God creates some for hell

Ribosome said:

This has been bothering me lately. If God chose to save me, but chose to create others for eternal hell, can I happily worship God while he creates others for hell? It is very depressing for me if this is the case. How can I be happy while he creates others for hell? I simply got lucky that he chose me.

I think this problem is unavoidable even if one believes in free will, because God creates a free will being knowing the being will choose hell.

This makes me distrustful of God, and quite depressed, and does not make me want to worship him.

Anyone else feeling this problem?

Click to expand...

I'm not. First, the "if God chose to creates for eternal hell" is unbiblical. There are no verses that teach this. Some Calvinists will look to Rom 9:22 as evidence that He does, but the word there isn't "prepared" as rendered in some translations, but is 'katartizo', which means to mend, repair, adjust to fit. In fact, the KJV uses "fitted to". So no one was created for destruction.

Don't know why you think it's a problem for those who believe in free will. God provided salvation for everyone. So those who don't take it are totally responsible for going to hell, not God. Even though He is omniscient and has always known those who wouldn't take His free gift.

Let's consider the human condition. Even though we aren't omniscient, we know that we can't guarantee that having children will result in all of them, or even some of them, will turn out great.

So, does all responsibility fall on the parent of those children who turn out poorly? Yes, if there is evidence of poor parenting skills, etc. But how about where the parents did everything right, and their children still turned out poorly? They aren't responsible for the sins of the children, any more than the children are responsible for the sins of the parents.

The difficulty with Rom 9:22 is that the translation depends upon your theology. Both commentaries that I consulted (Word and Hermeneia) believe the sense is that the vessels currently deserve destruction, but that God is waiting to redeem them as indicated in 11:32. If so, then the reference isn't to individuals, but is consistent with the rest of 9 - 11 is referring to Israel as opposed to the Gentiles.

I actually do accept a kind of soft predestination. I do think by and large that people are Christians for reasons beyond their control, and not because of any particular merit. I would attribute that to God's grace. There are some passages, particularly in John, that seem to refer to people as being given to Jesus, and preserved by God. But most passages cited by Calvinists turn out upon further analysis not to be so clear. Nor do I see any support for the concept that God created some people for destruction. Logically I can make a good argument for it, but there are too many explicit statements that God doesn't want anyone damned.

So basically I'm stuck living with a tension between salvation dependent upon unmerited grace and a God who wants everyone saved. Both of the usual alternatives seem to rely on unsound exegesis.

hedrick said:

The difficulty with Rom 9:22 is that the translation depends upon your theology.

Click to expand...

That's kind of sad, since translation should depend only upon what the words and grammar. The problems arise when people try to insert their particular theology into the text. (eisegesis is rampant)

Both commentaries that I consulted (Word and Hermeneia) believe the sense is that the vessels currently deserve destruction, but that God is waiting to redeem them as indicated in 11:32. If so, then the reference isn't to individuals, but is consistent with the rest of 9 - 11 is referring to Israel as opposed to the Gentiles.

Click to expand...

That's reasonable.

I actually do accept a kind of soft predestination. I do think by and large that people are Christians for reasons beyond their control, and not because of any particular merit.

Click to expand...

People are saved, forgiven, justified and adopted as sons because of their faith in Christ. And one's act of faith has no merit, because Paul clearly contrasted faith from works in Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9. I'm uncomfortable with your phrae "beyond their control", as if the individual makes himself a "Christian", which obviously isn't true.

Nor do I see any support for the concept that God created some people for destruction. Logically I can make a good argument for it, but there are too many explicit statements that God doesn't want anyone damned.

Click to expand...

Then please explain what you mean by "soft predestination".

So basically I'm stuck living with a tension between salvation dependent upon unmerited grace and a God who wants everyone saved. Both of the usual alternatives seem to rely on unsound exegesis.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on why you see tension?

Thanks.

FreeGrace2 said:

That's kind of sad, since translation should depend only upon what the words and grammar. The problems arise when people try to insert their particular theology into the text. (eisegesis is rampant)

Click to expand...

Note that in my grad student days I studied artificial intelligence. At the time, getting computers to understand human speech was a big issue. It become clear very quickly when you try to do this that human speech is not symbolic logic. It is at best a clue to what the writer was thinking. Particularly with complex subjects, to understand someone you must be trying to duplicate their thought processes, using the language as clue to help you go in the right direction. If you are missing key background information, or if you misunderstand their intent, you will not understand what they are saying. That's why eisegesis is a problem. It happens to everybody, not just the other guy.

Romans is particularly well-known for this. If you look at verses in isolation they can look very different than if you are following Paul's argument.

People are saved, forgiven, justified and adopted as sons because of their faith in Christ. And one's act of faith has no merit, because Paul clearly contrasted faith from works in Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9. I'm uncomfortable with your phrae "beyond their control", as if the individual makes himself a "Christian", which obviously isn't true.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.

In a purely free-will world, all people would have an equal chance to hear and respond to God’s call, and all would equally have the ability to do so. Whether they do or not depends entirely upon their decision. In a purely Calvinist world, no one has any ability to hear God unless he opens their ears, and he decides who he will and won’t do this for.

This is oversimplification. Probably few Calvinists or Arminians believe either alternative in quite the form I’ve put them, but still, I think that gives a reasonable sense of the ends of the spectrum.

I’m somewhere in the middle. Calvin accepted an Augustinian view of human nature, in which after the fall, we have no ability even to respond to God’s call. He must first restore our ability to do so. I think Augustine took too negative a view of fallen human nature. We retain some of our God-given ability to respond to him. God’s image was marred but not removed.

But I don’t think salvation is entirely a matter of free choice, where everyone has an equal opportunity to accept God, as the pure free-will model would say. I’m not a Christian just because I freely accepted Christ while others around me, having the same opportunity, rejected him. I am well aware that my faith is largely a gift that came through my parents and church, which in the Calvinist analysis, would be secondary means through which God’s call works. There are also others with similar background who are not Christians. Perhaps that’s free choice, but I think most Christians experience it not as something we freely choose, but as something that comes to us from the outside.

But how far are we prepared to go with this line of thought? If faith isn’t just a matter of our free choice, but is largely something we have from God, does that mean that God started out before creation with a list of people he was going to save and another list of people he was going to reject, and set up history so as to damn certain people? I can see the logical path that leads there, but I don’t think Scripture supports the conclusion.

So I’m prepared to say that faith isn’t just a matter of our free choice, but that some hear a call that others don’t. But I’m not prepared to say that God starts out intending to damn certain people, primarily because this seems to be contradicted by Scripture.

Many would be inclined to classify this as Arminianism. But I’ve looked at his key claims and I think I disagree with more than I agree with him.

My biggest problem is that basic claim that we are free to reject God’s offer. At one level that’s true. People can hear the Gospel preached and accept or reject it. But the question here is deeper, because it’s looking at our motivations and what leads us to develop them. Calvinists don’t deny that people can reject God’s offer. They do it all the time. Rather, the claim is that at an interior level those who hear are those who God has brought to the point of being able to hear. And I agree with that analysis. When you start looking at motivation, eventually you reach a level beyond choice, to the character on which choice is based. You can choose to change, but at some point what you currently are — on which that choice is based — is something you didn’t choose. But that’s the level at which Augustine and Calvin were speaking when they talked about our inherent corruption and our need for God to regenerate us.

hedrick said:

Note that in my grad student days I studied artificial intelligence. At the time, getting computers to understand human speech was a big issue. It become clear very quickly when you try to do this that human speech is not symbolic logic. It is at best a clue to what the writer was thinking. Particularly with complex subjects, to understand someone you must be trying to duplicate their thought processes, using the language as clue to help you go in the right direction. If you are missing key background information, or if you misunderstand their intent, you will not understand what they are saying. That's why eisegesis is a problem. It happens to everybody, not just the other guy.

Click to expand...

But translation is based on words, not speech. Seems your comments are related more to speech than written words. And the Koine grammar should be quite helpful as well. But yes, even with that, eisegesis is rampant.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.

Click to expand...

Which was: "I'm uncomfortable with your phrase "beyond their control", as if the individual makes himself a "Christian", which obviously isn't true."

One of the arguments Calvinists bring up against "free will" is to infer that the person decides to be "born again", or "saved". That isn't even close to the free will view. Which is; man believes, and God saves, forgives, justifies, and regenerates, all at the exact same time. Man doesn't decide any of these things. Man believes that Christ saves. So their argument is flawed from the git-go.

In a purely free-will world, all people would have an equal chance to hear and respond to God’s call, and all would equally have the ability to do so. Whether they do or not depends entirely upon their decision. In a purely Calvinist world, no one has any ability to hear God unless he opens their ears, and he decides who he will and won’t do this for.

This is oversimplification. Probably few Calvinists or Arminians believe either alternative in quite the form I’ve put them, but still, I think that gives a reasonable sense of the ends of the spectrum.

Click to expand...

Seems reasonable.

I’m somewhere in the middle. Calvin accepted an Augustinian view of human nature, in which after the fall, we have no ability even to respond to God’s call. He must first restore our ability to do so.

Click to expand...

I don't see it that way, and here's why. When Adam rebelled, and the Lord went for a walk in the cool of the day, of course He knew that Adam was hiding and where he was hiding. So His question, "Adam, where are you?" meant "why are you where you are (hiding)?" iow, He wanted Adam to explain himself. So we see that Adam was fully able to respond to the Lord even in a fallen state. Further, from Rom 1:19,20 we know that God has revealed Himself to everyone, so that no one has an excuse, and Acts 17:26-27 tells us that God created mankind to seek Him. So God has already made possible for human beings to understand and respond to Him and His message. I can't find any support for the "regeneration before faith" teaching from Calvinism.

I think Augustine took too negative a view of fallen human nature. We retain some of our God-given ability to respond to him. God’s image was marred but not removed.

Click to expand...

I view the "image" differently. Since God is "three in One", I believe that's the pattern from which He created mankind: body, soul, and spirit. When Adam sinned, he immediately died spiritually. I take that literally. And his body began to decay and die slowly physically. When a person puts their faith in Christ, the REgeneration or being born again refers to man's dead human spirit, which is revived and is necessary in order to worship God properly, from what Jesus told the Samaritan woman, in Jn 4:24.

1 Jn 3 becomes clear and easy to understand when one realizes that he was referring to living or functioning by means of the Holy Spirit through the human spirit regarding not sinning. iow, when one is "filled with the Spirit" or "walking by means of the Spirit", that one is functioning from their human spirit, where I believe the Holy Spirit actually resides in us. In that state, the believer cannot sin. Period. Only when the believer grieves (Eph 4:30) or quenches (1 Thess 5:19) the Spirit do they sin. In that state, they are "out of fellowship" with God, and functioning from their fallen numan nature.

But I don’t think salvation is entirely a matter of free choice, where everyone has an equal opportunity to accept God, as the pure free-will model would say. I’m not a Christian just because I freely accepted Christ while others around me, having the same opportunity, rejected him. I am well aware that my faith is largely a gift that came through my parents and church, which in the Calvinist analysis, would be secondary means through which God’s call works. There are also others with similar background who are not Christians. Perhaps that’s free choice, but I think most Christians experience it not as something we freely choose, but as something that comes to us from the outside.

Click to expand...

It's either one or the other. Can't be both. I side with man being freely able to seek or reject God. Given that choice, those who do seek Him will find Him, just as Deut 4:29 says.

But how far are we prepared to go with this line of thought? If faith isn’t just a matter of our free choice, but is largely something we have from God, does that mean that God started out before creation with a list of people he was going to save and another list of people he was going to reject, and set up history so as to damn certain people? I can see the logical path that leads there, but I don’t think Scripture supports the conclusion.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Since God is omniscient, He has always known who will respond and who will reject. From God's perspective, mankind isn't an experiment. But, from the perspective of angels, it just might be. 1 Tim 5:23 may be a clue.

So I’m prepared to say that faith isn’t just a matter of our free choice, but that some hear a call that others don’t.

Click to expand...

But that doesn't negate a free choice. Remember, those who don't seek won't find. And those who don't seek, aren't paying attention. Have you ever done a search of "not paying attention" in the Bible? There are several verses in the OT that have that. So, they won't hear even when the call is made.

But I’m not prepared to say that God starts out intending to damn certain people, primarily because this seems to be contradicted by Scripture.

Click to expand...

Good. Because He doesn't start out that way.

Many would be inclined to classify this as Arminianism. But I’ve looked at his key claims and I think I disagree with more than I agree with him.

Click to expand...

Of course there will be overlap between any evangelical view, and I too agree with some things and disagree with some things of Arminianism.

My biggest problem is that basic claim that we are free to reject God’s offer. At one level that’s true. People can hear the Gospel preached and accept or reject it. But the question here is deeper, because it’s looking at our motivations and what leads us to develop them. Calvinists don’t deny that people can reject God’s offer. They do it all the time. Rather, the claim is that at an interior level those who hear are those who God has brought to the point of being able to hear. And I agree with that analysis. When you start looking at motivation, eventually you reach a level beyond choice, to the character on which choice is based. You can choose to change, but at some point what you currently are — on which that choice is based — is something you didn’t choose. But that’s the level at which Augustine and Calvin were speaking when they talked about our inherent corruption and our need for God to regenerate us.

Click to expand...

I go back to the basics: Acts 17:26-27 and Rom 1:19,20. Oh, and Rom 2:14,15 regarding the conscience that God has given to mankind, by which to understand the difference between right and wrong. Given those 3 things, God has already enabled everyone to understand the gospel message. The problem is that many just aren't paying attention. Either they don't care for, or don't like the message. Others do. I just don't see anything in Scripture that leads to the conclusion that God has to regenerate one before they will believe.

If that were true, then God ultimately is the One who chooses who will believe, but such an idea isn't found in Scripture.

FreeGrace2 said:

But translation is based on words, not speech. Seems your comments are related more to speech than written words. And the Koine grammar should be quite helpful as well. But yes, even with that, eisegesis is rampant.


Which was: "I'm uncomfortable with your phrase "beyond their control", as if the individual makes himself a "Christian", which obviously isn't true."

One of the arguments Calvinists bring up against "free will" is to infer that the person decides to be "born again", or "saved". That isn't even close to the free will view. Which is; man believes, and God saves, forgives, justifies, and regenerates, all at the exact same time. Man doesn't decide any of these things. Man believes that Christ saves. So their argument is flawed from the git-go.


Seems reasonable.


I don't see it that way, and here's why. When Adam rebelled, and the Lord went for a walk in the cool of the day, of course He knew that Adam was hiding and where he was hiding. So His question, "Adam, where are you?" meant "why are you where you are (hiding)?" iow, He wanted Adam to explain himself. So we see that Adam was fully able to respond to the Lord even in a fallen state. Further, from Rom 1:19,20 we know that God has revealed Himself to everyone, so that no one has an excuse, and Acts 17:26-27 tells us that God created mankind to seek Him. So God has already made possible for human beings to understand and respond to Him and His message. I can't find any support for the "regeneration before faith" teaching from Calvinism.


I view the "image" differently. Since God is "three in One", I believe that's the pattern from which He created mankind: body, soul, and spirit. When Adam sinned, he immediately died spiritually. I take that literally. And his body began to decay and die slowly physically. When a person puts their faith in Christ, the REgeneration or being born again refers to man's dead human spirit, which is revived and is necessary in order to worship God properly, from what Jesus told the Samaritan woman, in Jn 4:24.

1 Jn 3 becomes clear and easy to understand when one realizes that he was referring to living or functioning by means of the Holy Spirit through the human spirit regarding not sinning. iow, when one is "filled with the Spirit" or "walking by means of the Spirit", that one is functioning from their human spirit, where I believe the Holy Spirit actually resides in us. In that state, the believer cannot sin. Period. Only when the believer grieves (Eph 4:30) or quenches (1 Thess 5:19) the Spirit do they sin. In that state, they are "out of fellowship" with God, and functioning from their fallen numan nature.


It's either one or the other. Can't be both. I side with man being freely able to seek or reject God. Given that choice, those who do seek Him will find Him, just as Deut 4:29 says.


I agree with you. Since God is omniscient, He has always known who will respond and who will reject. From God's perspective, mankind isn't an experiment. But, from the perspective of angels, it just might be. 1 Tim 5:23 may be a clue.


But that doesn't negate a free choice. Remember, those who don't seek won't find. And those who don't seek, aren't paying attention. Have you ever done a search of "not paying attention" in the Bible? There are several verses in the OT that have that. So, they won't hear even when the call is made.


Good. Because He doesn't start out that way.


Of course there will be overlap between any evangelical view, and I too agree with some things and disagree with some things of Arminianism.


I go back to the basics: Acts 17:26-27 and Rom 1:19,20. Oh, and Rom 2:14,15 regarding the conscience that God has given to mankind, by which to understand the difference between right and wrong. Given those 3 things, God has already enabled everyone to understand the gospel message. The problem is that many just aren't paying attention. Either they don't care for, or don't like the message. Others do. I just don't see anything in Scripture that leads to the conclusion that God has to regenerate one before they will believe.

If that were true, then God ultimately is the One who chooses who will believe, but such an idea isn't found in Scripture.

Click to expand...

Good Day,

They do not understand necause they can not hear:


John 8

Why do you not understand fwhat I am saying?
Itis because you cannot hear My word.



they are not enabled, they can not like or dislike that which they do not hear, they can not care about that which they do not hear, beacause they do not understand...

They are unable to understand because they are cannot hear....

In the same manner that men cannot grow wings and fly like a bird.
Grow gills and swim like a fish.

In Him,

Bill

Ribosome said:

This has been bothering me lately. If God chose to save me, but chose to create others for eternal hell, can I happily worship God while he creates others for hell? It is very depressing for me if this is the case. How can I be happy while he creates others for hell? I simply got lucky that he chose me.

Click to expand...

Sounds like your issue is with God.

I think this problem is unavoidable even if one believes in free will, because God creates a free will being knowing the being will choose hell.

Click to expand...

More like knowing the person will reject Christ.

This makes me distrustful of God, and quite depressed, and does not make me want to worship him.

Click to expand...

You think God should do it your way, this way you can trust Him? Interesting.

Anyone else feeling this problem?

Click to expand...

I'm sure many are.

FreeGrace2 said:

I'm not. First, the "if God chose to creates for eternal hell" is unbiblical. There are no verses that teach this. Some Calvinists will look to Rom 9:22 as evidence that He does, but the word there isn't "prepared" as rendered in some translations, but is 'katartizo', which means to mend, repair, adjust to fit. In fact, the KJV uses "fitted to". So no one was created for destruction.

Click to expand...

Scripture teaches throughout God soverigne choice in election, whether we want to believe literal statements or not, wel...that's our choice I guess.

The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil. Prov 16.

Don't know why you think it's a problem for those who believe in free will. God provided salvation for everyone.

Click to expand...

Curious of how you believe this?

So those who don't take it are totally responsible for going to hell, not God. Even though He is omniscient and has always known those who wouldn't take His free gift.

Click to expand...

God is the cause of salvation, not man.

Let's consider the human condition. Even though we aren't omniscient, we know that we can't guarantee that having children will result in all of them, or even some of them, will turn out great.

Click to expand...

So God takes a chance? Then hopes He created them just right so they will believe?

So, does all responsibility fall on the parent of those children who turn out poorly? Yes, if there is evidence of poor parenting skills, etc. But how about where the parents did everything right, and their children still turned out poorly? They aren't responsible for the sins of the children, any more than the children are responsible for the sins of the parents.

Click to expand...

Hhmmm, I'm having an issue seeing how this relates to God's word, human analogies just don't cut it.

Would you explain your reasoning with scripture?


Thanks,

hedrick said:

The difficulty with Rom 9:22 is that the translation depends upon your theology. Both commentaries that I consulted (Word and Hermeneia) believe the sense is that the vessels currently deserve destruction, but that God is waiting to redeem them as indicated in 11:32. If so, then the reference isn't to individuals, but is consistent with the rest of 9 - 11 is referring to Israel as opposed to the Gentiles.

I actually do accept a kind of soft predestination. I do think by and large that people are Christians for reasons beyond their control, and not because of any particular merit. I would attribute that to God's grace. There are some passages, particularly in John, that seem to refer to people as being given to Jesus, and preserved by God. But most passages cited by Calvinists turn out upon further analysis not to be so clear. Nor do I see any support for the concept that God created some people for destruction. Logically I can make a good argument for it, but there are too many explicit statements that God doesn't want anyone damned.

So basically I'm stuck living with a tension between salvation dependent upon unmerited grace and a God who wants everyone saved. Both of the usual alternatives seem to rely on unsound exegesis.

Click to expand...

Personally I cant see why it would be an issue to take God at His word, it is God's soverigne right to save one and punish another. Consider, even as God uses His infinite forbearance to draw the wicked to repentance, does nothing but harden them, God knows it will harden them, see Romans 2:4-5.

Though, this does seem to have special relation to the Jewish nation, towards who God has used extreme patience before He did finally utterly reject them, it seems quite explicit there are vessels of wrath, those whom God meant to exercise His severe judgment likened before the vessels of dishonor.
These are fitted, ie, their state of sin and corruption, is not pardoned or corrected by God's grace, are fit for no other use but only to be examples and subjects of His justice.

That God creates some specifically for hell is never taught in the Scriptures. It is a conclusion derived from a doctrine (predestination of individuals) that is based on poor exegesis of some Scriptures.

John
NZ

Ribosome said:

It is not about doing things my way. Would you tell me that if God lied about something? Would I be at fault at simply wanting my way and not God's way?

Click to expand...

How could I answer that question? God does not lie.

The problem I see is that it appears to me that God's nature of goodness and his position as God might be compromised if he creates a being solely for the purpose of sending him to hell. Yes, man gets the blame for being a sinner, yet at the same time God is the one who created him for hell.

Click to expand...

It depends on our point of view, and you know there are many different points of view. So, which one is correct then?

God alone is correct, sometimes it is difficult to see things from His point of view. But keep in mind this is God's world, we only know what sin is because He revealed it to us.

Johnnz said:

That God creates some specifically for hell is never taught in the Scriptures. It is a conclusion derived from a doctrine (predestination of individuals) that is based on poor exegesis of some Scriptures.

John
NZ

Click to expand...

And that is your opinion.

One based on exegesis.

John
NZ

Ribosome said:

It is not about doing things my way. Would you tell me that if God lied about something? Would I be at fault at simply wanting my way and not God's way?

The problem I see is that it appears to me that God's nature of goodness and his position as God might be compromised if he creates a being solely for the purpose of sending him to hell. Yes, man gets the blame for being a sinner, yet at the same time God is the one who created him for hell.

Click to expand...

Only universalists can escape this dilemma. So even if one doesn't believe in the Calvinistic version of predestination and God's sovereignty, he is still left with the dilemma you described in your opening post, because nobody admits to being an open theist.

I submit that the key to this issue is recognizing that those who end up in hell truly deserve it. The Bible repeatedly tells us that those who end up in hell do so because of their sins, and that it is God's justice being executed.

From another angle, you could also recognize that the Bible speaks of God "desiring to make known his power". For example, in Romans 9 it says he raised Pharaoh up "to demonstrate his power". He is willing not only for his mercy to be glorified and demonstrated, but also his justice.

God is not just mercy, but also justice. He is in the business of glorifying himself, and that includes his justice being glorified. Thus, he deemed it best for his glory for not only his mercy to be expressed, but also his justice.

Also the Bible says that anything God does, he does for the good of the elect (Rom 8). The elect, in heaven, will be forever grateful because they know the what they were saved from. If God had simply saved everyone there would be nothing to compare your salvation to. And as the Bible says "he who has much forgiven, loves much"

Johnnz said:

One based on exegesis.

John
NZ

Click to expand...

Still your opinion.

Firstly, you are not identified as a Calvinist. Therefore your observation, that which is Calvinist, shouldn't worry you because you are not Calvinist.

Secondly, what may assist to ease your mind about TULIP, is that Calvin was an attorney first. He later self-identified as one who could decree the laws of God.

Hope that helps you to find peace.

Ribosome said:

This has been bothering me lately. If God chose to save me, but chose to create others for eternal hell, can I happily worship God while he creates others for hell? It is very depressing for me if this is the case. How can I be happy while he creates others for hell? I simply got lucky that he chose me.

I think this problem is unavoidable even if one believes in free will, because God creates a free will being knowing the being will choose hell.

This makes me distrustful of God, and quite depressed, and does not make me want to worship him.

Anyone else feeling this problem?

Click to expand...

Foghorn said:

Still your opinion.

Click to expand...

A biblically based opinion though.

Romans 9, an oft used section of scripture by those who accept predestination, refers to Isaac and his two sons Jacob and Esau. And that is within a context of a previous comment
Rom 9:6 "It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." NIV.

Paul carrying on a theme he began in Romans 2:1, is reminding his readers that only obedient children, not merely those by virtue of being natural descendants of Abraham, are those upon whom God's blessings rest. Plus Esau deliberately chose not to accept God's ways, in spite of warnings.

That is a very specific context and cannot be extrapolated to mean everyone is predestined either to be 'in or out'. Two people in Israel's history do not a universal doctrine make.

Later Pharaoh is mentioned. Look back at the story and see how often he refused to listen to Moses before he was hardened. Again, no general principle of pre-selection is there.

Thus I see my views as more than just opinion; they have biblical support. Lots more too than I have mentioned here I will add.

John
NZ

Johnnz said:

A biblically based opinion though.

Romans 9, an oft used section of scripture by those who accept predestination, refers to Isaac and his two sons Jacob and Esau. And that is within a context of a previous comment
Rom 9:6 "It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." NIV.

Click to expand...

It's interesting you would use 9:6, have you considered what that is teaching? I think you may want to reconsider?

Also, just so you know, I have no doubt your opinion is based on scripture, I believe you when you say that. Eventhough, it does not mean you, or I have it all correct, as I am sure you agree.