Free will or no free will?

[MarkT]

You have to remember where Paul get's his words. They come from the prophets; from the mouth of God.

And I am doing precisely that when, following Isaiah and Jeremiah, I see Paul as talking about using corporate Israel as a vessel, just like the prophets wrote in the texts I posted.

These texts from Isaiah are about Israel and not about individuals. You seem to argue as if a nation cannot be a vessel. Well, that is precisely what Isaiah and Jeremiah are asserting when they use the potter metaphor in relation to corporate Israel.

Again from Jeremiah:

O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Who is the clay in the hand of the potter? Indivduals? No. It is Israel.

I would say individuals because the LORD is speaking of those people who belong to Israel. When Jesus said he was sent to find the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he was talking about individuals. He said, 'If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety nine on the hill and go in search of the one that went astray?' Mt. 18:12

 

[MarkT]

Paul even refers to himself when he says, 'even us whom he has called.' Romans 9:24 But what does he say about Jacob and Esau? Were they not twins? Of the same lump? What can the moulded say to its moulder? "Why have you made me thus?" Did God not make us? Are we not men? Was Jacob made for menial use? No Jacob was made for beauty. Esau was made for menial use. Were they not made from one lump of clay? Of course. DNAwise they were Israel's flesh and blood.

 

[Drew]

[He's not speaking metaphorically when he names individuals; Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh. When he says to Pharaoh, 'I have raised you up', he is not speaking to a metaphor. He is speaking to a man. He is not speaking metaphorically when he says, "Who are you, a man, to answer back to God." Are you not a man? When did you lose your individuality?

Obviously, Pharoah is a man. But the fact that he uses a man to illustrate the concept of election to play a specific redemptive role does not mean that he cannot be using this example as illustrative of the treatment of the nation of Israel.

The repeated use in the Old Testament of the potter metaphor in relation to Israel as a whole - a point that one cannot dispute - is already strongly suggestive that Paul is leveraging this use in Romans 9.

When Paul says, 'in order that God's purpose of election might continue', he is not speaking metaphorically. For what is God's purpose of election if it isn't to show us his power and his glory; that he is God over all; that we didn't choose him, he chose us? We didn't make him. He made us. That we are his sons by his call, not because of our works.

True, but you need to actually make the case that election here is election to eternal destiny, and not election to something in this life. That would be a difficult case to make, not least because of the Pharoah example. Why? Precisely because what marks out Pharoah is not that he "ends up in hell" (assuming he does), but rather that God hardened him - note the connection to hardening clay - to resist God's great redemptive action in the exodus.

If you are right, then Paul is probably spinning his grave, thinking this: Why did I use Pharoah as an example of election to damnation, when the reader will naturally think first and foremost of Pharoah as being hardened, not to be sent to hell, but rather to play a role in the exodus.

Paul, thankfully, is not that fuzzy a thinker. He uses Pharoah precisely as the perfect example of one, like Israel, who is not hardened to be lost, but rather hardened to play a specific role in the here and now to demonstrate God's covenant faithfulness.

 

[MarkT]

Obviously, Pharoah is a man. But the fact that he uses a man to illustrate the concept of election to play a specific redemptive role does not mean that he cannot be using this example as illustrative of the treatment of the nation of Israel.

Not in this case. The concept is that God hardens the heart of whomever he wills. In this case it was Pharaoh. The point is that if God hardened his heart, then how could God fault him for being hard hearted? Was God being unjust? That's the question Paul is answering.

The repeated use in the Old Testament of the potter metaphor in relation to Israel as a whole - a point that one cannot dispute - is already strongly suggestive that Paul is leveraging this use in Romans 9.

This doesn't tell me you understand what Paul is saying.

Paul uses Esau and Jacob by example to make a point about election: two brothers, same father, one was made for menial use, the other was made for beauty. The LORD told Rebekah there were two nations in her. "Two nations are in you, and two peoples, born of you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger." Gen. 25:23 The point is that this is what God promised even before the children were born. It goes back to what Paul is saying about the children of the promise, not the children of the flesh, being the descendants of Israel. Ro. 9:8

That's the power of God, that he declares it and it comes to pass, and he tells his servants what he is going to do beforehand.

As for election, what does election mean? Are people not elected to office? What office? Perhaps apostles, perhaps teachers, perhaps prophets, perhaps another office. That's who Paul is writing to; the elect who are called to be saints. And who elects them? God. Because God made us, and he knows who we are. Even though we might not know who we are.

Peter writes, 'To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours' 2Pe. 1:1 That would be the elect.

Now Paul refers to the 'vessels' of mercy saying, 'even us whom he has called'. As you can see, he is calling himself a vessel and a vessel 'of mercy' at that because he says 'us'. If he says 'us', he is including himself. Isn't he saying what is in his heart? What would be in his heart but God's mercy? The gospel is God's mercy, and he was commissioned to bring it to the Gentiles.

 

[turnorburn]

63 pages? :smt014

 

[MarkT]

True, but you need to actually make the case that election here is election to eternal destiny, and not election to something in this life. That would be a difficult case to make, not least because of the Pharoah example. Why? Precisely because what marks out Pharoah is not that he "ends up in hell" (assuming he does), but rather that God hardened him - note the connection to hardening clay - to resist God's great redemptive action in the exodus.

We're not talking about election here.

God hardened his heart against the Israelites so that he would be destroyed. As Paul said, 'he hardens the heart of whomever he wills'.

 

[turnorburn]

Hope you don't mind but I brought some friends to help me download 64 pages of :smt064 :smt014

 

[Drew]

God hardened his heart against the Israelites so that he would be destroyed. As Paul said, 'he hardens the heart of whomever he wills'.

This position really cannot be sustained by text whose context makes it clear that the issue at hand is not the eternal fate of individuals but God's right to "elect" persons and /or nations to play specific roles in God's plan of redeeming the world on this side of the grave.

What is Paul talking about in verses 1-5? The clear answer - the state of national Israel. This should alrealdy be a hint that the potter and his pot must have something to do with Israel, unless Paul has changed subjects in the meantime. Has he? No he has not.

Verses 6 to 12 are still about Israel, as introduced by the following:

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary....

Paul is still squarely on the Israel question. And, sure, "election" is introduced in verse 11:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand...

And what were Jacob and Esau elected to? Eternal life for one and eternal death for the other?

Let Paul speak to us and let us not impose our traditions on him. Here is what Paul says:

The older will serve the younger

This is not election to heaven or hell - it is election to play a specific role in this present world.

And then the same thing with Pharoah. Was Pharoah hardened so that Pharoah would be destroyed? Again, let Paul tell us the answer:

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

Will God's name be proclaimed in all the earth because Pharoah winds up being destroyed? Or will God's name be proclaimed in all the Earth because God will mightily and miraculously rescue Israel from slavery in Egypt? Obviously, it is the second of these options.

What do we talk about in Sunday School about God's power in this context. We talk about the exodus, not the destruction of Pharoah.

The material up to the potter account is clear: Paul is talking about Israel and he is talking about God hardening people to serve roles in this present world. If the "standard" view about the potter is correct, Paul suddenly drops the specificity of Israel and suddenly switches, unannounced, to a discussion about the eternal destinies of individuals.

Not really believable, I suggest.

 

[Drew]

As for election, what does election mean? Are people not elected to office? What office? Perhaps apostles, perhaps teachers, perhaps prophets, perhaps another office. That's who Paul is writing to; the elect who are called to be saints. And who elects them? God. Because God made us, and he knows who we are. Even though we might not know who we are.

The word election does not mean "election to become saints" - it means "election to something", and we have to figure out what that "something" is. It could be "sainthood" or it could be something else. When we "elect" a President are we declaring him or her to be destined for heaven? Of course not.

So the word "election" itself cannot make the case for you - to be "elected" means to be selected or chosen for something. The "something" could be eternal life or it could be something in this world.

And in Romans 9, at least, the "election" being described, as in the case of Jacob and Esau and as in the case of Pharoah, is clearly election to play a role, in this present world, in God's great plan of redemption.

 

[MarkT]

God hardened his heart against the Israelites so that he would be destroyed. As Paul said, 'he hardens the heart of whomever he wills'.

This position really cannot be sustained by text whose context makes it clear that the issue at hand is not the eternal fate of individuals but God's right to "elect" persons and /or nations to play specific roles in God's plan of redeeming the world on this side of the grave.

What is Paul talking about in verses 1-5? The clear answer - the state of national Israel. This should alrealdy be a hint that the potter and his pot must have something to do with Israel, unless Paul has changed subjects in the meantime. Has he? No he has not.

Verses 6 to 12 are still about Israel, as introduced by the following:

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary....

Paul is still squarely on the Israel question. And, sure, "election" is introduced in verse 11:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand...

And what were Jacob and Esau elected to? Eternal life for one and eternal death for the other?

Let Paul speak to us and let us not impose our traditions on him. Here is what Paul says:

The older will serve the younger

This is not election to heaven or hell - it is election to play a specific role in this present world.

And then the same thing with Pharoah. Was Pharoah hardened so that Pharoah would be destroyed? Again, let Paul tell us the answer:

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

Will God's name be proclaimed in all the earth because Pharoah winds up being destroyed? Or will God's name be proclaimed in all the Earth because God will mightily and miraculously rescue Israel from slavery in Egypt? Obviously, it is the second of these options.

What do we talk about in Sunday School about God's power in this context. We talk about the exodus, not the destruction of Pharoah.

The material up to the potter account is clear: Paul is talking about Israel and he is talking about God hardening people to serve roles in this present world. If the "standard" view about the potter is correct, Paul suddenly drops the specificity of Israel and suddenly switches, unannounced, to a discussion about the eternal destinies of individuals.

Not really believable, I suggest.

No Drew. Pharaoh was a devil, like Judas; a son of perdition. Remember the angels who sinned. They are kept in prison. 2 Pe. 2:4 And remember hell was created for the devil and his angels. If God released a devil from prison for a time, and he hardened his heart so that he couldn't see so that he would not let the Israelites go, and he filled him with wrath so that he would go after them across the Red Sea ... it follows he was made for wrath, a vessel for destruction.

Now we are not talking about election in this case, though 'election' does come into it as Jacob was 'elected', but we would not say Pharaoh was 'elected'. One is either elected or not elected. No one is elected to be not elected, as you said elected to damnation, however you could say he was damned before he was born of course. Election is to a high office.

In verses 1-5, Paul is talking about his sorrow and anguish because his own people, his kinsmen, who were given so much, would not believe Jesus was the Christ, and he says he was so anguished that he would wish he was cut off for his kinsmens sake. He would give up his own life for them. But he says a hardening came over a part of Israel so that they could not see and would not believe in Jesus, and he goes on to say, God's word did not fail. Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants. God made the promise to Isaac - 'through Isaac shall your descendants be named' So, he says, the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

 

[MarkT]

Sorry I should have said 'elected' to be saints. 1 Co. 1:2, 1Co. 6:2, Ro. 1:7

He who is fully taught is a priest of the Most High - like his teacher - elected to an office. Remember how the disciples elected an apostle to replace Judas? Peter quoted the scripture, 'His office let another take' Acts 1:20 And Peter said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.' Acts 1:24 And so they cast lots for them and Matthias was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

 

[Drew]

No Drew. Pharaoh was a devil, like Judas; a son of perdition. Remember the angels who sinned. They are kept in prison. 2 Pe. 2:4 And remember hell was created for the devil and his angels. If God released a devil from prison for a time, and he hardened his heart so that he couldn't see so that he would not let the Israelites go, and he filled him with wrath so that he would go after them across the Red Sea ... it follows he was made for wrath, a vessel for destruction.

I am sorry but no one coming to the text without a pre-supposition will see Paul characterizing Pharoah as being hardened unto perdition - they will follow the text and draw the rather obvious inference that Pharoah is being hardened to oppose the release of the Jews from Israel - the great exodus. Again, one needs to let Paul tell us why Pharoah was hardened, not the other way around. And what does Paul say:

"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.

One doesn't need to a Biblical scholar to know that Paul is referring to the exodus here. God did not raise Pharoah up to send him to perdition - he would not need to be "raised up", that is made powerful, for that. As if the other arguments were not clear, I can add this one - "raising up" refers to Pharoah's ascent to a position of power. And it is only from a position of power that Pharaoh could resist the exodus.

Again, if you come to this text already committed to a particular belief about what Pharoah was hardened for, you will no doubt be able to "force" a "hardened to perdition" reading into it. But it is done at great expense - ignoring both the immediate context, and the wider Biblical context.

Perhaps God did "elect" Pharoah to be ultimately lost. But that is simply not the subject that Paul is addressing here.

 

[MarkT]

I am sorry but no one coming to the text without a pre-supposition will see Paul characterizing Pharoah as being hardened unto perdition - they will follow the text and draw the rather obvious inference that Pharoah is being hardened to oppose the release of the Jews from Israel - the great exodus. Again, one needs to let Paul tell us why Pharoah was hardened, not the other way around.

I didn't say he was hardened unto perdition. I said he was a devil. How did God show his power in Pharaoh? Paul tells us he hardened his heart. Pharaoh, the god-king, could not resist God's will. God directed his steps. As the proverb says, 'A man's mind plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps.' Pr. 16:9 That's why Paul goes on to answer the question, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?'

It's true Pharaoh would not release the Israelites. He was hardened alright; not only to the suffering of the Israelites but to the commandment to, 'Let my people go, that they may serve me.' Ex. 9:1 But in this case, the fact that he would not release them is entirely irrelevant to the salient point. No one can resist God's will. God has the right of the moulder over the moulded - Pharaoh in this case. He directed Pharaoh right into the Red Sea.

One doesn't need to a Biblical scholar to know that Paul is referring to the exodus here. God did not raise Pharoah up to send him to perdition - he would not need to be "raised up", that is made powerful, for that. As if the other arguments were not clear, I can add this one - "raising up" refers to Pharoah's ascent to a position of power. And it is only from a position of power that Pharaoh could resist the exodus.

I didn't say he raised Pharaoh to send him to perdition. I said Pharaoh was a son of perdition. Actually, I said he released Pharaoh from perdition for a time.

You're confusing Pharaoh's power with God's power.

First of all the Pharaoh's kingship was not created by God but by man. Pharaoh was the god-king ruler of Egypt. And the kingship was passed on to the sons of Pharaoh. So Pharaoh was born to be king. And 'raised' does not refer to Pharaoh's ascent to a position of power. Like I said, Pharaoh was born to the position. He inherited the position as soon as his father, the old Pharaoh died.

God 'raised' Jesus from the dead. Lazarus was 'raised' from the dead. We can see that they were raised from the non living to the living. That is, they went from the world of the dead to the world of the living.

In the same sense, when we read God 'raised' Pharaoh up, we can see he was raised from the non living to the living. In other words, Pharaoh was given life. Or to put it in human terms, he was born. It simply means God gave him life. Or we could say God made him a living being. He created him. He made him.

Perhaps Pharaoh was an angel from hell. I said he was a devil. Perhaps an angel who had left his proper dwelling. Or maybe he was in Hades and he was raised to the world of the living.

In any case, he was raised for God's purpose.

Again, if you come to this text already committed to a particular belief about what Pharoah was hardened for, you will no doubt be able to "force" a "hardened to perdition" reading into it. But it is done at great expense - ignoring both the immediate context, and the wider Biblical context.

Perhaps God did "elect" Pharoah to be ultimately lost. But that is simply not the subject that Paul is addressing here.

Again, I didn't say he was 'elected' to be lost.

 

[Bubba]

A interesting quote:

"...the real paradox of free will/determinism is that free will can exist only in a determined universe. In order to exercise our free will, our actions must have the potential to effect the outcome of events. Our actions cannot effect an event outcome unless there is a cause-effect relationship. Cause-effect is determinism." Edwin Ott

Bubba

 

[turnorburn]

When Christ returns would you go willingly, or as the scriptures say at the last trump
your going to be with him "If" your a believer, well if you chose not to believe
there's a place for you in a world of no choices

 

[Biblereader]

Free will.

We will be held responsible for what we do.

Hebrews 10:31

 

[Biblereader]

When Christ returns would you go willingly, or as the scriptures say at the last trump
your going to be with him "If" your a believer, well if you chose not to believe
there's a place for you in a world of no choices

WHERE in the bible does the LAST, and I mean LAST trumpet sound?
the seventh trumpet blows, in chapter 11, we see the inner door into the Most Holy of Heaven opened and we see the ark, while the 24 elders declare that the time of judgment has come.

Which is when the "rapture" of the saints is going to take place from what I can see.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changedâ€â€in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." (I Corinthians 15:50-54)

 

[mutzrein]

I thought the 'free will' raised by the op pertained to salvation.

I have no problem with free will being exercised by whomever chooses, when it comes to anything BUT the birth of man's spirit.

The man or woman who is not born of the Spirit is dead in trespasses and sin as scripture tells us. Of course they have the free will to do whatever they want in the realm of the flesh but it is impossible for them to CHOOSE life. Scripture plainly tells us that this birth is without the will of the flesh or 'human decision'.

And likewise the person who IS born of the Spirit has the free will to do what they want. Since they have been given the gift of (eternal) life, however, they are accountable for what they do with this gift.

Now as one who is born again, I can choose to sin or I can choose not to. BUT my choice is not determined by the 'law' written on the pages of a book, but by the Spirit which has written the law on the fleshy tablets of my heart. When I sin, it is an act of the flesh and therefore not of faith. The Spirit convicts me and leads me to repentance. Do I have the 'free' will to repent? Yes I believe so for I believe it is also possible for man to choose to continue to live 'outside' of faith and therefore remain in 'sin' even though he has received the Spirit.

 

[Vic C.]

Hello people, lets keep on topic.... Free Will. Thanks! Feel free to start a Last Trump topic in the End Times Forum. I'd like that. ;-)

 

[Bubba]

Free will.

We will be held responsible for what we do.

Hebrews 10:31

The Scripture is very clear that we are responsible for what we do, it is also clear that no one will come to God without first being regenerated by the Spirit and born again (1 Cor.2:14, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1-9).
It's about grace, Bubba