Double Predestination acceptable...

[Clare73]

Who is Ted? Why do you feel the need to include an explanation if the verse is self explanatory? The person objecting here isn't Ted.

Nor did I say it was. The person objecting is in agreement with Ted.

And what the verse says is being said by the hardened Jew who is objecting to God using his rebellion to advance the gospel. The point isn't God hardening the heart.

That is precisely the point in vv. 14-24, in Paul's treatment of the absolute sovereignty of God in the disposition of all men, and man's objection to it.

The point is that God did not fail in spite of his chosen people rebelling.

The point of Romans 9 is that
salvation is not, and never has been, by descent from Abraham, but by faith alone, and that
God failed neither in his promise to Israel, fulfilling it in a remnant,
nor in his purpose of the gospel, the offer of salvation to the world,
in exercising his absolute sovereignty in the disposition of men.

Ironic that you have it so backwards.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually it does, as God's foreknowledge isn't an empty slate but an intimate knowledge of us. Which is why I say it's a both/and situation because while God selects us prior to us selecting Him that selection does not impose upon our choosing to follow God. God predestines me, and I choose my fate without coersion.

Yet, you are unable to choose him, without being born again. Choosing him is a HUGE thing, we are unable to know what we are doing, unable to make the choice substantial, unable to keep what we have claimed to commit to. But God is able. THAT is regeneration —God in us.

 

[Fervent]

Who is Ted? Why do you feel the need to include an explanation if the verse is self explanatory? The person objecting here isn't Ted. And what the verse says is being said by the hardened Jew who is objecting to God using his rebellion to advance the gospel. The point isn't God hardening the heart. The point is that God did not fail in spite of his chosen people rebelling. Ironic that you have it so backwards.

A lot of that interpretation comes from a reverse ordering where Romans is isolated and interpreted and then runs rough shod over the rest of the Bible. If we were left with Paul's words alone then it does appear that God hardened the hearts of the Israeli's, and in some sense there is truth to the statement as we see both Isaiah and Jesus state that God hardened them so they wouldn't turn and be healed. Though these statements must be understood in the light of the entire narrative of Israel where God hardened the hearts after Israel crossed the event horizon so that His purposes would be accomplished. Romans is so heavily dependent on Jewish theology, and it is the separation from it by Luther and Calvin that has led to serious errors among the majority of protestant theology.

 

[Clare73]

Nope...still seems like a blasphemy against HIS loving kindness and righteous justice...

At least you were wise enough to say "seems" and not accuse the Scriptures of blasphemy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A lot of that interpretation comes from a reverse ordering where Romans is isolated and interpreted and then runs rough shod over the rest of the Bible. If we were left with Paul's words alone then it does appear that God hardened the hearts of the Israeli's, and in some sense there is truth to the statement as we see both Isaiah and Jesus state that God hardened them so they wouldn't turn and be healed. Though these statements must be understood in the light of the entire narrative of Israel where God hardened the hearts after Israel crossed the event horizon so that His purposes would be accomplished. Romans is so heavily dependent on Jewish theology, and it is the separation from it by Luther and Calvin that has led to serious errors among the majority of protestant theology.

So you still cannot see that his ways are not our ways, and that as high as the heavens are above the earth, so is he more than we are? When God decides something, it WILL indeed happen, and we can rely on the fact that he will complete it. Not only that, but we know that no thing can undo what he has determined.

This in no way is any indication that we do not really choose, or that we are not responsible for our choices. Why is this so hard to see?

 

[Fervent]

So you still cannot see that his ways are not our ways, and that as high as the heavens are above the earth, so is he more than we are? When God decides something, it WILL indeed happen, and we can rely on the fact that he will complete it. Not only that, but we know that no thing can undo what he has determined.

This in no way is any indication that we do not really choose, or that we are not responsible for our choices. Why is this so hard to see?

Questioning the conclusions of Calvin and Luther and other men is not questioning God. Especially when they use such sloppy and ahistorical methods of interpretation.

 

[Clare73]

Being chosen has nothing to do with what you believe is free will. It's about God's foreknowledge, He is able to foresee everything that you will choose to do.
Many people don't want to believe God has that ability even though the Bible confirms it.
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Actually, that presents God's foreknowledge as God foreknowing what he is going to do.
It's not about man.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Questioning the conclusions of Calvin and Luther and other men is not questioning God. Especially when they use such sloppy and ahistorical methods of interpretation.

I don't mind you questioning them all you want. I have yet to see you point out, however, where Calvinism and Reformed Theology are wrong. BTW, they are not Calvin and Luther.

 

[RickReads]

Sounds very Calvinistic

That's one of the reasons why I'm a little hard on the Calvinists. It`s close to being truth and seems to make people sound mean-spirited.

I'm no Calvinist. They are stiff-necked and stubborn people. LOL

 

[Fervent]

I don't mind you questioning them all you want. I have yet to see you point out, however, where Calvinism and Reformed Theology are wrong. BTW, they are not Calvin and Luther.

Then you don't understand what was said about Romans. Reformed theology uses a backwards interpretive method that understands Romans in a late Rennaissance framework and then interprets the Bible according to that understanding rather than reconciling the Old Testament context that Romans is built upon and interpreting it in that light. Reformed theology is almost pure humanistic philosophy wrapped in a Biblical guise and is more gnostic than Biblical.

 

[RickReads]

Actually, that presents foreknowledge as God foreknowing what he is going to do.
It's not about man.

Nope. You're wrong about that.

 

[Clare73]

Nope. You're wrong about that.

See post #21, following:

Scriptures show that the phrase, "God's foreknowledge," as used in the Bible, does not refer to knowing in advance what man is going to do,
that it refers to knowing in advance what he is going to do, because from before the foundations of the world, he decreed that he shall do it.

"Known to the Lord for ages (i.e., God's foreknowledge) is his work." (Acts 15:18).

"I foretold (God's foreknowledge) the former things long ago,
my mouth announced (decreed) them and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass." (Isaiah 48:3)

See Acts 2:23, 4:28; Isaiah 37:26, Isaiah 45:21; Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:2;
2 Peter 3:17.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's one of the reasons why I'm a little hard on the Calvinists. It`s close to being truth and seems to make people sound mean-spirited.

I'm no Calvinist. They are stiff-necked and stubborn people. LOL

I hope your reason for not being a Calvinist isn't because they are stiff-necked and stubborn!

But, see, the truth has this unpleasant way of making those who believe it feel confident. Also, the truth hasn't much respect for falsehood. And to top it all off, the truth is precious to those who believe, sometimes inspiring them to be hard on those who misrepresent it. I think we all, Reformed and otherwise, you and I both, hate for the Gospel to be weakened and finessed, and we hate for the Grace of God to be the work of man.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then you don't understand what was said about Romans. Reformed theology uses a backwards interpretive method that understands Romans in a late Rennaissance framework and then interprets the Bible according to that understanding rather than reconciling the Old Testament context that Romans is built upon and interpreting it in that light. Reformed theology is almost pure humanistic philosophy wrapped in a Biblical guise and is more gnostic than Biblical.

What was said by whom about Romans? What are you referring to? But, Reformed theology doesn't depend on Romans. Guess again. Romans is just more affirmation, and easy to argue in light of what Paul says there.

HOW is Reformed Theology humanistic philosophy??? It credits man with only what Christ does: "Apart from me you can do nothing."

 

[Fervent]

What was said by whom about Romans? What are you referring to? But, Reformed theology doesn't depend on Romans. Guess again. Romans is just more affirmation, and easy to argue in light of what Paul says there.

HOW is Reformed Theology humanistic philosophy??? It credits man with only what Christ does: "Apart from me you can do nothing."

Reformed theology depends entirely on Romans as reformed theology essentially entirely hinges on the truth or falsity of total damnation/inability which is drawn almost exclusively from Romans 5, specifically Romans 5:12 and the perpetuation of Augustine's interpretive error that was built on a mistranslation of the Greek preposition Ek. There is also the segment currently under consideration in Romans 8-9 which is often read apart from the history of Israel that Paul was drawing upon. Reformed theology began with Luther's reading and commentary on Romans which led to his writing of the bondage of the will, which lead to Calvin's discussions in the Institutes which lead to the Synod of Dort. It all traces back to Romans, and the dependence continues as if we compare the relative frequency of quotations among Reformed proponents Romans is going to far outweigh any other book in the Bible, quite possibly collectively.

When I say humanist philosophy I want to be careful I am speaking of the philosophy of the Rennaissance not modern humanism. Of course, explaining this connection would be far more involved than I can get into over forum posts because I would likely first have to walk you through the basics of humanist philosophy before showing where Luther and Calvin and those who follow are dependent on the ideas from that period.

 

[RickReads]

See post #21, following:

God's foreknowledge is not knowing in advance what man is going to do, it is knowing in advance what
he is going to do, because he has decreed from before the foundations of the world that he shall do it.

"Known to the Lord for ages is his work." (Acts 15:18).

"I foretold the former things long ago,
my mouth announced (decreed) them and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass." (Isaiah 48:3)

See Acts 2:23, 4:28; Isaiah 37:26, Isaiah 45:21; Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:2;
2 Peter 3:17.

There are enough accounts in the Bible where God affected someone's thoughts, their hearts
and their behavior that I shouldn't have to debate this with you.

Who hath resisted His will?

 

[Mark Quayle]

There are enough accounts in the Bible where God affected someone's thoughts, their hearts
and their behavior that I shouldn't have to debate this with you.

Who hath resisted His will?

I think you are missing the point that @Clare73 is making. She doesn't disagree that God knows in advance what man is going to do, but she is saying that, (in my words), God causes it. Your post affirms that very thing, not that God must "fly by the seat of his pants" reacting to whatever thing man does, —(I remark, sarcastically, "surely these choices by men must seem random to God")— but that God "affected [man]'s thoughts, their hearts and their behavior", among other means of causation.

If I didn't know better, I'd think she drew you into a trap.

 

[RickReads]

I think you are missing the point that @Clare73 is making. She doesn't disagree that God knows in advance what man is going to do, but she is saying that, (in my words), God causes it. Your post affirms that very thing, not that God must "fly by the seat of his pants" reacting to whatever thing man does, —(I remark, sarcastically, "surely these choices by men must seem random to God")— but that God "affected [man]'s thoughts, their hearts and their behavior", among other means of causation.

If I didn't know better, I'd think she drew you into a trap.

I don't believe she is saying that at all nor do I believe that truth can be put in a trap. Her belief is
that only Gods actions are predestined.

Maybe you need to have another look at her post.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Claire or Clarence? Seems a mystery not to be named.

 

[Clare73]

There are enough accounts in the Bible where God affected someone's thoughts, their hearts and their behavior that I shouldn't have to debate this with you.

Who hath resisted His will?

Ole Mark smoked me out. . .

I don't believe she is saying that at all nor do I believe that truth can be put in a trap.
Her belief is that only Gods actions are predestined.

Maybe you need to have another look at her post.

I am not denying that God affects hearts and behavior, as demonstrated in my post #113.

I am saying that the phrase, "God's foreknowledge," refers to his foreknowledge of his own actions, rather than to his foreknowledge of man's actions.
I am not denying his foreknowledge of anything, only pointing out what the phrase "God's foreknowledge" refers to as it is used in the Bible.

He foreknows what he is going to do because he has decreed from before the foundations of the world that he shall do it; e.g., the birth of Jesus, the atonement of the cross, etc.