bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,160
1,805
✟794,653.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Turn to God in the jungle when they are not going to be hearing anything about Christ?
Again Bling, your in opposition to God's words.
The natural observable revelation of God's power in creation in Romans 1, God says is a judgement against the natural mind of man, who refuse to acknowledge Him in creation. Fact is if you do not know Christ or rather Christ does not know you, you do not know God. The noble jungle guy will have no faith in Christ whom God sent. The gospel actually demonstrates predestination in its effectual working, because God arranges some to hear, and others do not hear anything..because they were not sent there.

Romans 10
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Here is what we have concerning those that never hear the gospel:

Ro 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

For the most part scripture is given to those that have access to it and you cannot just apply scripture to those that do not have scripture, God will judge their hearts.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,160
1,805
✟794,653.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Acts 16:6
[ The Macedonian Call ] Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia.

Acts 16:7
After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them.
8 So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.
Acts 16:9
And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”

Acts 16:10
Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.

If your desire is for the Spirit to lead you to the very best place at a particular time to maximize your impact, you can expect barriers to places you will not be as effective in and places where the Spirit has already led others to. It does not mean those you’re kept from going to at the moment are not part of the elect, but the timing may not be right or others are going that way.
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
Here is what we have concerning those that never hear the gospel:

Ro 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

For the most part scripture is given to those that have access to it and you cannot just apply scripture to those that do not have scripture, God will judge their hearts.

If their thoughts defend them, that does not mean they are righteous to God in His eyes.
We only get righteousness with God by faith in Christ today, not by our thoughts.

Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the spirits.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Proverbs 21:2
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But theLord weighs the hearts.

Romans 1 here, you can not just throw away.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

Without you being in Christ, on the Day of judgement, God will find you wanting and you will be going to the fire. In the OC, God (Christ) led the people out of Egypt. The world does not know God, because the world does not know Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
1 Corinthians 10:1-5New King James Version (NKJV)
Old Testament Examples Christ was God following the people.
Remember the fiery pillar by night and the cloud by day? Christ was there with them.

10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
Exodus 13:21
And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night.

The Lord here was Christ, unless you think Paul wrong.
The world talks about 'God' but this 'god' is something other than the true God and Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is some kind of generic false 'god' they prefer. The world won't get as offended if you talk of other 'gods', but if you talk of Christ as God, and Him the only true God, then they take offense.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,160
1,805
✟794,653.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If their thoughts defend them, that does not mean they are righteous to God in His eyes.
We only get righteousness with God by faith in Christ today, not by our thoughts.

Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the spirits.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Proverbs 21:2
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But theLord weighs the hearts.

Romans 1 here, you can not just throw away.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

Without you being in Christ, on the Day of judgement, God will find you wanting and you will be going to the fire. In the OC, God (Christ) led the people out of Egypt. The world does not know God, because the world does not know Christ.

You and I are only righteous in God’s eyes through Jesus, but that is not addressing those that never know of Jesus. Maybe Jesus can be seen in nature also or maybe God gives revelation to those humbly sincerely wanting God’s help. God looks at the hearts of people and not what they show outwardly or how they feel about themselves.

Are you limiting God’s power and Love to only those that have scripture?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,372
✟241,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The nature of the creature (and the inclinations which necessarily accompany a particular nature) necessitates inclinations. Those inclinations play out in choices made out of the will of the creature.

Nature and inclinations necessitate inclinations? That doesn't make any sense.

Do you consider yourself a Calvinist? For Calvin, one's nature and inclinations necessitate one's acts.

Calvinists do not believe that we couldn't act differently in every particular instance.

Yes, they certainly do. The central point of Calvin's treatise against Pighius is to affirm necessity of the will but to deny coercion. How does he understand necessity? Let me quote a paper from Calvin Studies:

Central to [Calvin's] case is the distinction between necessity and coercion.[74] Necessity he defines as "a fixed, steady state in which a thing cannot be otherwise than it is." He agrees with Aristotle that necessity is the opposite of "the existence of alternative possibilities" (335). The necessity to sin means that sinners cannot other than sin. (Lane, 31)
For Calvin, our acts are governed by a necessity such that every act "cannot be otherwise than it is." This necessity precludes "the existence of alternative possibilities." For more evidence that Calvin believes in necessity, see here and especially here.

Within the frame work of our cursed and fallen nature we have the choice to do good or bad. Some choices made by fallen man are good and some are bad.

If Calvin heard this he would call you a heretic. You here contradict Total Depravity:

It follows from the universal corruption of human nature that no good will is possible before the operation of grace. Calvin argues this at length, appealing repeatedly to Augustine.[57] Augustine teaches that fallen humanity is "unable not only to will or resolve anything good, but even to conceive the thought of it" (325) (Lane, 28)​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

John3and30

New Member
Jul 8, 2017
4
0
44
South Carolina
✟17,904.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God’s Love would compel God to predestine/foreordain most everything in each mature adult’s life, so that individual would have a fair/just autonomous free will choice to accept or reject God’s invitation to the banquet (God’s pure charity). Just because some are born, rich, poor, slaves, man, woman, Jew, gentile and so on: really makes no difference when it come to the only autonomous free will choice each mature adult must make: Accepting or Rejecting God’s charity (help/grace/mercy/Love/forgiveness).

The poor hurting mature adult in the jungle can see a benevolent Creator in nature and humbly turn to God to relieve the burden on his conscience for his personal past actions that have hurt others, so would God be willing and wanting to help him or wish him to go to hell?

The choices it not some noble decision to follow or not follow God or heaven or hell, but the choice to wimp out, give up and surrender to your enemy (God) or hang in there, be macho, take the punishment you fully deserve, pay the piper, pursue the perceived pleasures of sin and continue to be a good soldier of satan.

Thank you for the reply, brother.

There is a ton of "theological meat" to your comments and so I'd like to just share a few of my thoughts in response. I pray that the Holy Spirit convicts me of wrong-teaching if there is any contained herein:

1) I do not, in any way, believe that if you hold to and "Arminian Soteriology" or a "Calvinist Soteriology" that it ultimately has anything to do with whether or not you are saved. Just want to put that out there.

I thoroughly enjoy the discussion but, at the end of the day, if you believe and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that He died on the cross for your sin, you will be saved.

Also, please forgive me if I misinterpret anything you have written and feel free to shed light there. It's sometimes difficult over the web.

2) God's love is something that is, at the deep levels, unsearchable (Romans 11:33). While we can look to scripture and certainly see wonderful revelation of the aforementioned, there are always going to be elements that we just cannot comprehend or understand.

What we do know is that God IS love, He IS justice, He IS mercy. His very Being is the sheer definition of all the above.

This ultimately comes down to...does God make the decision? Or do we make the decision? Is it God's choice? Or is it our choice? God has created the constructs through which we make decisions, we haven't. God created all of the pathways by which our neurons fire, through which our intellect functions and He sends His Holy Spirit to call upon us.

On one level, I completely agree that there is a just/fair choice...fair enough...but NOT in the ultimate sense. Only in the humanistic sense. God has created and allowed free will for us but it is NOT totally autonomous for the reasons mentioned previously.

You and I made certain choices that brought us to this very website to type what we are typing BUT we didn't make the website, the keyboards, the devices, etc etc. The more you push that back the more you find that God is at the beginning of it...not man...not you and I.

So if the position is that after ALL those things are considered, including the calling from the Holy Spirit, we still "make a choice" well, I can agree there, but it isn't a completely autonomous choice...it is a choice within boundaries.

3) If we point to the fact that God's love might "compel" Him to make certain decisions that allow us to make autonomous decisions and yet some DON'T choose Him...then we are forced into the philosophical and theological difficulty of irresistible vs resistible grace/love...in other words, how could God's ultimate love be resistible?

My only point here is that both positions have difficulties within them. Not to say that my position is without difficulty. It certainly is.

4) And, of course, most importantly, I think that Romans 9:11-24 if the absolute clearest scripture on the subject (and the preceding context of the entire letter to the Romans).

Even if I am completely uncomfortable with some of what is written, which I am in a sense, I'm not sure how we can interpret this differently than some have been predestined for "mercy" and others for "hardednening".

God bless my friend. Look forward to your thoughts and I am always open to changing my position if you could show, from the scriptures, where I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,160
1,805
✟794,653.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for the reply, brother.

There is a ton of "theological meat" to your comments and so I'd like to just share a few of my thoughts in response. I pray that the Holy Spirit convicts me of wrong-teaching if there is any contained herein:

1) I do not, in any way, believe that if you hold to and "Arminian Soteriology" or a "Calvinist Soteriology" that it ultimately has anything to do with whether or not you are saved. Just want to put that out there.

I thoroughly enjoy the discussion but, at the end of the day, if you believe and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that He died on the cross for your sin, you will be saved.

Also, please forgive me if I misinterpret anything you have written and feel free to shed light there. It's sometimes difficult over the web.

2) God's love is something that is, at the deep levels, unsearchable (Romans 11:33). While we can look to scripture and certainly see wonderful revelation of the aforementioned, there are always going to be elements that we just cannot comprehend or understand.

What we do know is that God IS love, He IS justice, He IS mercy. His very Being is the sheer definition of all the above.

This ultimately comes down to...does God make the decision? Or do we make the decision? Is it God's choice? Or is it our choice? God has created the constructs through which we make decisions, we haven't. God created all of the pathways by which our neurons fire, through which our intellect functions and He sends His Holy Spirit to call upon us.

On one level, I completely agree that there is a just/fair choice...fair enough...but NOT in the ultimate sense. Only in the humanistic sense. God has created and allowed free will for us but it is NOT totally autonomous for the reasons mentioned previously.

You and I made certain choices that brought us to this very website to type what we are typing BUT we didn't make the website, the keyboards, the devices, etc etc. The more you push that back the more you find that God is at the beginning of it...not man...not you and I.

So if the position is that after ALL those things are considered, including the calling from the Holy Spirit, we still "make a choice" well, I can agree there, but it isn't a completely autonomous choice...it is a choice within boundaries.

3) If we point to the fact that God's love might "compel" Him to make certain decisions that allow us to make autonomous decisions and yet some DON'T choose Him...then we are forced into the philosophical and theological difficulty of irresistible vs resistible grace/love...in other words, how could God's ultimate love be resistible?

My only point here is that both positions have difficulties within them. Not to say that my position is without difficulty. It certainly is.

4) And, of course, most importantly, I think that Romans 9:11-24 if the absolute clearest scripture on the subject (and the preceding context of the entire letter to the Romans).

Even if I am completely uncomfortable with some of what is written, which I am in a sense, I'm not sure how we can interpret this differently than some have been predestined for "mercy" and others for "hardednening".

God bless my friend. Look forward to your thoughts and I am always open to changing my position if you could show, from the scriptures, where I could be wrong.

OK lets address the problems:

  1. You said: “God created all of the pathways by which our neurons fire, through which our intellect functions and He sends His Holy Spirit to call upon us.” And use this to support the conclusion “it is NOT totally autonomous for the reasons mentioned previously”.



    Like I said God can control/predestine/foreordain for each individual most everything. But could God being all powerful miraculously allow one area of every adult mature adult mind to be totally autonomous free will, if it was needed?

  2. Most individual’s choices are insignificant, so they can be fully God’s choice and not cause an issue and God would have to control most scenarios to allow the fair/just choice by each individual to accept or reject His help.

  3. The call of the spirit is the invitation to the banquet which we know some will foolishly reject.

  4. I agree the choice is extremely limited, but the choice is just to give up, wimp out and surrender or be macho, hang in there, be willing to pay the piper, be willing to take the punishment you fully deserve and remain a good soldier of satan.

  5. You said: And, of course, most importantly, I think that Romans 9:11-24 if the absolute clearest scripture on the subject (and the preceding context of the entire letter to the Romans).
I have taught Ro. 9 at length in several adult classes, but it takes time, which I am willing to devote to you, but I teach mainly by asking questions, so are you willing to give thoughtful answers?

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking a question and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.


The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!


This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).


Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?


If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?


This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.


Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”


Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?


Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?


Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?


Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?


The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).


How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.


Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.


Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!


The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.


If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.



Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is a great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
 
Upvote 0

John3and30

New Member
Jul 8, 2017
4
0
44
South Carolina
✟17,904.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK lets address the problems:

  1. You said: “God created all of the pathways by which our neurons fire, through which our intellect functions and He sends His Holy Spirit to call upon us.” And use this to support the conclusion “it is NOT totally autonomous for the reasons mentioned previously”.



    Like I said God can control/predestine/foreordain for each individual most everything. But could God being all powerful miraculously allow one area of every adult mature adult mind to be totally autonomous free will, if it was needed?

  2. Most individual’s choices are insignificant, so they can be fully God’s choice and not cause an issue and God would have to control most scenarios to allow the fair/just choice by each individual to accept or reject His help.

  3. The call of the spirit is the invitation to the banquet which we know some will foolishly reject.

  4. I agree the choice is extremely limited, but the choice is just to give up, wimp out and surrender or be macho, hang in there, be willing to pay the piper, be willing to take the punishment you fully deserve and remain a good soldier of satan.

  5. You said: And, of course, most importantly, I think that Romans 9:11-24 if the absolute clearest scripture on the subject (and the preceding context of the entire letter to the Romans).
I have taught Ro. 9 at length in several adult classes, but it takes time, which I am willing to devote to you, but I teach mainly by asking questions, so are you willing to give thoughtful answers?

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking a question and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.


The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!


This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).


Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?


If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?


This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.


Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”


Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?


Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?


Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?


Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?


The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).


How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.


Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.


Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!


The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.


If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.



Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is a great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

This will take me some time to read through, consider and respond but I will do so. I understand the context of Romans and is precisely why I mentioned it but I do agree there are tons of in depth considerations necessary.

Romans 9 isn't the only argument, by the way, but we'll keep it there for now re: direct language of predestination, election.

That said, I still think we have a point of agreement but it's the extremely small difficulties that divide here...

Re: item 1...if God "allows it when needed" then it still goes back to Him allowing it...no? Which means it isn't totally autonomous...it is only autonomous within the allowed construct.

It still always and ultimately goes back to "God did it" in the end. Even with the "choice" God still chose to allow the "choice"...which means He predestined the allowance of the "choice"...

God could of ordained:

1) None are saved
2) ALL are saved
3) Some are saved

For many many reasons 3 is the clear revelation IMO...even though we, of course, do not know how many.

One additional item is that I also believe scripture clearly teaches that we would ALL choose to deny God if only our humanistic nature was involved. God's sovereign Spirit helps the elect to actually make the correct choice in following Him and accepting His grace. Romans 3:10-11, Matthew 11:27, Mark 10:17-30 (Luke 18:18-30). In other words, it comes back to Him...not us.

Anyways, I will certainly take the time to read through and consider what you've written re: Romans 9. The first reading to me, doesn't really "refute" my previously mentioned interpretation of the passage...it just provides additional context...IMO.

Thank you again for the interaction and time taken.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Here is what we have concerning those that never hear the gospel:

Ro 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

For the most part scripture is given to those that have access to it and you cannot just apply scripture to those that do not have scripture, God will judge their hearts.
This has NOTHING to do with those who do not hear the gospel. You are way off on your understanding of these verses.

This is about the Jew and Gentile/ Law and grace.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,160
1,805
✟794,653.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This will take me some time to read through, consider and respond but I will do so. I understand the context of Romans and is precisely why I mentioned it but I do agree there are tons of in depth considerations necessary.

Romans 9 isn't the only argument, by the way, but we'll keep it there for now re: direct language of predestination, election.

That said, I still think we have a point of agreement but it's the extremely small difficulties that divide here...

Re: item 1...if God "allows it when needed" then it still goes back to Him allowing it...no? Which means it isn't totally autonomous...it is only autonomous within the allowed construct.

It still always and ultimately goes back to "God did it" in the end. Even with the "choice" God still chose to allow the "choice"...which means He predestined the allowance of the "choice"...

God could of ordained:

1) None are saved
2) ALL are saved
3) Some are saved

For many many reasons 3 is the clear revelation IMO...even though we, of course, do not know how many.

One additional item is that I also believe scripture clearly teaches that we would ALL choose to deny God if only our humanistic nature was involved. God's sovereign Spirit helps the elect to actually make the correct choice in following Him and accepting His grace. Romans 3:10-11, Matthew 11:27, Mark 10:17-30 (Luke 18:18-30). In other words, it comes back to Him...not us.

Anyways, I will certainly take the time to read through and consider what you've written re: Romans 9. The first reading to me, doesn't really "refute" my previously mentioned interpretation of the passage...it just provides additional context...IMO.

Thank you again for the interaction and time taken.

OK God allowing it, does limit it in that respect. I would also add: God will take this free will choice back if the person reaches the point he/she will never accept God’s charity in the form of forgiveness, which God would know when the person was given fully the opportunities he/she needed and refused.

Allowing the choice is not the same as making the choice for the individual. There has to be a real choice to be made and for mature adults the real alternative choice is to pursue the perceived pleasures of sin for a season. If God gave us all the choice: “Love Me forever in heaven or go to hell”, that would not be a real choice and the Love you loved God with would not be Godly type Love.

You say: God could of ordained:

1) None are saved

2) ALL are saved

3) Some are saved

God wants all those that want to go to heaven to go to heaven, but some would not like heaven and so they do not get to go and they have proved they do not like heaven by continually refusing God’s Charity (Love/grace/mercy) in the form of forgiveness. They do not want to be “Loved” unconditionally/unselfishly/undeservingly, yet Heaven is one huge Love feast of only unselfish type Love, so they would not be happy there.

You say: “I also believe scripture clearly teaches that we would ALL choose to deny God if only our humanistic nature was involved”

I agree the nonbeliever is hell bound so there is no reason for him/her to choose God who is sending them to hell, so that is not the choice the person is making. The choice being made is: to wimp out, give up and surrender. At the moment a soldier surrenders, he is not joining his enemy and his enemy is still his enemy. The soldier can truly believe he will be destroyed by his enemy even after surrendering, since he has done many war crimes, but the soldier is fully willing to humbly accept his enemies pure charity if that is possible. That turning/willingness to accept pure charity (Love) is all that is needed.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,160
1,805
✟794,653.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This has NOTHING to do with those who do not hear the gospel. You are way off on your understanding of these verses.

This is about the Jew and Gentile/ Law and grace.
I am seeing it as being in the context, so what is said about those who never hear the gospel?
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Nature and inclinations necessitate inclinations? That doesn't make any sense.
How about this? "Every creature has a nature. The nature of a creature necessitates inclinations. Every nature has a peculiar set of inclinations which accompany it. Those inclinations play out in the choices made out of the will of the creature."

I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. Don't be disingenuous.
Do you consider yourself a Calvinist?
I prefer "a born-again Reformed premillennial charismatic" - if I really have to take on just one or a few descriptive words to describe myself for the purpose of these conversations.

I do not subscribe to every word Calvin ever wrote – nor do most so called Calvinists agree with them. Calvin himself argued against limited atonement as it is usually presented today. Most 5-pointers would disagree with Calvin on the universal nature of the atonement. Whether they can justify taking the name of “Calvinist” in that case, I’ll let others decided.

To be fair - Calvin vacillated on this doctrine over time. I don't know any good theologian who is afraid to revisit his beliefs from time to time.

I, like Calvin before me, also do not subscribe to limited atonement in the TULIP acronym.

I would also nuance the other 4 points of TULIP much more than they usually are - if I was using that particular crutch to teach - which I try to stay away from.

But with those caveats - yes - you could call me a Calvinist if it helps move the conversation along.
**Calvinists do not believe that we couldn't act differently in every particular instance.
They simply believe what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach that every natural man's inclination is against seeking and understanding God.
Yes, they certainly do. For Calvin, one's nature and inclinations necessitate one's acts. The central point of Calvin's treatise against Pighius is to affirm necessity of the will but to deny coercion. How does he understand necessity? Let me quote a paper from Calvin Studies:

Central to [Calvin's] case is the distinction between necessity and coercion.[74] Necessity he defines as "a fixed, steady state in which a thing cannot be otherwise than it is." He agrees with Aristotle that necessity is the opposite of "the existence of alternative possibilities" (335). The necessity to sin means that sinners cannot other than sin. (Lane, 31)

For Calvin, our acts are governed by a necessity such that every act "cannot be otherwise than it is." This necessity precludes "the existence of alternative possibilities." For more evidence that Calvin believes in necessity, see here and especially here.
Note the highlight in my quote you are referring to here. I specifically said that Calvinists do not say that a fallen person can make only each and every one of the choices they eventually make in their life.

Rather Calvinist pointedly teach that predestination in no way eliminates or, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, "does violence" to the will of men.

Note also the part I highlighted in your quote above. A strong distinction between necessity and coercion is something which Calvin (and most every so called Calvinist today) try to stress.

And yet in your presentations you use the two words necessity and coercion as if they amount to the exact same thing. You are not alone in misrepresenting Calvinists in this way. It is all too common. It is also a straw man of the highest degree.

If you would make it a point to say that Calvinists do not believe in the coercion of God concerning the will of men, then you and I would have no problem. But you make no such point. Rather - you accuse Calvinists of believing in God's coercion of man to make him sin.

That - of course - is against what the scriptures teach and particularly it would violate the nature of God. We both almost undoubtedly agree on that point.

In the above quote you say correctly that Calvin says that "a thing cannot be otherwise than it is". That is true. That was his and my position.

Then you say that that means that Calvinists agree with Aristotle in saying that they do not believe in the "existence of alternative possibilities",

That is your straw man again. Calvinists do believe in the existence of alternative possibilities and they say so over and over again as I am saying here.

They purposefully stress that the decree or predestination of everything which happens in no way eliminates the will of man.

You wrongly conflate (just as anti-Calvinists usually do) what Calvinists believe and what Calvinists teach "amounts to"in your opinion - with what they actually say and teach.
If Calvin heard this he would call you a heretic. You here contradict Total Depravity:
Not so.

Rather he would applaud my defense against the straw men arrayed against us.

I do not contradict Total Depravity rightly understood.

Total depravity means simply that every aspect of fallen man's being is affected negatively by sin. It does not mean that men can choose no relative good at all or can do no relative good at all.

It certainly does not mean, as you assert, that men do not have so called "free will" at all. I suppose we could debate exactly how “free” the will can be in our condition. But then there have already been many books written on that subject from a secular standpoint as well as a Christian standpoint.

Total depravity does mean that men continually sin in some way in everything they do in their natural nature and that (their concept of good being flawed as it is) they are not able to do anything which is truly good in the perfect eyes of God.

For example - A fallen man can give to charity and it seems good to him and even seems good to those around him. But he is really doing it for what he will gain from it - even if that gain is simply the twinge of pride which comes from giving to charity.

Thus man can be relatively good but not truly good.

However, regarding things pertaining to salvation, fallen men do not seek God and indeed cannot even understand the things of God properly - as the scriptures clearly teach.
It follows from the universal corruption of human nature that no good will is possible before the operation of grace.
With the caveats above - that is a correct rendition of Calvinist teachings - i.e. grace comes before faith.

By the way I will not respond to each and every quote you dig up from either Calvin himself or from so called Calvinists of today.

In all likelihood there are thousands of things said by Calvinists which are wrong or at least need more than a little polishing. The same could be true for anti-Calvinist's statements I could dig up.

I will, however, address general and overall Calvinist doctrine vs. general and overall anti-Calvinist doctrine.

I.e. the decreed predestination of every choice made by men vs. the so called free will of men to make those choices. Which doctrines I have said I do not believe to be at odds.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Newlyrestoredgospel777

Active Member
Aug 9, 2017
116
10
36
Perth
✟13,903.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My thought is this:

God knows all things. He can see into the future and know who will and will not accept him. This in his knowledge he has predestined those whom he knew would accept his message. This does not negate free will, as it merely states God knows who will accept him.

God clearly wants all people to be saved. So either his will is unable to do as it pleases. Or all people will be saved regardless of faith (Universalism) Or there is another aspect at play here.

God reaches out to all people in love. Each person must respond to the call. God in his foreknowledge knew who would respond and thus the person has been "foreknown and predestined".

GOD knows the end from the beginning. HE has seen all things. When you transgress the LAW, the GOD is not seeing that for the first time, HE has seen it from the foundation of the world. That is what it means to be all seeing. I would refer you to the parable of the sower in which the GOD in HIS incarnate Manifestation as JESUS our Supreme LORD reveals that there is the tare which the Farmer did not sow. It is the wheat only which the GOD sowed. A Wheat is a child of the kingdom, while a tare is a child of disobedience. The disobedient children are defining darkness.

These tares are of the same origins as lucifer and cohorts. This reveals that they too were not sown by the GOD of Creation. This is the reason for the verse John 8:44 because they come from the same place, the Abyss. The Abyss is any place the GOD has removed HIS presence from and is the destination appointed for those children of disobedience and lucifer and cohorts, which are tares because that is where they came from.

Therefore, the Kingdom of GOD is only for HIS children, which are known by the GOD from the foundation of the world. GOD does not control their actions, rather, gives them free will. They were housed in the Bosom of the Father where they were taught the Laws and Statutes of GOD (Jer 31:33)
until the time came when the GOD sent them (The Spirit Being) programmed into the soul to pick up a body from their parents (pair rents) which are the pair the child has rented to come into the earth and run their race. (Isaiah 9:6) (Deut 28:4)

How then can one accept that the GOD of Creation who gave us free will would ever take it away? We are never slaves of GOD as paul writes, for that would mean we cannot make our own decisions. The GOD does not want you to give your life to HIM, HE is the one that gives you life! The GOD is not our captor, HE is our Deliverer from the ones that put us in bondage. HE is our father and we are HIS children.

Thus, the GOD has predestined all HIS children. HE does not take away their free will. It is by the merit of HIS children which is a statement to lucifer and cohorts that HIS children have earned their place in Heaven. It is not given them through favouritism, but through merit. So, all a person gains in Heaven is earned here in earth by their free will. But the GOD who knows the end from the beginning, knows how well the person will do from the foundation of the world. That is why there are the children of life, and the children of Resurrection. The children of Eden, and the Children of the New Earth. The Light of the world and the salt of the Earth. The 1st resurrection and the 2nd resurrection.

GOD is not a gambler and does not invest in losers. He has seen the end from the beginning.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
so I am sure this has been hashed and again about a million times. But it is fun to talk about. The issue is the pride men have in refusing to acknowledge they may be wrong. So let's discuss in humility.

PREDESTINATION
“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:29-30‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,” Ephesians‬ ‭1:4-5, 11‬ ‭ESV‬‬

FREE WILL
“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:9‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."” ‭‭Joshua‬ ‭24:15‬ ‭ESV

So I have laid out a couple scriptures purporting to support each view. What do you think?

I think the passages you've laid out in support of Predestination are out of context and in fact do not present any conflict with Free Will
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
My thought is this:
God knows all things. He can see into the future and know who will and will not accept him. This in his knowledge he has predestined those whom he knew would accept his message. This does not negate free will, as it merely states God knows who will accept him.
God clearly wants all people to be saved. So either his will is unable to do as it pleases. Or all people will be saved regardless of faith (Universalism) Or there is another aspect at play here.
God reaches out to all people in love. Each person must respond to the call. God in his foreknowledge knew who would respond and thus the person has been "foreknown and predestined".
What seems to be missing here is that God Himself is active in innumerable ways in every square centimeter and every second of time of His creation.

What He "foreknew" is based on a paradigm which He Himself is involved in creating.

He is not bound by anything or anyone to created or "allow", if you will, any particular paradigm.

It is in the creation or "allowing" of particular paradigms where God is involved in "predestining" events.

"If this - then that." (Scriptures on request. But they really shouldn't be necessary for anyone equipped to discuss such things.)

YES - God foreknew every possibility before there was anything in existence before Him.

"If I do this - then this will happen."

He does and has done whatever will create the paradigm which will or has brought Him the most glory according to His eternally constructed plan for the present age.

Within that framework and none other - men make decisions out of their own free will.

God's sovereignty and the free will of men are perfectly compatible.

The doctrine of election (or who will receive special grace and who will be passed by) is an important doctrine and plays a part in the bringing to past of what He predestines or decrees to happen in individual cases.

But that's a subject for further discussion and does not in itself constitute the core of the doctrine of predestination in general.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
so I am sure this has been hashed and again about a million times. But it is fun to talk about. The issue is the pride men have in refusing to acknowledge they may be wrong. So let's discuss in humility.

PREDESTINATION
“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:29-30‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,” Ephesians‬ ‭1:4-5, 11‬ ‭ESV‬‬

FREE WILL
“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:9‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."” ‭‭Joshua‬ ‭24:15‬ ‭ESV

So I have laid out a couple scriptures purporting to support each view. What do you think?

"I chose salvation" is pride.

"Lord chose me" is humility.

In Joshua 24, Lord says, "Choose" not because they could choose but to say that they can't choose without He giving them a heart to understand Him.

In Acts 5:31Jesus grants repentance. Man cannot repent. In 2 pet 3:9 all refers to the elect.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,160
1,805
✟794,653.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"I chose salvation" is pride.

"Lord chose me" is humility.

In Joshua 24, Lord says, "Choose" not because they could choose but to say that they can't choose without He giving them a heart to understand Him.

In Acts 5:31Jesus grants repentance. Man cannot repent. In 2 pet 3:9 all refers to the elect.
I wimp out , give up and surrender to the point of humbly accepting pure charity is not being prideful, but is humbling.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
I wimp out , give up and surrender to the point of humbly accepting pure charity is not being prideful, but is humbling.

I was addressing the issue of freewill. I think you are addressing the issue of pure charity.

Is there a connection?

Regarding charity, pure charity is not pride, but believing that pure charity earns God's acceptance is indeed pride. Humility is believing that the pure charity of Jesus which He did on the cross, earns God's acceptance for us, is indeed humility.
 
Upvote 0