Predestination

[Drew]

]No it is not about the nation of Israel and God's treatment of her. Read the rest of the chapter, that alone will prove different.

No. The chapter is centrally concerned with God's treatment of Israel.

In Romans 9, Paul argues that God has been fair in His treatment of the Jews, even though one might think otherwise since most Jews persist in unbelief. Actually, the entirety of the argument extends past chapter 9 and includes chapters 10 and 11 as well. Although chapter 9 is frequently seen as the classic treatment of the doctrine of predestination of individuals to an ultimate fate, this is manifestly not the case. The issue on the table is Israel, not a theology of individual pre-destination

The rhetorical structure of the whole letter strongly supports the proposal that chapter 9 is about God’s treatment of Israel. The theme of God’s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant is woven throughout the first eight chapters, establishing at least the plausibility that covenantal issues in relation to Israel are in view in chapter 9. In chapters 1 through 4, Paul makes a covenantal argument, showing that God has been true to the covenant, despite the failure of the Jew to fulfill his covenantal obligations. From chapter 3:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be!

Without sufficient Biblical knowledge, it is easy to read this in a general way and omit the covenantal dimension that is clearly here. Paul is making a very specific statement about God entering into covenant with Jews to make them a light to the nations, and then that even though the Jews have failed in their side of the covenantal obligation to be a light to the nations, God will fulfill His and ensure that somehow they (the Jews) will indeed be such a light. The knowledgeable reader of Paul’s letter will, of course, ask (at this point in chapter 3): “Well then, Paul, how will God be faithful to this promise� Paul’s answer, as we will see, is given in chapter 9.

Let’s move on to Romans 4 through 8. To set this up, here is the 9:3-4 summary of the promises made to the Jews:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

In chapters 4 to 8, Paul has transferred these very same promises to the Jew + Gentile family of faith:

- Sonship (Romans 8);

- Glory (Romans 5 and 8);

- Covenants (Romans 4 and 8);

- Lawgiving (Romans 7 and 8);

- Worship (Romans 5:1â€â€5 and Romans 8);

- Promises (Romans 4);

- Patriarchs (Romans 4).

Let’s revisit. In chapter 3, Paul has said that the Jews have failed in their covenantal obligation to be a light to the world. Yet Paul has affirmed that if God promised that the Jews will be a light to the world, that promise will be honoured. And yet, in chapters 4 through 8, Paul has, surprisingly handed over all sorts of covenant promises, ostensibly for Israel, to this “new†Israel, constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

Paul is now is in a tough spot. The careful reader will want to know how God can be seen as honouring his promises to the Jews if these promises have come true for a group that excludes most Jews – namely the family of Christian believers. And the reader will still be awaiting an explanation of how God has been faithful to the specific promise that Jews will be a light to the nations.

And these are precisely the questions that Paul will answer in Romans 9. In short, Paul will argue (in Romans 9) that certain promises were never actually made to Jews in the first place (this responds to the questions raised by Paul’s transfer of covenant promises to the church (and away from the Jews) in chapters 4 through 8). And Paul will argue that the Jews have indeed become a light to the world by being hardened so that that world can be saved, just as a potter would harden a pot.

More in subsequent posts...

 

[Drew]

No it is not about the nation of Israel and God's treatment of her. Read the rest of the chapter, that alone will prove different.

Romans 9 through the first half of Romans 10 is a re-telling of the entire covenant history of Israel from Abraham to the exile and beyond. To the extent that this is shown to be the case, the view that the potter metaphor is a treatment of the election of some to loss and others to salvation is severely undermined. If Paul’s focus is God’s dealing with Israel, it is highly implausible that he would veer off topic to set forth his beliefs about the pre-destination of individual persons to salvation or loss, a matter with no specific connection to the Israel question.

Paul’s re-telling of the narrative of Israel is detailed and is presented in perfect chronological sequence and is summarized following:

• In chapter 9, verses 1 to 5, Paul expresses his grief at the state of his fellow Jews. So we already have an indication that what is to come will have an Israel focus;

• In verses 7 through 13, we get Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob. This is the beginning of the Israel story, set forth in precisely the correct sequence;

• In verses 15 through 18, we get Moses, Pharoah, and the events associated with the exodus;

• In verse 20, Paul is clearly alluding to the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah and their declarations that, like a potter, God has the right to mold Israel as He sees fit. This alone should be a strong indication that the vessels of destruction are unbelieving Jews – Paul uses the potter metaphor in accordance with Biblical precedent. It is used here in Romans 9, as in Isaiah and Jeremiah, in relation to Israel. It is only because people do not know their Bibles that they see the vessels of destruction as having no Israel-specificity. But, either way, note how we have moved past the exodus and are now in the times of the prophets – the covenant history continues.

• In verse 25, Paul quotes from Hosea 2, a text which deals with the threat of exile and the promise of restoration. And what happens at the time of restoration – God will say to those who were not His people (read: the Gentiles) that they are now indeed part of His family. This is clearly an allusion to various covenant promises in Genesis where Abraham is told that his seed – the Jews – will be “a light and blessing to the nationsâ€Â.

• In verses 27 and then again in verse 29, we have a reference to Isaiah’s teaching about a remnant who will come out from exile.

• And, of course, verses 31 to 33 bring us to Paul’s time – the Jews have stumbled over the Christ.

• So, in chapter 9 we have a detailed re-telling of Israel’s story, from Abraham to Isaac, to Jacob, to the exodus, to God’s warning about reshaping Israel like a pot, to exile and the promise of restoration, and finally to the Jewish rejection of the Christ.

• But the story does not end there. In 10:1-3, Paul continues with his treatment of the sad state of Israel in the present time (that is, Paul’s time). Clearly, the Jews are still in exile, even if they are physically back in Palestine.

• Now every Jew who knows his Old Testament should have been able to predict what comes after exile – covenant renewal! And that is exactly where Paul takes us. In Romans 10:6, he quotes from a famous passage from Deuteronomy that describes the mercy after exile.

• This is Paul’s vision and hope for the future of his kinsmen – that a remnant will escape the exile of their present unbelief and join the Gentile believer in proclaiming, as per Romans 10:13, that whoever (even the Jew!) calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Now, is this all a coincidence? Has Paul re-told the entire narrative of Israel, presenting all its important elements in the correct order, without intending to make an argument about how God is dealing with Israel? Of course not.

So, why would Paul interrupt this detailed and complex story of Israel, right in the middle of it (Romans 9:20), to insert an abstract theological statement about the pre-destination of individuals to an eternal fate, a matter with no Israel-specificity whatsoever? That simply does not make sense. The vessels of destruction are clearly unbelieving Jews. This connects to Paul’s lament about the Jews at the beginning of chapter 9. He explains the sad state of the Jews by explaining that God has hardened them, like a potter hardens his pot.

The potter account is not an abstract, non-historical treatment about God electing some to salvation and some to loss, before time even begins. The entire treatment here is clearly a history. It is the history of God’s dealing with Israel. Why would Paul send us back to the beginning of time (when the alleged “pre-dstination†takes place) right in the middle of what is clearly an historical account?

Well, he is doing no such thing. The potter account is part of that history – it is Paul telling us that God has hardened Israel to bring salvation to the world.

 

[Vic C.]

AN ILLUSTRATION OF GOD SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE WILL OF MAN

I want to make a 2nd post. I was thinking about Jonah. Jonah had the human will and chose to flee the presence of God. God had decreed Jonah would go to Ninevah.

Now if we assume that God does not control events, we can look for Jonah to win. In the exercise of his free will he would not end up in Ninevah. Well, you know the story, Jonah made certain choices. God made certain choices. Jonah had the ability to rebel against God, but God could choose at any time to overrule Jonah's choice. Human free will is meaningless when in the face of God's sovereign will.

Yet we will complain...
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'

We will always complain, we're human! All throughout the OT, they complained. Peter complained. At times Paul seems to be complaining.

Mondar, I do agree with your post. I also admit that I read "Human free will is meaningless..." and replaced meaningless with powerless in my head. I believe it best fits my conception of God's Sovereignty. A question I ask myself and occasionally ask here is:

Does God have the will to choose when and when not to exert His sovereignty?

 

[mondar]

Does God have the will to choose when and when not to exert His sovereignty?

Does God have the will to choose when and when not to bring about his own glory?

 

[joechrist]

Before God created us, he knew everything that we would do in our lives. He was also the creator and had complete control over the creation process. The only way for him to know every move that I will make throughout my life is if the path has already been laid. Here's my analogy. As an author of a book, you know each and every word, every move, every thought about the characters in the book. The reason you know everything that will happen in the book is because you wrote it and had complete control over would take place. Now it would be ridiculous for someone reading the book to say, well the author knew what would happen but didn't actually cause it to happen but just allowed it to happen. God knew exactly what I would do in my life because he wrote the book. Imagine you're God and you are about to create someone. Before you create them you think, well this guy is going to be a serial killer. How do you know that? Because that is the way you are going to create them. From the second that child enters this life, he has no choice but to be a serial killer because there is no alternative path but the one God has laid out for him. Is my analogy wrong?

 

[joechrist]

Discourse on predestination.
There are some exellent explanations put forth by some on how predestination and human will work together. What I am about to say is not new, but it is not directly borrowed from anyone. The general objection is that if God predestines evil, then does this not make God evil. The answer is no, God can ordain evil, and not participate in it. A good biblical illustration is Genesis 50.

In Genesis 50 Joseph spoke to his brothers that "you intended it for evil, but God intended it for good." The crime against Joseph in selling him into slavery was ordained by God for the deliverance of many from famine. While God intended this even for good, the brothers executed this decree from an evil heart. God did not have to magically make them more evil, they were already that way. So then, God decrees evil, but does not participate in evil. In fact he judges evil. He sent the Assyrians against Israel for their discipline, but then turned around and judged Assyria for its evil. Of course the greatest example of predestination is the atonement itself. God ordained that his own Son would be taken by evil men and horribly executed in a dishonest trial. Evil men meant it for evil, but God decreed this event for the salvation of many. God does not participate in evil, but he decrees evil so that he might show his power in judgement, and his goodness in turning evil into good. The decree does not make him evil. Let me illustrate.

My daughter once had a fascination with a stereo. She crawls up to it and plays with the knobs. I could raise the stereo out of her reach. I know someday she will knock it down and destroy that stereo. Yet I chose to leave the stereo within her reach. I know her nature, I know what is going to happen here. In essence, I have decreed the destruction of that stereo. That is an evil event. But I prefer teaching my daughter obedience. Now let me ask the same question twice...

1-- Am I guilty of the destruction of the stereo?
----------- Yes, it was within my control to prevent the destruction and I chose not to for a greater good, that is the teaching of obedience to my daughter.

2-- Am I guilty or the destruction of the stereo?
---------- No, while I could have prevented its destruction, it was not destroyed by my hands. In fact I disciplined my daughter many times trying to get her not to destroy the stereo.

God knew what would happen in the fall. Yet he chose to create Satan, Adam, and Eve. God knows the path of each atom (even each photon), and he has the ability to prevent evil. Yet he allows, even arranges that evil will happen, and then brings out of the evil event his own glory. God does not magically make men evil so that they will do evil. God does not assist evil men in doing their evil. But he has decreed, even predestined that evil will happen. If this were not true, then we who suffer evil are most unfortunate. We would then be forsaken by God. But since God is also in control of evil, and has even predestined it for his own glory, then I am not forsaken, but loved. Only then can "all things work together" for them who love God. If evil is outside Gods ability to control, how can I trust that God will in the end win? No, my God is completely sovereign, even sovereign over the will of man. This does not mean God directs mans will to be evil, but he knew what was to happen, and used it for his own glory.

In your illustration, if you knew the stereo would eventually fall on her and kill her, would you leave it there and let it happen? If so, would that be evil? You're not actually making it fall on her yourself, right?

 

[mondar]

In your illustration, if you knew the stereo would eventually fall on her and kill her, would you leave it there and let it happen? If so, would that be evil? You're not actually making it fall on her yourself, right?

As my daughters sovereign lord, I can do as I choose. However, because I love my daughter, if I thought the stereo would harm her, I would sovereignly choose to remove it from her reach.

But lets change the illustration. If it were Adolf Hitler, I would probably let the jerk die.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.

 

[mondar]

By the way JoeChrist, I thought your illustration of the book was fine. While I did not illustrate it in the same identical way, I think God's sovereignty is multifaceted and can be described in several ways.

But I wanted to talk to everyone about Job. Did God know Satan would destroy Jobs economy, his family, and his health? The shocking part of that story of Job is that God even went to the extent of provoking the destruction of Job. He said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, there is non like him in all the earth." Now remember, he said that to Satan. That was like waving the red cape in front of the bull. God knew how Satan would react when God said those things to Satan.

In the poetic section Job accuses God of doing all the thing that happened to him. Jobs friends accuse Job of sin. The narrative section says Job did not sin. There is a way that you can say that God did do those things because he actually did provoke them. But it was not God did not make Satan magically more evil. God did not assist Satan in hid destruction of Jobs hedge. The text does not say this, but I think in eternity, Satan will suffer Gods punishment for what Satan did to Job.

That OT book illustrates Gods sovereignty quite well. God can bring good upon us, or he can bring evil upon us. Either way, God is good, and God is completely sovereign. He is sovereign enough to allow Satan's rebellion and let it happen for his own glory.

 

[joechrist]

In your illustration, if you knew the stereo would eventually fall on her and kill her, would you leave it there and let it happen? If so, would that be evil? You're not actually making it fall on her yourself, right?

As my daughters sovereign lord, I can do as I choose. However, because I love my daughter, if I thought the stereo would harm her, I would sovereignly choose to remove it from her reach.

But lets change the illustration. If it were Adolf Hitler, I would probably let the jerk die.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.

If you did not choose to move the stereo, knowing that it would kill her, would that be evil?

 

[mondar]

If you did not choose to move the stereo, knowing that it would kill her, would that be evil?

As I said, I love my daughter. I would never let that happen to her.

I am not sure why you ask the question. I recognize all illustrations break down. Most of the apostles werre martyred, and chose to let them die, but that is not the same as in my illustration. I am not God. Let me say more...

He has the right to do with his creation as he pleases. I do not have that right to do with my daughter as it pleases me. I am a sinner, God is holy. God is the creator, I am a creature. Furthermore, God knows the moment and method of the death of each and every one of us. He has the power to prevent it. God lets death happen to each and everyone of us at some point.

Romans 5 tells us that the cause of our death is Adam's sin. We were all in Adam. We justly die. Sin entered into the world, and so death came upon all men. So then, the illustration breaks down because when God lets us die under the curse of Adam, he is still just. I would not be righteous to let my daughter die, but my sovereignty over my daughter is not like Gods sovereignty over creation.

Your illustration is more consistent. God wrote the book.

 

[Benoni]

Job 1:8And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you(N) considered my(O) servant Job , that there is none like him on the earth,(P) a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" 9Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason? 10Have you not put(Q) a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have(R) blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11But(S) stretch out your hand and(T) touch all that he has, and he will(U) curse you(V) to your face." 12And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

God is in control of all things; sure He limited what Satan could do; for a reason because God is always in complete control of all things to include Satan. But it was God who was the one who introduced Satan to Job “Have you(N) considered my(O) servant Jobâ€Â. It was God who took down the hedge from around Job so Satan to do his work on job. It was the process of tribulation and trial God was after; to prove Job.

Just like the Children of Israel: The Children of Israel could of taken 9 days to cross the wilderness. BUT No God led them for forty years. Now we are walking in this wilderness of life for the same reason:

Deut 8:1-2
All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers. 2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments. (KJV)

Satan was created by God not as an angel, but a murderer, a liar. Satan cannot have two beginnings.

 

[Ret]

The Children of Israel could of taken 9 days to cross the wilderness. BUT No God led them for forty years. Now we are walking in this wilderness of life for the same reason:

Galatians 3:24
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,
that we might be justified by faith. KJV

Exodus 20:20
20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come
to prove you, (test you - NASU) and that his fear may be before your faces,
that ye sin not. KJV


Life is a school....to both show and teach us who we are, because God already knows! The hidden depths of the natural, human heart and mind only come forth when under stress and trial. It is the heirs of the kingdom that are 'destined' - 'appointed' for these trials and afflictions.

1 Thessalonians 3:3-4
3 so that no one would be disturbed by these afflictions; for you yourselves know
that we have been destined (KJV-appointed) for this.
4 For indeed when we were with you, we kept telling you in advance that we were
going to suffer affliction; NASU

 

[Elijah674]

Original Topic: Re: Scriptural Evidences of Plurality in the Godhead, or the Three in One God + Their forknowledge. (not ours!)
By: Elijah674
There is little doubt that Christ is God/Christ/Son/Man. And He signals out God the Holy Spirit in John 16 as an EQUAL GOD PERSON a number of times as [HE].

Then in John 17 below we see Christ/God/Man praying to His now God/Father. This chapter has many truths in it. Even the predestined ones of both Their Godhead's forknowledge! And also finds THAT NOT ALL IN CHRISTS PRAYER WOULD BE SAVED, huh?

Just an off question here, OK? the ones brought to view here that are to be known eternally lost in Their forknowledge, do you believe that the Godhead allowed Christ to suffer & die for their sins knowing ahead of time that they would be lost? (you know, Lev. scape/goat?)

OK: John.17 in part..
[1] These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
[2] As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

[3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[4] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

[6] I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
(We see the documentation of the ones that were given here between all others! And that these were the ones in Christ's prayer only)

[7] Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

[9] I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

[10] And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
[11] And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

...


[20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

[21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Surely John when he penned the Eternal Godhead Doctrine of Christ in 2 John 1:9-11 knew full well the Fullness & UNITY of the Jehova God, Holy Spirit God and Christ God before His God/Son/Birth to become the Son of the Godhead! Psalms 1:7

--Elijah

 

[stranger]

Holding Predestination and man's responsibilty in tension.

Often it is argued that if God predestines some to eternal life, and either passes by others (leaving them as they are) or predestines them to hell (double predestination) that this takes away man's responsibility - indeed Paul says why does He still find fault? Paul's answer is simply - who are you to question God?

In redemption man is a responsible being. I think most would agree that there is ample evidence in scripture to support this, suffice to say that the Law of God presupposes man is accountable and responsible. But in redemption I would suggest that predestination is factored in in such a way that no violence is done to man's responsibility.That there is a tension between the two can acknowledged, and as I suggest held in tension while holding both doctrines to be true. Thus both Calvinist's and Armenians historically have a propensity to not be able to hold seemingly contradictory 'truths in tension'. Can either group say God predestines yet man is accountable and fully responsible?

blessings

 

[Elijah674]

Holding Predestination and man's responsibilty in tension.

Often it is argued that if God predestines some to eternal life, and either passes by others (leaving them as they are) or predestines them to hell (double predestination) that this takes away man's responsibility - indeed Paul says why does He still find fault? Paul's answer is simply - who are you to question God?

In redemption man is a responsible being. I think most would agree that there is ample evidence in scripture to support this, suffice to say that the Law of God presupposes man is accountable and responsible. But in redemption I would suggest that predestination is factored in in such a way that no violence is done to man's responsibility.That there is a tension between the two can acknowledged, and as I suggest held in tension while holding both doctrines to be true. Thus both Calvinist's and Armenians historically have a propensity to not be able to hold seemingly contradictory 'truths in tension'. Can either group say God predestines yet man is accountable and fully responsible?

blessings

Lost second death man can choose to be saved & MATURE like a child with the provisions that Christ has supplied. Phih. 3:14 + 2 Cor. 12:9. It is up to us! God knew & knows what the outcome was going to be in eternity, but not us. We know by faith! Heb. 11:13 And the motive for such? Is our LOVE for CHRIST! This is where the John 3:3 'Required' Born Again life starts, if it does? And Jude even documents that one can be Born Again & then still die the SECOND DEATH. TWICE DEAD he is Inspired to say.

--Elijah

 

[mondar]

Can either group say God predestines yet man is accountable and fully responsible?

I would disagree that Calvinists must deny mans responsibility. I am an unabashed Calvinist (Regular Baptist). My basis for saying that God predestined both the fall, and our later rebellion, and we are still accountable is this...

First, Adam as our federal representative head made the entire race guilty. The choice of Adam was untainted knowledge of good and evil from the perspective of rebellion (sin nature) until after his fall.

Second, Romans 1:20 says that we are responsible on the basis of Gods natural revelation.

Third, were are not only sinners by nature, but sinners by choice, and therefore responsible.

My conclusions is that we do not have to be a moral blank slate to be responsible for our rebellion.

 

[stranger]

Can either group say God predestines yet man is accountable and fully responsible?

I would disagree that Calvinists must deny mans responsibility. I am an unabashed Calvinist (Regular Baptist). My basis for saying that God predestined both the fall, and our later rebellion, and we are still accountable is this...

First, Adam as our federal representative head made the entire race guilty. The choice of Adam was untainted knowledge of good and evil from the perspective of rebellion (sin nature) until after his fall.

Second, Romans 1:20 says that we are responsible on the basis of Gods natural revelation.

Third, were are not only sinners by nature, but sinners by choice, and therefore responsible.

My conclusions is that we do not have to be a moral blank slate to be responsible for our rebellion.

Mondar,

Thanks for your response - unabashed Calvinist. As an aside let me ask you this: Where did Calvin get his authority from? The same question could be put to Luther - where did Luther get his authority from? Those who call themselves 'Reformed' are at a slight advantage over 'Calvinists' because the personal name brand 'Calvin' is set aside for a movement encompasses a much broader diversity of opinion and thought. Calvin has not been able to correct his writings - that's the trouble with being dead.

This is about how the typical Calvinists factors in man's responsibilty into predestination. I don't dispute that man is held accountable but does this accountability stop short of a man actually losing his salvation by his own hand?

It may be that for some reason the Lord becomes indignant towards a saint. As far as I am aware the response of faith would be to ask: Will Thou be indignant forever? Do you 'feel' what is resonating in this response?

blessings

 

[Serious Faith]

We know from scripture that it is God's will that none perish, but that all come to repentance. So God did not choose for anybody to go to hell. God knowing those who would choose to believe the Gospel, predestined them to inherit eternal life.

God has predetined that anyone who chooses to follow Jesus Christ to go to heaven.

 

[Elijah674]

AN ILLUSTRATION OF GOD SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE WILL OF MAN

I want to make a 2nd post. I was thinking about Jonah. Jonah had the human will and chose to flee the presence of God. God had decreed Jonah would go to Ninevah.

Now if we assume that God does not control events, we can look for Jonah to win. In the exercise of his free will he would not end up in Ninevah. Well, you know the story, Jonah made certain choices. God made certain choices. Jonah had the ability to rebel against God, but God could choose at any time to overrule Jonah's choice. Human free will is meaningless when in the face of God's sovereign will.

Yet we will complain...
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'

We will always complain, we're human! All throughout the OT, they complained. Peter complained. At times Paul seems to be complaining.

Mondar, I do agree with your post. I also admit that I read "Human free will is meaningless..." and replaced meaningless with powerless in my head. I believe it best fits my conception of God's Sovereignty. A question I ask myself and occasionally ask here is:

Does God have the will to choose when and when not to exert His sovereignty?

Elijah here: If that is the case then Being Born again is meaningless, for the Word in Jude states that these were twice dead, meaning that they had inded been reborn.

 

[Albert Finch]

There are passages of scripture that seem to suggest the course of a person's life is determined before the're born, as in the cases of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5) and Paul (Gal. 1:15). It is clear from these verses that God had a life plan for Jeremiah and Paul before they were born. This is evidence of exhaustively settled foreknowledge only if Jeremiah and Paul had no choice but to carry out God's plan. Why should we assume this, however? As Paul suggested to King Agrippa, he could have chosen to be "disobedient to the heavenly vision" by which he was called (Acts: 26:19). This alone suggests that God's "call" on a person's life isn't a guarantee that the person will follow Him.

Scripture is filled with examples of people who"rejected God's purpose for themselves" (Luke 7:30). The same is true of every person who refuses to enter God's eternal kingdom, for God wants "all to come to repentance" and be saved (2 Peter 3:9). The reality of sin and damnation, in other words, demonstrates that God's purposes do not always come about.
Hence, the fact that God intended a course of action for Jeremiah and Paul didn't guarantee that it would come about. Jeremiah and Paul were still free agents, despite God's unique calling on their lives.


Albert Finch