarded them. (“to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? †)

The closest you can get to being elected for salvation or damnation is verses 22 and 23 (“What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,†) and these are not being fitted for hell or heaven but for wrath and glory. I can quote many instances where wrath is referring to punishment by death or disease right here on earth while glory is not just referred to as heavenly reward but is a temporal thing given to kings as Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37:

“You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given youdominion and power and might and glory â€Â

 

[Bubba]

I think anyone who is reasonable and didn’t already have a preconceived bias (free will) would conclude that Romans 9 is talking about God’s sovereign choice, take special attention to the bold sections.
Bubba

Romans 9

1 I am speaking the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or badâ€â€in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written,"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,"For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

 

[golfjack]

I believe Paul makes it very clear that God is sovereign and we are truly responsible.


May God bless, Golfjack

 

[unred typo]

Bubba wrote on Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:03 pm
I think anyone who is reasonable and didn’t already have a preconceived bias (free will) would conclude that Romans 9 is talking about God’s sovereign choice, take special attention to the bold sections.

Did you read my post? I answered all your bolded sections already in a very reasonable, unbiased manner. I agreed that Romans 9 is talking about God’s sovereign choice, but I think I have demonstrated that it is not a sovereign choice to arbitrarily condemn anyone to hell or preferentially elect anyone else to heaven.

 

[unred typo]

I believe Paul makes it very clear that God is sovereign and we are truly responsible.


May God bless, Golfjack

I agree, Golfjack. God has sovereignly decreed that we will have free will and subsequently be held responsible for our use of that freedom to choose. The two concepts may seem to be diametrically opposed but are actually very compatible.

 

[Bubba]

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
â€â€2 Thessalonians 1:9

 

[Drew]

I think anyone who is reasonable and didn’t already have a preconceived bias (free will) would conclude that Romans 9 is talking about God’s sovereign choice,

I agree that Romans 9 is talking about God's sovereign choice, but that one cannot use the Roman's text to argue for pre-destination of individuals to heaven or to hell.

I believe that Romans 9 is all about God's sovereign choice about using groups of people to work out his covenant purposes of dealing with sin and redeeming all of creation, not about electing individuals to heaven or to hell. This is driven home by the bolded material from the following extract of Romans 9:24:

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, "I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,' AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED.'" AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,' THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD."

While it is true that, earlier in Romans 9, reference is made to Esau, Jacob, and Pharaoh in reference to issues of God's sovereign choice, I think that there is every reason to see these individuals as being used by Paul in this context in a specifically representative mode - the identification of these individuals is really intended to underscore God's sovereign choice in using the peoples that they stand for in working out His divine covenant.

I believe that people often mistakenly see Romans as Paul's effort to express a theologoy of individual salvation. I think that Paul is speaking more corporately, trying to express ideas about who the members of the covenant people really are (his answer: not the members of national Israel but those, Jew and Gentile alike, who place their faith in God).

So those who argue that texts like the following from Romans 2 are describing a theology of individuals in respect to matthers of sin and redemption are placed in the awkward positions of having to explain why Paul suddenly transitions from this theology of the individual to a statement about Jews and Gentiles in verse 29.

23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

24being justified as a gift by His grace through he redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the (AP)forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also.

So, for example, I think the proper interpretation of Romans 3:23 is not:

1. "All human persons have sinned without exception", but rather

2. "There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in respect to being sinners"

One may argue that this difference is insignificant and that these work out to the same thing - all people have sinned. I am sympathetic to this view, but think that item 1 is a derived consequence of item 2 and that we get into trouble if we think of Romans as a disertation on the state of the individual in relation to God re matters of predestination, grace, works, etc.

 

[Bubba]

I believe that God's soveriegn choice is both, the individual and corporate. The freewill mindset can not handle this concept. See verses 7-13 are the individual and 23-24 is corporate soveriegn chioce.
Bubba

 

[unred typo]

Bubba on Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:03 am
22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
â€â€2 Thessalonians 1:9

Way to string together two unrelated verses there, Bubba. Why don’t I put together a couple for you?

Acts 12:23
And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
Luke 13:3
I tell you, Nay: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.

Didn’t like that combo, did you? You see context is important, isn't it?

The vessels of wrath fitted for destruction are those who God has put up with, instead of removing them from their life here on earth so he can use them to display his power to those who trust in him, not only OT Jews but NT and modern day believers, both Jews and Gentiles. God uses the ungodly as examples of his power to others instead of just killing them immediately when they have reached their allotted limit of sins, whatever he has determined for them.

They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
â€â€2 Thessalonians 1:9

This passage is about the day of vengeance as the preceding verses show:

6Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

These are not persons who God arbitrarily picked to suffer his wrath some unfortunate day in the future but those who choose not to obey God and who trouble, persecute and harass those who do obey.

 

[Drew]

I believe that God's soveriegn choice is both, the individual and corporate. The freewill mindset can not handle this concept. See verses 7-13 are the individual and 23-24 is corporate soveriegn chioce.

Even if we grant that Paul is talking about God's sovereign use of Sarah, Jacob, and Esau as individuals, I think the specific ways in which God sovereignly used them have nothing to do with issues of individual salvation. God uses these people sovereignly to remain faithful to his covenant - that through Israel all the nations will be blessed. I am not sure one could argue that "because God sovereignly uses these individuals for His covenenant purpose, we can conclude that God sovereignly pre-destines some to heaven and some to hell, effectively taking away individual free-will in the matter of individual human destiny". In any case, maybe you (Bubba) are not making such an argument.

Romans is, I believe, largely an argument from Paul that God has indeed remained faithful to the covenant He made with Abram as per Genesis 15. He needs to explain things like:

1. How can the set of Jews+Gentiles who form the church really be God's covenant people, given the widely held understanding that it was national Israel who were the covenant people?;

2. How can the role of Jesus be made to work coherently with the belief that national Israel will be the means of redeeming creation? I think that Paul answers this by arguing that God has not "changed his plans" and chosen another way to redeem the world (namely through Jesus), but rather that Jesus has become the faithful bearer of Israel's destiny, a role for which national Israel has proved faithless.

All of this, I suggest, should cause us to be careful as to how we read Romans. I think we need to see it an explanation of how God has remained faithful to his covenant - and in the specific case of Romans 2:7-13 how God has sovereignly used specific persons to that end - not as an exposition about such individual things as the pre-destination of individuals and the absence or presence of free will.

In short, God can use Jacob, Sarah,and Esau to work out His covenant without pre-destining anyone to heaven or hell or taking away free will in respect to the matter of individual salvation. Paul is talking about God's working out a big plan in history - a plan to ensure that He fulfills His covenant with Abram.

 

[Bubba]

Drew wrote:
Even if we grant that Paul is talking about God's sovereign use of Sarah, Jacob, and Esau as individuals, I think the specific ways in which God sovereignly used them have nothing to do with issues of individual salvation. God uses these people sovereignly to remain faithful to his covenant - that through Israel all the nations will be blessed. I am not sure one could argue that "because God sovereignly uses these individuals for His covenenant purpose, we can conclude that God sovereignly pre-destines some to heaven and some to hell, effectively taking away individual free-will in the matter of individual human destiny". In any case, maybe you (Bubba) are not making such an argument.

Yes, I would make the argument that God does sovereignly decide who is destine to heaven and who are destined to distruction. Those who are destine to heaven God actively intervenes in their lives (Eph. 2:1-9, Ezek. 36:21-30), those who are not God passively leaves in their sin.

Romans is, I believe, largely an argument from Paul that God has indeed remained faithful to the covenant He made with Abram as per Genesis 15. He needs to explain things like:

1. How can the set of Jews+Gentiles who form the church really be God's covenant people, given the widely held understanding that it was national Israel who were the covenant people?;

The greater understanding is that those who are of the promise are the true people of God, which includes Jews (though not all Jews, romans 2:28-29, 9:6) and Gentiles (Gal 6:16, 1 Peter 2:9). This is the covenant people of God

2. How can the role of Jesus be made to work coherently with the belief that national Israel will be the means of redeeming creation? I think that Paul answers this by arguing that God has not "changed his plans" and chosen another way to redeem the world (namely through Jesus), but rather that Jesus has become the faithful bearer of Israel's destiny, a role for which national Israel has proved faithless.

Jesus is the means of redeeming creation, national Israel never was. True Israel is and never has been faithless.

All of this, I suggest, should cause us to be careful as to how we read Romans. I think we need to see it an explanation of how God has remained faithful to his covenant - and in the specific case of Romans 2:7-13 how God has sovereignly used specific persons to that end - not as an exposition about such individual things as the pre-destination of individuals and the absence or presence of free will.

Besides the fact that no where in the Bible does it say that man has freewill (bound to Satan or bound to Christ, no other option), yet prior to Romans 9 we have Romans 8:29-31, where Paul has already begun the argument that God has the right to sovereignly choose the individual. Where "forknow" is intimate and personal in the Greek I have been told.

In short, God can use Jacob, Sarah,and Esau to work out His covenant without pre-destining anyone to heaven or hell or taking away free will in respect to the matter of individual salvation. Paul is talking about God's working out a big plan in history - a plan to ensure that He fulfills His covenant with Abram.

His covenant is all about who belongs to Him, would you not agree? Thus the implication, is those who do not belong to Him are vessels of wrath created for distruction, because God did not choose to make them part of the covenant, but left them in their sin and they would not have it any other way.
Bubba