How can the grace of God be resisted by some yet received by others?

[Inkfingers]

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

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

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

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

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau?

Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

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

That is what is at issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

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

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual, but is this “letter” being written to non-Christians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

Is that a rather roundabout way of ignoring the blatant predestination in Romans 9:17-18 as well as other parts of Romans 9?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is a great quality.

Everything that comes from the potter's shop is under a curse.

It's only by the grace of God's mercy that any are saved from a well deserved Hell.

If you say: “We cannot keep from committing any sin at a particular time”, than you are making our sins God’s fault, since He did not make us with the ability to keep from sinning and any sin is not really our fault, but do you blame Adam and Eve?

He "made" us under a curse. That curse includes inability to keep from sinning.

I don't particularly like the way the fact that I was born under a curse. I may even agree with you that it doesn't seem fair that I was.

But God's thoughts and God's ways are not my thoughts and ways.

Our task is to believe what God says whether we fully understand it (or like it) or not.

We are to build our "theology" in the exact opposite of the way Adam did. He wouldn't believe what God said until he fully understood it.

We are to believe God in spite of not fully understanding it (or seeing how it's fair).

 

[bling]

I read through the past 10 pages or more to get a feel for the different positions being argued. The above quote is concerning to me as it denies original sin as presented in Genesis. It also goes against scientific research, which shows that infants can begin lying by 6 months of age.

It explains the doctrine of free will, believed by bling, in that if you start out perfect and then choose sin, you could then, theoretically, choose to not sin and make yourself perfect by your own works.

What I don't understand is how grace can be grace if a person makes the choice to follow God.

Grace is defined as: God giving to us what we don't deserve.

How can it be grace if we grab ahold of God when we don't deserve it? Why wouldn't God just shrug off someone who grabs hold of God by their own effort? How is a person's effort to choose God an act of God's grace? It doesn't make sense.

So you feel it is fair and just to hold a baby accountable for a “lie” at 6 months?

Would you hold a child prior to birth accountable and hell bound?

I did not suggest we all start out “perfect” like Christ was perfect, but do you realize the difference?

I do not see Adam and Eve starting out “perfect” either, but were described as being “very good”, so that could mean: “as good as they could be created to be, but that is not perfect like Christ is perfect since Christ was not a created being.”

We could “choose” not to do one sin at one very specific time by really going out of our way to do something else, but a mature adult cannot chose not to sin sometime, so all will sin. This makes sin our responsibility, since we could have kept from committing a particular sin at a particular time. If you say: “We cannot keep from committing any sin at a particular time”, than you are making our sins God’s fault, since He did not make us with the ability to keep from sinning and any sin is not really our fault, but do you blame Adam and Eve?

A person does not “makes the choice to follow God”, but does wimp out, give up, and surrender to his/her enemy. God is still the persons enemy when they surrender and he/she is not “joining” God’s army, but immediately upon surrendering (just mentally turning to God, seeking and willing to accept undeserved charity) the person is showered with unbelievable gifts (this is like the prodigal son returning home not really expecting anything, but maybe being allowed to work for his father).

 

[bling]

Is that a rather roundabout way of ignoring the blatant predestination in Romans 9:17-18 as well as other parts of Romans 9?

Where did you get that in my answer?

 

[bling]

Everything that comes from the potter's shop is under a curse.

It's only by the grace of God that any are saved from a well deserved Hell.

Have you ever been to a potter's shop where he/she makes the pots?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Have you ever been to a potter's shop where he/she makes the pots?

Not since leaving my mother's womb.

 

[Tinyarch]

I did not suggest we all start out “perfect” like Christ was perfect, but do you realize the difference?

I do not see Adam and Eve starting out “perfect” either,

but were described as being “very good”, so that could mean: “as good as they could be created to be, but that is not perfect like Christ is perfect since Christ was not a created being.”

You are saying that God failed to create perfectly. He could only make it to the "very good" stage.

Your claim is perplexing to me. Please explain.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You are saying that God failed to create perfectly. He could only make it to the "very good" stage. Your claim is perplexing to me. Please explain.

Ezekiel 28:15-17 "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you."

He made Lucifer perfect and yet he sinned. I don't see where in the scripture anyone could get that His original creation of man was not also perfect.

Except perhaps in the fact that they lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

But even with that - they lacked the knowledge of all things to begin with.

 

[Tinyarch]

Ezekiel 28:15-17 "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you."

He made Lucifer perfect and yet he sinned. I don't see where in the scripture anyone could get that His original creation of man was not also perfect.

I am hoping bling can explain his belief that God didn't create perfectly, which means that God is not perfect.

 

[Tinyarch]

He "made" us under a curse. That curse includes inability to keep from sinning.

God cursed us when He made us?

It's God's fault we sin?

Do I get to blame God, using your claims?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I am hoping bling can explain his belief that God didn't create perfectly, which means that God is not perfect.

I just added a couple of lines to my last post while you were posting.

I doubt, however, that that was being considered by bling when he made his observation.

 

[Marvin Knox]

God cursed us when He made us?

Yes. Not the original Adam but everyone after him.

It's God's fault we sin?

No.

Do I get to blame God, using your claims?

No.

That's exactly the point.

His curse of mankind was righteous and He cannot be blamed for anything that transpires from that curse on mankind.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm afraid that after reading your post I have no idea what you mean by it.

We are not allowed to state a persons incompetence or health or mental or social or religious or whatever "challenge"
on this forum as far as I am aware.
Many members and posters and visitors have "challenges" that are not plainly stated.

Sometimes (maybe most often) it is a "challenge" because of what they believe someone else( who supports them or whose approval they think they need) requires of them .

Thus, (going back now to the initial reason for this) .... ....
... ....
from what you posted:
"Marvin Knox said: ↑
I explained it very simply and very clearly. Any argument from you can only come from wanting to argue for it's own sake."

The answer is no. "Any argument from you can only come from wanting to argue for it's own sake." is not necessarily correct; even if it is correct sometimes or even frequently.

One example a few years ago: A person completely blind was typing quite well in a chat room, but not always "keeping up" and not always "understanding the flow of discussion"

because the software he was using was very useful and adequate for basic use,
but could not convey all of the information fast enough for him to have all the information "ON SCREEN" that everyone else could see.

AFTER we found out he was blind, there was no problem as anything that needed repeated or re-stated that he could not "see" could be repeated without fanfare and without mis-understanding.

With the various challenges on an open forum, perhaps some or many people do not want their challenges known, no matter what they are....

But the effects are obvious and are ongoing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But do you feel that someone here is saying that "it's Okay to sin" and does not abhor sin?

I don't remember if this is on-topic or off-topic or related at all,
but have you not seen
the frequent (to me it seems) posts that claim : "IF you obey* ONE COMMANDMENT, (don't sin), YOU ARE CONDEMNED" . ?

To me, that does not sound like they abhor sin nor that they try not to sin or simply even do not sin.

*"obey"; yes - if you OBEY one commandment.....

 

[Marvin Knox]

I don't remember if this is on-topic or off-topic or related at all,
but have you not seen
the frequent (to me it seems) posts that claim : "IF you obey ONE COMMANDMENT, (don't sin), YOU ARE CONDEMNED" . ?

To me, that does not sound like they abhor sin nor that they try not to sin or simply even do not sin.

I've never seen such a post.
I'm not tracking with you here.
Sorry.

We are not allowed to state a persons incompetence or health or mental or social or religious or whatever "challenge" on this forum as far as I am aware.
Many members and posters and visitors have "challenges" that are not plainly stated..

I don't see how that applies here.

The answer is no. "Any argument from you can only come from wanting to argue for it's own sake." is not necessarily correct; even if it is correct sometimes or even frequently.

That would certainly be true if that person had not had it explained to them a dozen or more times in the past. That's the case with EmSw. He's rather famous for it and most here are aware of his duplicity.

.................................With the various challenges on an open forum, perhaps some or many people do not want their challenges known, no matter what they are....
But the effects are obvious and are ongoing.

That would explain lot about his posts. I started conversing with him a long time ago and told him that he seemed to have some sort of mental deficiency.

He denied it of course and he has continued in his ways over time.

I usually take the position that he is simply a false teacher and purposefully obstinate.

But every few months at least I will make the observation that he doesn't seem to be hitting on all cylinders.

I have come to the conclusion that, although that may be technically true, in most cases it seems to be that he just argues for argument's sake - as I charged.

I particularly feel that this is the case since he continues to misrepresent time and time again what others say and teach.

Having said all that - - - you are right in saying that the only reason that he would continue to argue as he does is because of his obstinate nature is incorrect. He may just "not be all there" as they say.

I should leave that possibility open I suppose since that was my original feeling so long ago and it often still strikes me that way even after all this time with him.

 

[Tinyarch]

Yes. Not the original Adam but everyone after him.

No.

No.

That's exactly the point.

His curse of mankind was righteous and He cannot be blamed for anything that transpires from that curse on mankind.

Bling seems to be saying that God cursed us at creation, not at the point when humans sinned.

When does the curse start?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I've never seen such a post.
I'm not tracking with you here.
Sorry.

They have been posted frequently by some sects.
I am a voracious reader, or 'skimmer', as in flipping quickly thru the posts or the summaries and not alighting on one if it is quicksand, but in and by sheer grace always,
noting it as it is a frequent and false idea posted by some sects or persons who are 'challenged' as noted.

I don't see how that applies here.

Yes, the rest of your post (not all quoted here) shows you do understand and state it quite well.

That would certainly be true if that person had not had it explained to them a dozen or more times in the past.

Remember the example of a blind man typing so well we didn't know he was blind for over 3 months on a chat room.
He had good software by the way. Text to voice and so on especially for the blind.

There are sections on this forum for depressed, mentally challenged, and various other disabilities , not all identified ,
and no one ever suggests they remain in separate sections of the site -- they are welcome always in every section.

But when an unidentified 'challenge' is present, like OCD,
or severe chronic pain, or aspergers/autism, or
paralysis (bed - ridden) , etc etc etc
we can perhaps see the results
but without knowing why. (unless the information is VOLUNTEERED)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When does the curse start?

Many are cursed TODAY, and every day.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Bling seems to be saying that God cursed us at creation, not at the point when humans sinned.
When does the curse start?

The curse started at the fall and not before.

For all of bling's misstatements concerning the lack of perfection of the original Adam at his creation - I do not believe that he believes that man was cursed from creation. I'm pretty sure that he would agree with what I have just said about the fall and that any further reading into his comment about lack of perfection at the creation is unwarranted.

I believe the sin nature is passed on to all of Adam's descendants because of Adam's original transgression against God.

That nature includes the inability to not sin due to that inherent sin nature.

There is much debate about whether those who have never "actually sinned" - namely babies - are bound for Hell.

I personally don't believe that they are.

I do, however, believe in "total depravity" in as much as sin has permeated every single facet of our being because of the fall and the curse which followed.

Psalm 139:13 says, "For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb."

That tells me that God created us with the sin nature which we all posses from birth (or before).

 

[Tinyarch]

Many are cursed TODAY, and every day.

You miss the point of the question.

If, as bling states, there is no original sin, then God's curse on mankind happened at creation and God created imperfectly. God is, therefore, flawed if He is responsible for our sin, as bling suggests.