Predestination

[Drew]

drew:

As I am prepared to argue in hideous and no doubt annoying (to you,

You can argue and debate the Truth all you want, the truth remains and you are accountable for it before God !!

This is a statement with no argument or substance. I could equally way admonish you that you are to be held accountable for the error that you teach.

We all know that people who mislead others will be judged. But the question is this: Is Drew, or 57, doing the misleading?

I trust that the scriptural arguments will allow the reader to draw the correct conclusion.

 

[smaller]

Since the arguments I will present are indeed quite compelling, I suggest that you do not take such a rude and dismissive tone.

Oh, yeah. I forgot that you are allowed to BASH blinded Jews but if I protest then I am dismissive.

Were you NOT likewise BLINDED before SALVATION?

I have never denied that God can harden whoever He wants to harden.

GREAT. Now go COMPARE THAT FACT to what you just claimed above and you should be able to see your statement is patent baloney.

That has no impact on my argument - that in Romans 9, Paul is writing about a specifically historical hardening of Jews (and Jews only) by God.

Yeah, right. Except the examples given are PHARAOH and ESAU, NON - JEWS.

Your assertion here misses the point. God can, of course, do whatever He wants. But the point is that Romans 9 to 11 is a treatment about how God has hardened (most) Jews in order to set the stage for the events of the cross.

You can certainly continue to try and play it both ways. Even while admitting God can and does blind anyone He wants OTHER THAN BLINDED JEWS. And I will remain to point out the fact of your own facts, openly stated and that your claim IS false by your own lips.

As I will show, Romans 9 and the first bit of 10 presents a historical account of God's dealing with the nation of Israel. And central to that account is that God has, just like a potter, "hardened" the nation of Israel.

The warning you quote from Romans 11 does no damage at all to the position I am advancing - in fact if anything it supports it. In the text you quote, Paul is warning Gentiles to not look down on Jews even though God has indeed hardened them.

No, go read your own words above.

God can and does harden WHOMEVER He wants just AS YOU SAID, which makes your UNBELIEVING JEWS only position FALSE from your own lips.

Why argue for a postion that YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE or claim from your own statements? Is that supposed to make some SENSE?

Perhaps I sense A HARDENING in you against THEM?

s

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

This is a statement with no argument or substance

I have given you the Truth ! and will give more, of which you will be held accountable !

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

This is a tactic you repeatedly use

Because its being used on me !

 

[Drew]

Oh, yeah. I forgot that you are allowed to BASH blinded Jews but if I protest then I am dismissive.

I never posted anything that could reasonably be understood as "bashing" Jews. Please not misrepresent other posters.

GREAT. Now go COMPARE THAT FACT to what you just claimed above and you should be able to see your statement is patent baloney.

There is no inconsistency in anything I have written. So, again, it is interesting that the person who has made the error is suggesting that what the other person has written is "baloney"

You have made no actual case that I have made any inconsistent statements. The fact that God can and does harden people for his various purposes does not mean that God did not harden Jews in particular for a particular purpose in history. We shall shortly see that the case for this is quite powerful indeed.

Yeah, right. Except the examples given are PHARAOH and ESAU, NON - JEWS.

As I will show, the use of such "gentile" examples is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that Paul's fundamental conclusion in Romans 9 to 11 is that Jews have been hardened for a specific redemptive purpose.

And I will remain to point out the fact of your own facts, openly stated and that your claim IS false by your own lips.

You can claim whatever you like. The posts speak for themselves: I have made no inconsistent statements.

 

[Drew]

drew:



Because its being used on me !

Maybe so. But regardless of who uses it, it is an invalid form of argument.

 

[Drew]

No, go read your own words above.

God can and does harden WHOMEVER He wants just AS YOU SAID, which makes your UNBELIEVING JEWS only position FALSE from your own lips.

Why argue for a postion that YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE or claim from your own statements? Is that supposed to make some SENSE?

Perhaps I sense A HARDENING in you against THEM?

Let me try again: To agree that God can harden people of any race for His Own purposes does not mean that He did not harden the nation of Israel (or most of the nation of Israel) for a specific reason in His plan of redemption.

This is simple logic smaller - I am sorry if you do not like what I am saying, but the specific critique you are making here is not correct.

And your insinuation that I am anti-semitic is beneath my dignity to address.

 

[Drew]

The thesis that intend to argue for is basically this: In Romans, Paul makes the argument that God has hardened the nation of Israel, with the exception of a remnant, in support of His grand plan to solve the problem of sin and death through the work of Jesus on the cross. This argument is substantively made by Paul in Romans 9 through 11, although there are elements in Romans 5 and 9. In the course of making this argument, I will argue that the “vessels of destruction†in the famous potter metaphor of Romans 9 are not human beings in general, pre-destined to some eternal damnation, but rather disobedient Jews, who have rejected the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and, as a result, have been hardened by God for a strange, wonderful, and counter-intuitive purpose: that Israel will, as God promised Abraham, bless the nations. In God’s subtle plan, the way that Israel has blessed the nations has turned out to be a self-sacrificial one – God has used her as the place where the power of sin is concentrated, so that it can then be transferred to Jesus and condemned on the cross

 

[smaller]

The thesis that intend to argue for is basically this: In Romans, Paul makes the argument that God has hardened the nation of Israel, with the exception of a remnant, in support of His grand plan to solve the problem of sin and death through the work of Jesus on the cross. This argument is substantively made by Paul in Romans 9 through 11, although there are elements in Romans 5 and 9. In the course of making this argument, I will argue that the “vessels of destruction” in the famous potter metaphor of Romans 9 are not human beings in general, pre-destined to some eternal damnation, but rather disobedient Jews, who have rejected the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and, as a result, have been hardened by God for a strange, wonderful, and counter-intuitive purpose: that Israel will, as God promised Abraham, bless the nations. In God’s subtle plan, the way that Israel has blessed the nations has turned out to be a self-sacrificial one – God has used her as the place where the power of sin is concentrated, so that it can then be transferred to Jesus and condemned on the cross

Romans 9 makes NO SUCH limit:

Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Paul does apply this FACT to both JEW and GENTILE, not only in Romans 9 with the examples of NON-JEWS, but even to BELIEVERS who are in FAITH in Romans 11.

Your view is false and is IN FACT is the very position of the BRAGGART against THEM in faith whom God may VERY WELL elect to cut off via HARDENING.

s

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

Maybe so.

Its no maybe to it.

 

[smaller]

Let me try again: To agree that God can harden people of any race for His Own purposes does not mean that He did not harden the nation of Israel (or most of the nation of Israel) for a specific reason in His plan of redemption.

Then WHY are you making this claim when you in fact concede to your statement NOT being the case?

DREW states
"the "vessels of destruction" here are Jews and Jews only"

And DREW also states IT IS NOT JEWS ONLY.

This is simple logic smaller - I am sorry if you do not like what I am saying, but the specific critique you are making here is not correct.

No, I read DOUBLE DEALING. Sorry. You admit that GOD CAN HARDEN anyone and still claim ONLY JEWS. I see that as a clear example of BOASTING against them that is strictly FORBIDDEN in Romans 11 to BELIEVERS.

I also understand that the hardening may even be UPON YOU when you BOAST against them in this matter.

And your insinuation that I am anti-semitic is beneath my dignity to address.

Yeah, right. That is what every anti-semetic spirit claims.

The point is GOD HARDENS WHOM HE WILL and that assuredly does NOT apply to JEWS ONLY as YOU CLAIM.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

First, some matters of methodology. I trust we all agree that when reading Paul, our goal is to determine what he intended to communicate to us. In other words, I hope we all agree that we should not approach a text like Romans 9 with the objective of finding some statement(s) that can be used to endorse a theological position that we bring to the reading. Stated otherwise, whether or not God pre-destines some to salvation or some to loss, we need to remember that it is Paul, not us, who wrote Romans and that we need to let him dictate the terms of his argument. If the text of Romans 9, and the broader context of the book as a whole, shows us that he is making an argument about the hardening of Jews in particular, then clearly we not to let Paul have his say, whether we like it or not.

I assume that all parties will grant at least the possibility that Paul is making an argument about the hardening of the Jewish nation in particular in Romans 9 to 11. To not even grant this as a possibility to be considered is only defensible if, repeat if, this possibility has been otherwise ruled out elsewhere in Scripture.

No doubt there will be some who will not be willing to entertain the possibility I am suggesting simply because it clashes with their present understanding of Romans 9 to 11. Such people need to remember that it is Scripture that is authoritative, not their own desires about what it means, and they need to be open to the possibility that their view on Romans 9 to 11 is incorrect. And, of course, I direct this admonition to myself as much as to others.

Now for a tiny part of the argument: Whose fate does Paul lament at the very outset of Romans 9? The fate of all lost unbelievers? No. It is the fate of his fellow Israelites that he laments. While this only a tiny part of the overall argument, the notion that Jews have been hardened by God functions as one possible explanation for the state of affairs they are now in. If, in the middle of Romans 9, Paul actually writes of “vessels of destruction” that include Gentiles, the reader must then concede that Paul has left the specific Israel focus of his lament behind and has moved on to a treatment of mankind in general. While Paul could have done this, I suggest we will see that he has not – that there is every reason to believe that Paul is saying that the reason the Jews are in such a sad state is that, yes, God has hardened them.

 

[Drew]

Then WHY are you making this claim when you in fact concede to your statement NOT being the case?

DREW states
"the "vessels of destruction" here are Jews and Jews only"

And DREW also states IT IS NOT JEWS ONLY.

I am not prepared to repeat my clear explanation about how I am not making the error you claim I am.

I will engage other questions or critiques however. But I cannot improve on my previous explanation - sorry.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Predestination to hell is taught in 1 pet 2:

8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Its the same word used in 1 thess 5:

9For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Which denotes that some have been appointed to wrath and not to obtain salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ.

They were not appointed a Kingdom by Christ as per lk 22:29

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

Which Kingdom was Matt 25:

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

So, those who appointed to disobedience is from the same early date, from the foundation of the world, before they were born !

 

[Drew]

The broader context of the entire letter to the Romans supports the assertion that, in Romans 9, the vessels of destruction are hardened Jews. Even though this is often overlooked, the entire letter is suffused with the theme of the faithfulness of God to the Abrahamic covnenant – this is clearly seen in Romans 4, as just one example. More specifically, at various places in the letter (e.g. Romans 4) we see Paul arguing that God has indeed been faithful to that covenant. What is the goal of the covenant? Well, one of its goals, if not the major goal, is that “the nations” will be blessed through Abraham’s descendents.

Given all this, and given what Paul explicitly says in Romans 11 about how the “transgression” and hardening of the Gentile has had salvific implications for the broader Gentile world, one need not be a genius to see that Paul could well be arguing that the hardening of the Jew has been the means by which the nation of Israel has indeed blessed the Gentiles. This would fit perfectly into Paul’s thesis, developed throughout the letter, that God has indeed been faithful to the covenant. And what better way to express this notion than the following words:

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? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He (AU)prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Paul does not explicitly declare that the vessels of destruction are hardened Jews. This, of course, gives people the seeming liberty to read this text as an affirmation of a general, ahistorical, theology of “individual election to salvation or to loss”. But in a letter where Paul is clearly arguing that God has fulfilled the covenant, and where we should know that a major goal of the covenant is the blessing of Gentiles by Israel, and where, in chapter 11 no less, Paul explicitly states that most Jews have been intentionally led into a stupor of transgression by God so that Gentiles can be saved, the notion that the “vessels of destruction” are hardened Jews fits exceedingly well.

Remember, Paul does not explicitly identify who these “vessels of destruction” are. So one must make an actual case as to who they are - simply declaring them to be the pre-destined lost, both Jew and Gentile, is not a case. The evidence is mounting that these are indeed Jews, hardened to destruction in order to bless the Gentiles, thereby showing God to be a keeper of his covenantal promise.

 

[Vince]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? Part 1

Somewhere in this thread, someone quoted Proverbs 16:4

The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

Does this verse teach that God created a special brand of human, predestined to Hell before birth, and forced helplessly by God to sin? I'll be doing a brief study on this subject.

 

[Drew]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? Part 1

Somewhere in this thread, someone quoted Proverbs 16:4

The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

Does this verse teach that God created a special brand of human, predestined to Hell before birth, and forced helplessly by God to sin? I'll be doing a brief study on this subject.

By the way, just in case there is any confusion, although I do believe that Paul teaches that God has hardened Jews, I am not saying that these Jews did not otherwise freely start to walk down the path of disobedience.

I do not believe the scriptures teach that anyone is pre-destined to ultimate loss.

 

[savedbygrace57]

vince:

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN?

There is no such thing as innocent men. All men are sinners.

rom 3:

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

 

[Vince]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 2

We have already seen that predestination to Hell is a philosophy of men, but could this philosophy be true anyway?

Psalm 145:9 will be a key verse in this study, as we see that God did not create anyone to be a innocent victim of His wrath.

The LORD is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.

 

[Drew]

I realize there are a lot of sub-discussions going on here, but I want to continue to my argument about the potter metaphor of Romans 9.

Many see the potter metaphor as a treatment of the fact that God has pre-destined some to salvation and some to loss. However, there is another reading that makes more sense in context, namely that the metaphor alludes to a event that takes place in the course of “this-worldly†history – the hardening of the nation of Israel.

Romans chapter 9 through to the first half of chapter 10 is clearly and inarguably a recounting of the covenant history of Israel. This is easy to see – the treatment begins with Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Pharaoh and the exodus, then threats of exile and promises of restoration (in verse 25, Paul quotes from Hosea 2, a text which deals with the threat of exile and the promise of restoration), then the present state of the Jews (at the beginning of Romans 10), then finally covenant renewal (in verse 8, Paul quotes from a famous covenant renewal passage in Deuteronomy 30) and the ingathering of the Gentiles (in the middle of chapter 10, Paul says: “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

This is clearly a re-telling of the history of Israel and God’s dealings with her – how can anyone possibly dispute this? A number of key events in Israel’s history are laid out – in the proper sequence no less – concluding with what the Old Testament tells us will happen when Israel’s history reaches its climax – the Gentiles will be blessed. Now in the middle of a detailed, comprehensive treatment of Israel’s history, we have the potter metaphor. Now how likely is it that Paul has abandoned the clear focus on Israel and her history and has mysteriously veered off into a treatment of pre-destination – a subject that has no Israel specificity and is located at the very beginning of history. No competent writer would do that. This alone should undermine the notion that the potter metaphor deals with pre-destination.

But there is also the “mission†theme of Romans 10 and 11 where, respectively, Paul advocates for evangelism of Jews and Gentiles. If God has pre-destined all to some eternal destiny, then why in the world is Paul talking about an evangelistic activity that would, of course, be entirely inconsequential if Paul really does embrace predestination. No – Paul uses the potter metaphor to describe a temporary hardening of the nation of Israel in the middle of her history and then, in advocating for evangelism to Jews in chapter 11, he demonstrates that the time of this hardening has passed.

Seeing the potter metaphor as a treatment of the temporary hardening of Jews in history makes perfect sense in context – the potter metaphor is written smack-dab in the middle of a treatment of Israel’s history. Seeing it as a treatment of pre-destination entails Paul leaving the flow of his Israel history, making a statement about a general theological principles, and then reverting to the main flow of the Israel history. This is simply not plausible for a careful writer like Paul. And, as stated, why advocate for evangelism to either Gentile (chapter 10) or Jew (chapter 11) if ultimate salvation has already been worked out at the beginning of time?