Romans 9 Is Not About Predestination!

Al Touthentop · Jan 7, 2020

JAL said:
That's an overstatement of what I said. I didn't advise to become like them in EVERY WAY. So again, your conclusion draw from that passage isn't sturdy. You can emulate a child in ONE respect (his childlike trust in his father) while diverging from him in other respects (his various sins).

I got your point. What I'm saying is that is not what he was telling them. He was telling them to become like children - pure and of course trusting but he was continuously telling them to believe and trust. And what good would it do to become like children if children are dead to God? And if children are dead to God then they're going to hell. And if God sends children to hell who really have no idea about the gospel or the law, whichever covenant they were under, then you must think that every aborted child went to hell. Every kid that died in a car crash went to hell. Every child in Iraq that America killed with sanctions and bombings went to hell.

That's the God you defend. By Blasphemy. What a defense.

Anything's possible. It might be that I am influenced by a philosopher - or it might be that I don't see much corroboration of Pelagianism in Scripture. Or it might be a combination of those factors. But the biggest factor, as far as I can see, is that God cursed the entire human race (Gen 3), and I can't justify that without my theory of Adam.

I have no idea what Pelagianism is. Typically people bandy around these man-made doctrines as if we're all supposed to have them memorized and conform to whatever label others want to stick on us. My doctrine comes from the apostles and Christ - straight out of the Bible. And you can't use one verse - Romans 5:12 specifically - to negate the rest of the scriptures.

Your theory of Adam is totally superfluous. Children are not and never were born sinful by nature and it was never taught that in the old testament nor the new. This just wasn't a doctrine of the Jewish people or the Christians in the first century. It was based on a faulty Latin text by a person 300 years after Christ who was a serial fornicator and whose brain was fixated on sex. Much like Freud who diagnosed the world with his own Oedipal syndrome.

Al Touthentop · Jan 7, 2020

You definitely get it.

Al Touthentop · Jan 7, 2020

JAL said:
I fail to see how that makes for a plausible reading of "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Because what you really mean, by that reading

You fail to read much with any but your own comprehension.

Huh? To begin with, nobody talks that way.

The bible was not written yesterday and it wasn't written in English. It was written to people who lived back then and in their vernacular, not yours. You ought to read it with that in mind instead of rejecting anything you find unpleasant in your own modern way of thinking. That was the way they talked back then and your insistence that you won't comprehend it unless it speaks in your vernacular is your problem.

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Al Touthentop said:
And what good would it do to become like children if children are dead to God?
And if God sends children to hell who really have no idea about the gospel or the law, whichever covenant they were under, then you must think that every aborted child went to hell. Every kid that died in a car crash went to hell. Every child in Iraq that America killed with sanctions and bombings went to hell.

I allow for the possibility of monergistic regeneration. But I wouldn't count on it. The wages of sin is death. God doesn't owe those children anything if they sinned in Adam. I'm sorry if this seems to be a cold view of God. The truth, however, is that God is far more self-sacrificial than the church makes Him out to be. I think the church misunderstands the atonement and still has no idea what is meant by the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world". Suffice it to say here that a finite God has limited resources. In my opinion He saves as many as He can and, because we fail to do our part in intercessory prayer, He is not able to save nearly as many as He wants. I can't lay out that big picture right now.

I have no idea what Pelagianism is.

It's a position pretty much universally regarded heretical - the notion that people can theoretically be saved on their own merits, by good works, without need for the atonement. Anyone who believes that children are born innocent implies Pelagianism.

Your theory of Adam is totally superfluous.

When Lucifer sinned, it didn't impact 100 billion innocent people. Only the angels that sinned suffered the consequences of those sins. That's justice. A God of justice would never permit 100 billion miscarriages of justice upon fetuses, infants, and children (starvation, disease, handicaps, loneliness, addiction, injury, rape, abuse, hardship etc). My solution is that those 100 billion people are NOT innocent, as they sinned in Adam. In varying flavors, that's essentially the solution of Augustine, Millard J. Erickson, Tertullian, and a number of other Traducians. And frankly I find it hard to read Romans 5 in any other way. I see inconsistency in your position, but I'm sure you'll keep denying it. The inconsistency is that you would never approve of a human leader who behaved that way. I gave you a clear example - a Texas governor who needlessly allows the whole population to drink poisoned water and DIE, just because one man sinned. That's evil behavior. If you claim that God defines His own standard of good and evil, the Bible is useless, it offers no hope because His ongoing "goodness" to us could involve any kind of evil behavior.

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Al Touthentop said:
The bible was not written yesterday and it wasn't written in English. It was written to people who lived back then and in their vernacular, not yours. You ought to read it with that in mind instead of rejecting anything you find unpleasant in your own modern way of thinking. That was the way they talked back then and your insistence that you won't comprehend it unless it speaks in your vernacular is your problem.

That wasn't the crux of the argument. The argument is that there should be precedents in THEIR venacular. I can find no parallels of that sort anywhere in Scripture. You are free to provide some extra-biblical sample texts. MY vernacular is still relevant, however, in the sense that it is precisely when someone proposes a bizarre-sounding reading that I'm most likely to stop and say, "Wait a minute, do we have any such precedents in Scripture?"

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Clete said:
When you suggested an alternative to what God actually did and then said that's the way you would have done it!

The point was that, if Adam wasn't corporate, then everyone is innocent and it would be God's responsibility - if He is infinitely kind or even maximally kind - to insulate them from the consequences of Adam's sin. He did not insulate them. Yet that's what I would have done. For example, Lucifer's sin didn't impact 100 billion people - such is not necessary. Adam's detriment to 100 billion people cries out for an explanation of some kind (such as my own theory of Adam). If you continue to deny this gap, it's just dancing.

That, and when you displayed a total lack of understand of what God's "curse" was. It was not a punishment, it was a mercy.

Kicking them out of the garden, expelling them from the tree of Life, pronouncing death - that was not punishment? That was not "really" a curse? Look I'll be the first to admit that God interweaves themes of mercy even with his indictments. But to insinuate that I am outlandish for seeing a curse at work here is itself outlandish.

What it sounds to me like is that you think I believe something that I don't believe and are debating me like I'm your average Catholic or Baptist or whatever who believes in the doctrine of original sin.

What it sounds like to me is that you're hoping I'm just a strawman debater who can be easily dismissed. Hate to break it to you...

We did not inherent guilt from Adam.

Fine. Thanks for clarifying. Like I said, many of my objections remain.

Al Touthentop · Jan 7, 2020

JAL said:
I allow for the possibility of monergistic regeneration. But I wouldn't count on it. The wages of sin is death.

Spiritual death, not physical death.

God doesn't owe those children anything if they sinned in Adam.

They didn't sin in Adam.

I'm sorry if this seems to be a cold view of God.

Not cold, utterly blasphemous.

The truth, however, is that God is far more self-sacrificial than the church makes Him out to be. I think the church misunderstands the atonement and still has no idea what is meant by the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world". Suffice it to say here that a finite God has limited resources.

Your god is finite. Don't pretend he's the God of the bible. You invented this god yourself.

In my opinion He saves as many as He can and, because we fail to do our part in intercessory prayer, He is not able to save nearly as many as He wants. I can't lay out that big picture right now.

Your theology is frankly pathetic. Children do not need regeneration. In fact the very idea of regeneration suggests that at one time we were generated. To be born again is to be regenerated. That means at one time we were alive to God (when we were children just as Paul perfectly explains in chapter 7 of Romans). We become alive again just as Paul explains in Romans 6. We had to be alive once lest regeneration be a completely inappropriate word to use for what happens. Same with the term born again. It obviously can't mean that we are physically born again as Nicodemus so properly asks of Jesus. So spiritually RE born meaning that we were once spiritually alive and died. To dispute this is to throw out the gospel. But that's exactly what you're doing and you think it's an intelligent approach. Yet you totally misunderstand the scriptures and it's obvious that you do.

So it's awesome that you would allow for "monergistic regeneration" but God already has taken care of it. He created us alive to him, we learned how to sin and died, and has by grace and mercy given us a way to be reborn.

It's a position pretty much universally regarded heretical - the notion that people can theoretically be saved on their own merits, by good works, without need for the atonement. Anyone who believes that children are born innocent implies Pelagianism.

Utterly wrong. First of all, we are saved by works. But not works of merit "of ourselves" but the works God prepared that we should walk in. We have to do them, but as Jesus pointed out, "So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”

That's the exact message Paul was expounding on in Ephesians. In fact, in the first six verses of chapter two tell them that they were saved through baptism. Thus, when he gets to verses eight and nine, he can't be excluding the works of baptism and belief because those we are commanded to do. What he's telling them is that works of merit, works they did of themselves, cannot save them. Only the works that God planned before the foundation of the world are the ones that save us. The're not our works. We do them but only because we were commanded to do them. And those commands are themselves 'given' which makes them a gift. Grace.

When Lucifer sinned, it didn't impact 100 billion innocent people. Only the angels that sinned suffered the consequences of those sins. That's justice. A God of justice would never permit 100 billion miscarriages of justice upon fetuses, infants, and children (starvation, disease, handicaps, loneliness, addiction, injury, rape, abuse, hardship etc).

You erroneously think that acts of violence against people are all God's fault and that sin is what causes hardships on earth. Blasphemy. But your your made-up god, fine. I just don't believe in your pathetic god who sends babies to hell.

My solution is that those 100 billion people are NOT innocent, as they sinned in Adam. In varying flavors, that's essentially the solution of Augustine, Millard J. Erickson, Tertullian, and a number of other Traducians. And frankly I find it hard to read Romans 5 in any other way. I see inconsistency in your position, but I'm sure you'll keep denying it. The inconsistency is that you would never approve of a human leader who behaved that way. I gave you a clear example - a Texas governor who needlessly allows the whole population to drink poisoned water and DIE, just because one man sinned. That's evil behavior. If you claim that God defines His own standard of good and evil, the Bible is useless, it offers no hope because His ongoing "goodness" to us could involve any kind of evil behavior.

Your solution is false as is your premise. What text are you quoting anyway? "Sinned in Adam." Where do I find that phrase in Romans?

You're using Augustine's rotten Latin text aren't you? Shame on you. "BECAUSE every man sinned", not "in Adam all sinned."

Had you ever read the Greek text, you'd know that the proper translation is "because" not "in whom." For shame. I mean really.

Al Touthentop · Jan 7, 2020

JAL said:
That wasn't the crux of the argument. The argument is that there should be precedents in THEIR venacular. I can find no parallels of that sort anywhere in Scripture.

Baloney. You ignore their vernacular entirely. Paul is making a parallel in the way two things entered the world. On the one hand sin, and on the other the remission of sin. Sin was not a genetic condition it was a behavioral condition as Paul plainly states. You need it to say something else because you are more interested in your pet theory than you are in understanding the scripture.

You are free to provide some extra-biblical sample texts. MY vernacular is still relevant, however, in the sense that it is precisely when someone proposes a bizarre-sounding reading that I'm most likely to stop and say, "Wait a minute, do we have any such precedents in Scripture?"

Your vernacular and mine are totally irrelevant. We have to throw it out for the purposes of understanding the bible. On the other hand, your refusal to actually accept what is being said there is a decision, it isn't because the words aren't clear.

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Al Touthentop said:
Baloney. You ignore their vernacular entirely. Paul is making a parallel in the way two things entered the world.

Yeah right, Paul made that parallel because we're too stupid to figure out the tautology that the first man to sin was indeed the first man to introduce sin into the world. Gee thanks Paul! What an enlightening revelation! Such epiphany!

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Al Touthentop said:
Your god is finite.

Platonic thinking led to an infinite God. Human experience confirms the existence of finite material objects. Hence finite materialism falls in the category of empirically substantiated concepts. As such it needs no special proof.

Whereas infinity and immaterialism are both magical, extraordinary claims that, as such, call for extraordinary corroboration. Unfortunately Scripture is devoid of such evidence.

Worse yet, an existing infinity is an incoherent concept. It makes no sense to the human mind. For example try to imagine an infinite space. Next, visually truncate, say, 5 trillion square miles from it. How much space remains? Infinite, right? The same amount we started with!

Or suppose God knows an infinite number of languages. He then forgets a million of them (we know this is possible because Jesus was born ignorant of languages). How many are left? Infinite? The same amount as before? Absolute drivel! Empty babble!

The atonement falsifies infinite love. (You'll deny it - but it hardly matters since you seem to deny everything you dislike). How so? Love doesn't merely say, "Be warm and well fed" - it INTERVENES and thus, in God's case, it atones. Thus infinite love spells infinite atonement. Hell couldn't exist, not even for the devil, because even the sin of rejecting Christ would be atoned for. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If God is infinite love, then hell does not exist.

An infinite God also leads to the classical Problem of Evil.

Infinity and immutability go hand in hand because, for example, infinite knowledge isn't the sort of thing gradually acquired over time but rather innate and thus immutable. Innate qualities merit no praise, unfortunately. And an immutable God cannot become an ignorant babe in Mary's womb. You can scream hypostatic union until the cows come home but once a system has an inherent logical contradiction, there's no fixing it - that would be like starting with the indelible assumption that 2 + 2 = 5 and then, when problems arise, trying to "fix" them.

An immutably holy God cannot be a man suffering real temptation in the wildnerness (apparently that was a lie and a farce).
An immutably omniscient God cannot exist in a womb as an ignorant fetus.
An immutably omniscient God cannot be a boy engaged in a learning process.
An immutably omnipotent God cannot suffer and thus cannot atone (divine impassibility).
A God who has not suffered has no merit.
An immutably indefatiguable God cannot grow weary.

And by the way, the hypostatic union doesn't count as a doctrine in the usual sense because the proponents admit that no one can understand what is being said. It's gibberish. Examples of this fact, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412).

Millard J. Erickson considers it so humanly unintelligible that it requires us to accept, he said, that "2 + 1 = 2". And he says of the mainstream version of the Trinity, "It is logically absurd from the human standpoint." Erickson made these statements in his systematic theology textbook popular in seminaries across the world.

In addition to these contradictions, the Platonic concept of immaterial Spirit seems to contradict both Scripture and common sense several ways. With regard to the definition of immaterial Spirit as understood among the theologians (also called DDS or Doctrine of Divine Simplicity):
(1) God is indivisible into parts. This logically contradicts outpourings.
(2) God's presence is plenal at every point in space. This logically contradicts outpourings.
(3) God is immaterial. Unfortunately this leaves Him too intangible to push a pencil.
(4) Immaterialism contradicts the biblical data affirming His materiality.
(5) God is atemporal. This contradicts the documented interactions between God and man.
(6) Atemporality contradicts merit defined as freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over time.

All these issues can be solved via a simple materialism - the sort of materialism indicated time and again on the pages of Scripture.

Paul warned us of hollow and deceptive philosophy. Unfortunately Paul's voice is currently drowned out by the ongoing reverberations of Plato.

renniks · Jan 7, 2020

Clete said:
When deciding to write this post, there were a lot of directions from which I could come at this chapter. What I decided would be best for an opening post is for me to simply posit what I see as how the chapter should be taken in general without going into anything like a detailed, verse by verse exposition. We can get into as much detail as might be desired later in the discussion. For now, a big picture overview of the chapter seems to be in order.

Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself as well as other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever and couldn't possibly be arrived at unless they are bringing their theology with them to the reading of the passage. Indeed, Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.

Now, with that in mind let's get to it...

In a single sentence - The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel.
It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Good post... very clear. It continually baffles me the way that Calvinist interpret Romans. It's like they just pull out the middle of the chapter and ignore the rest of Romans, while also ignoring all the verses that Paul quotes from in thier context.

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Clete,

What's your take on my last post 190? Oh nevermind, I can already predict what you'll say: "Blasphemy!" which, roughly translated, means, "I have no substantive rebuttal and certainly am not going to admit that I'm wrong about anything."

renniks · Jan 7, 2020

Peter John said:
Jn15v16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you".

Jesus said this to 11 men he was sending out to preach the gospel. It's not about choosing some for salvation, but for a certain task.

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Al Touthentop,

It's hard for me to keep responding to you because there's too much hyperbolic nitpicking (read this as distortion) of my statements. For example when I add a comment to the text such as:

"because all sinned [in Adam]"

it should be painfully obvious from the square brackets that it's most likely JUST MY OWN COMMENTARY. Yet you opportunistically seize upon such trivialities to blow it up as some major covert conspiracy on my part to rewrite the Greek text or push a discredited manuscript upon the whole church. Your responses are riddled with random insinuations similar to these. You seem to fall into that category of people that my younger brother has appropriately described as "blow-up artists" - people who resort to a kind of exaggerated sensationalism to impugn someone or something that they do not like. I can deal with it well enough when the debater seems to respond with fidelity to what I said. But when I see a high percentage of distortions, even seeming evasions, a seemingly complete lack of a charitable effort to treat the subject matter fairly and even-handedly - forcing me to have to repeat and reiterate and reclarify the same arguments over and over - it gets old after a while. I'm already short on time.

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Here's an example:

Al Touthentop said:
You erroneously think that acts of violence against people are all God's fault.

Really? That's why I signed up with Christian forums? That was the message I wanted and intended to bring to the church? And based on this assessment, you go on to call me a blasphemer! And you do this over and over and over and over again.

Clete · Jan 7, 2020

JAL said:
I don't engage in dishonest debating. What I'm saying is that YOUR view of Adam doesn't exonerate God of impropriety. Recall that even G.C.Berkouwer had no solution, as I documented in an earlier post. You are SAYING that your view accomplishes this but I don't see how.

If you weren't lying then you are off on some wild goose chase down a fork in the road that I never took and are debating something that I neither believe nor have I stated. You've seriously misunderstood something.

Look, an infinitely kind God should not even create a world where it is POSSIBLE for the sin of one man to have consequences for the entire human race. That's not maximally kind. In MY system that's not an issue for two reasons:
(1) ALL of us sinned in Adam, corporately, as one material soul (later redistributed). I am Adam. You are Adam. The only soul who suffers consequences is the Adam who sinned.
(2) God is not infinite! (Although this point probably isn't relevant to our debate over Adam).

In YOUR system it IS an issue. Because "such universally understood concepts as love and justice" simply do not allow the sin of one man to have consequences for 100 billion people. What am I missing here? You would NEVER treat your kids that way if you had other options. I certainly wouldn't.

You are saying that I'm a liar, you are saying that you've clearly and fully exonerated you're system of impropriety. I am not lying to you. To meet that burden, you have to do at least two things:
(1) Establish that starting over with Bob and Sally wasn't a viable option.
(2) Establish why THIS kind of world (a world of consequences) was NECESSARY.
Note that #2 seems impossible. Why so? Because the existence of the angels proves that this kind of world was NOT necessary. For example it is not as though, when Lucifer sinned, he thereby caused 100 billion fetuses to suffer in the womb. There were no such consequences. Only those angels who actually sinned suffered the consequences. So how can you sit here and tell me that God had NO OTHER OPTIONS but to create a world like this, and then curse 100 billion innocent people with the consequences of Adam's sin? You sit here and espouse a seemingly absurd position - a position flatly contradicted by the very facticity of angels - meanwhile calling me a liar and blasphemer?

I have to establish no such thing! You've establish no ground upon which I must stand where it would be necessary for my to establish any such point. In other words, I do not have to grant your premises. I neither believe what you're accusing me of believing nor have you clearly defined what it is your debating against.

I reject your premise that "an infinitely kind God should not even create a world where it is POSSIBLE for the sin of one man to have consequences for the entire human race".

First, there is no such concept as "infinitely kind".
Second, you have no basis upon which to claim even that it wasn't "maximaly kind", nor could you even define that term and as such have no basis for even making the statement in the first place.
Third, which consequences of Adam's sin you are referring to are unstated and therefore unworkably vague.

In short, you've not even coherently defined either your position nor whatever it is you think you're trying to refute.

Um...That's what I said. God COULDN'T have done it any better - because MY theory of Adam allow for that conclusion. Yours does not. Are you able to understand anything I am saying? I guess not.

Well, like I keep saying over and over again. All I've got to go on is what you say in your own posts that your wrote yourself. It's not like I went in and changed what you said around and made stuff up as I went.

Clearly one or both of us have misunderstood the other. I suggest we start over and you not assume that I believe anything until you've gotten it from this horse's mouth.

We can start from this point of agreement that God could not have done it any better. You might also state explicitly just what consequences of Adam's sin you are referring to.

Also, I opened up the site this morning to find that I 15 posts to respond to, seven of them are from you. I don't have time to respond to them all. You gotta try to consolidate things. I can't spend two or three hours every day just trying to keep up with your posts. I end up saying the same things over and over again and its just a bigger waste of time than I can afford.

Clete

Clete · Jan 7, 2020

bling said:
Where does it ever say: “your obedience to the law that gave access to grace”?

No one but Christ was ever “obedient to the Law”? It does not work on a percent bases, since it is all or nothing.

The atonement for sins sacrifices were very educational as a shadow of what was to come with Christ, but it did not solve anything, since all mature adult Jews did, at sometime in their life, rebellious disobedience needing to be banished or killed.

No! The Jews had plenty of examples of: their nation, Nineveh, David, Moses, Abraham and others being “saved” by grace and the prophets taught, seeking God’s Love, repenting and accepting God’s forgiveness. Any Jew, who tried to “obey” the Law would quickly realize that it was impossible, look at the extremely righteous Paul when he was Saul, and read “thou shall not covet” Ro. 7.

The “Law” gives us lots of ways to sin, which emphasizes the need for forgiveness and not a way to not sin.

Ezekiel 33:12 “Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’

Ezk. 18: 30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

Isaiah 30:15 This is what the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it

Psalm 130:

Out of the depths I cry to you, Lord;2 Lord, hear my voice. Let your ears be attentive

to my cry for mercy. 3 If you, Lord, kept a record of sins,

Lord, who could stand? 4 But with you there is forgiveness,

so that we can, with reverence, serve you.

Psalm 103: 2Praise the Lord, my soul and forget not all his benefits—3 who forgives all your sins

and heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit

and crowns you with love and compassion,

Micah 7:18 Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy.

Where and when did God “cut off Israel” since there was always a remnant?

Paul became all things to all people. Paul told people to hold to their conscience and do what they knew to be right, but not do stuff to hurt their weaker brothers and sisters.

Paul had no problem with Jewish Christians and even himself continuing to keep the Law in good conscience and to help others, but gentile follow the legalistic part of the Law was a waste, but they all kept the Moral part of the Law.

If Peter “mistakenly” followed the “Law”, Paul would have taken him aside to teach him more clearly, but Paul went directly to him in front of everyone since Peter was being hypocritical (he knew better).

There are plenty of places where in the OT Christ was to bring salvation to both the Jews and the gentiles.

Where does it say: Paul and others were to “stop” preaching to Jews?

Your whole: “Messiah was to be an earthly King of Israel”, takes a very Jewish interpretation of prophecy. Christ taught and served both unclean Samaritans and gentile while on earth.

Why did Paul always go to the synagogue first when coming to a new town?

Why did Paul baptize some Gentiles and Jews?

Yes, the Jews were not blessed because they did not obey like the prophets promised them, so Jer. 18 kicked in, but that was happening even before the Messiah came.

No there was always to be one people:

Ro. 1: 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ro. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Ro. 2: 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

Ro. 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Ro. 3:9… Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

Ro. 3:22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,

Ro. 3: 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Ro. 4: 16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

Eph. 2: 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

That is enough, but there is more.

I'm not interested in debating dispensationalism on this thread. If you'd like to discuss Romans 9 then awesome, otherwise, we'll have to discuss dispensationalism vs. covenant theology elsewhere and at another time.

Clete · Jan 7, 2020

JAL said:
Platonic thinking led to an infinite God. Human experience confirms the existence of finite material objects. Hence finite materialism falls in the category of empirically substantiated concepts. As such it needs no special proof.

Whereas infinity and immaterialism are both magical, extraordinary claims that, as such, call for extraordinary corroboration. Unfortunately Scripture is devoid of such evidence.

Worse yet, an existing infinity is an incoherent concept. It makes no sense to the human mind. For example try to imagine an infinite space. Next, visually truncate, say, 5 trillion square miles from it. How much space remains? Infinite, right? The same amount we started with!

Or suppose God knows an infinite number of languages. He then forgets a million of them (we know this is possible because Jesus was born ignorant of languages). How many are left? Infinite? The same amount as before? Absolute drivel! Empty babble!

The atonement falsifies infinite love. (You'll deny it - but it hardly matters since you seem to deny everything you dislike). How so? Love doesn't merely say, "Be warm and well fed" - it INTERVENES and thus, in God's case, it atones. Thus infinite love spells infinite atonement. Hell couldn't exist, not even for the devil, because even the sin of rejecting Christ would be atoned for. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If God is infinite love, then hell does not exist.

An infinite God also leads to the classical Problem of Evil.

Infinity and immutability go hand in hand because, for example, infinite knowledge isn't the sort of thing gradually acquired over time but rather innate and thus immutable. Innate qualities merit no praise, unfortunately. And an immutable God cannot become an ignorant babe in Mary's womb. You can scream hypostatic union until the cows come home but once a system has an inherent logical contradiction, there's no fixing it - that would be like starting with the indelible assumption that 2 + 2 = 5 and then, when problems arise, trying to "fix" them.

An immutably holy God cannot be a man suffering real temptation in the wildnerness (apparently that was a lie and a farce).
An immutably omniscient God cannot exist in a womb as an ignorant fetus.
An immutably omniscient God cannot be a boy engaged in a learning process.
An immutably omnipotent God cannot suffer and thus cannot atone (divine impassibility).
A God who has not suffered has no merit.
An immutably indefatiguable God cannot grow weary.

And by the way, the hypostatic union doesn't count as a doctrine in the usual sense because the proponents admit that no one can understand what is being said. It's gibberish. Examples of this fact, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412).

Millard J. Erickson considers it so humanly unintelligible that it requires us to accept, he said, that "2 + 1 = 2". And he says of the mainstream version of the Trinity, "It is logically absurd from the human standpoint." Erickson made these statements in his systematic theology textbook popular in seminaries across the world.

In addition to these contradictions, the Platonic concept of immaterial Spirit seems to contradict both Scripture and common sense several ways. With regard to the definition of immaterial Spirit as understood among the theologians (also called DDS or Doctrine of Divine Simplicity):
(1) God is indivisible into parts. This logically contradicts outpourings.
(2) God's presence is plenal at every point in space. This logically contradicts outpourings.
(3) God is immaterial. Unfortunately this leaves Him too intangible to push a pencil.
(4) Immaterialism contradicts the biblical data affirming His materiality.
(5) God is atemporal. This contradicts the documented interactions between God and man.
(6) Atemporality contradicts merit defined as freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over time.

All these issues can be solved via a simple materialism - the sort of materialism indicated time and again on the pages of Scripture.

Paul warned us of hollow and deceptive philosophy. Unfortunately Paul's voice is currently drowned out by the ongoing reverberations of Plato.

Start your own thread.

Clete · Jan 7, 2020

renniks said:
Good post... very clear. It continually baffles me the way that Calvinist interpret Romans. It's like they just pull out the middle of the chapter and ignore the rest of Romans, while also ignoring all the verses that Paul quotes from in thier context.

Well, they hardly have a choice, right?
I mean, if you want to build a doctrine from the bible around a god that does not exist, what choice do you have other than to selectively utilize variuous passages as pretexts and to read your apriori doctrine into the text?

JAL · Jan 7, 2020

Clete said:
I reject your premise that "an infinitely kind God should not even create a world where it is POSSIBLE for the sin of one man to have consequences for the entire human race".

I see. Suddenly "such universally understood concepts as love and justice" (your words) are NOT universally understood. How convenient.

First, there is no such concept as "infinitely kind".

That doesn't blunt the objections. How is this not dancing? Even Hitler would have been more kind than most theories of Adam. Most theories of Adam have him impacting 100 billion innocent people - at least Hitler would have spared his fellow Arians. Is that enough kindness for you?

Third, which consequences of Adam's sin you are referring to are unstated and therefore unworkably vague.

Absolute nonsense. You yourself admitted to a passing on of his sinful nature. A sinful nature is basically an addiction to self-destructive behavior including an inclination to indulge in sins that would damn oneself. Not to mention the worldly consequences (starvation, disease, injury, loneliness, neglect, abuse) that I've been belaboring for 100 posts. And then you act as if you have NO IDEA what consequences I could POSSIBLY have in mind? 200 posts deep in this thread? How is this not dancing?

In short, you've not even coherently defined either your position nor whatever it is you think you're trying to refute.

As if the basic issues concerning Adam weren't already clear from church debate for almost 2,000 years. Like you insinuated before, I'm just making it all up in my head. How is this not dancing?

Romans 9 Is Not About Predestination!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran

Similar threads