How Free Will Turns the Gospel into Law and Grace into Works.

[bling]

The gospel is good news to those who believe. But if you say the gospel is good news to those who choose to believe, it becomes a Law based on obedience. And grace becomes works. People must then choose to save themselves by meeting conditions = law.

Now that you are a Christian do you make a free will choice not to obey God or does God make that choice for you?

 

[Dave L]

Now that you are a Christian do you make a free will choice not to obey God or does God make that choice for you?

“for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13 (ESV)

“No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.” 1 John 3:9–10 (NASB95)

 

[Butch5]

The gospel is good news to those who believe. But if you say the gospel is good news to those who choose to believe, it becomes a Law based on obedience. And grace becomes works. People must then choose to save themselves by meeting conditions = law.

Not at all. Paul himself said that Christ became eternal salvation to those who obey. People have this mistaken idea that there are no laws today because they impose their own ideas on the Scriptures. God Himself said through Jeremiah that in the new covenant He would write His laws on their hearts.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer. 31:31-33 KJV)

 

[Sam91]

One last thing before I head off to work. Read Romans 9:19-23 pertaining to the potter and the clay and tell me what participation did the clay have in the whole process. What "free will" does the clay have? We cannot say that this scripture is taken out of context because the ENTIRE context is the sovereignty of God.

Doug

I think these guys are explaining it much better than I can at around the 13-15minute mark. I saw this video in another thread.

 

[Stephen Douglas]

You ask: “What "free will" does the clay have?”

The clay has none, but after it leaves the shop as a wonderful pot can things change?

Upon leaving the shop with the Potter’s proud mark on the jar (the birth of a baby) , they are great for what they were made to do: common or special use, but after leaving the shop things can happen pleasing the Potter or embarrassing the Potter to the point He does not want His mark on the pot. So, what could happen to the pot (special or common) that would cause the Potter not to want His mark on the pot?

You have to keep in mind the context of who is writing and how Paul uses the analogy other places:

Paul uses these same Greek words: τιμὴν (honorable or special purpose) and ἀτιμίαν (dishonorable or common use) in 2 Tim. 2:20 conveying the same idea of two types of vessels in a rich person’s house, but that would mean the Paul did not use ἀτιμίαν to mean “dishonorable”, since there would not be any dishonorable vessel in a rich man’s house, so Paul’s meaning is a common used vessel.

To understand better, we have to look at:

2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Paul said the common (ἀτιμίαν) vessels could themselves “cleanse themselves” (their free will action) and thus become articles of honor special, holy and useful. If the vessel itself can clean up, than it is also possible the vessel can become cracked (damaged) to the point of being useless.

It seems that you place much emphasis on the "honorable" and "dishonorable" portion of that passage. These terms are relating to Hebrews and Gentiles in this passage. The whole chapter is dealing with God's sovereign will to work out redemption for both Gentiles and Jews. Evidently the Jews didn't like that the potter had chosen to form vessels of destruction in order to make known His vessels of mercy>> which includes only those whom have been called by God, both Jews and Gentiles. Romans 9:22-26. The context here is crystal clear. It is God who chooses and the vessel has no right to complain because without the potter it would simply be nothing but a lump. I didn't say it. Paul did. The lump has absolutely no will much less "free will". It is formed by the potter to reach the desires of the potter. The developed lump has the free will to be thankful that it was formed into anything of use. There is certainly no utility in searching through other passages looking for the meaning of "honorable" or "dishonorable" in this passage. Paul lays it all out there as he does throughout this entire chapter that deals exclusively with God's sovereignty to make choices in spite of man's inability to approve or understand, which is exactly what is being discussed in this subject matter.

If God sets a bar of salvation to reach and to sustain, we are saved by never ending works. If God as the potter forms each according to His will (not our will) then some will be formed as vessels of destruction and others as vessels of mercy. Our carnality does not like that because it doesn't seem fair. Paul is addressing this situation in Romans 9. It is there for all to read.

Doug

 

[Stephen Douglas]

Not at all. Paul himself said that Christ became eternal salvation to those who obey. People have this mistaken idea that there are no laws today because they impose their own ideas on the Scriptures. God Himself said through Jeremiah that in the new covenant He would write His laws on their hearts.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer. 31:31-33 KJV)

Now, I realize that I am not in this conversation but that is a powerful and revealing passage that you submitted. The Lord will put His law into the inward parts and write the law into their hearts. This new covenant will not be like the old covenant because God is proclaiming that He will actually change the wicked hearts of stone into hearts of flesh to love Him. It is God's monergistic work to redeem His people through the power of the Spirit as explained in Romans 8. It is the "BUT GOD" of the second chapter of Ephesians. We respond to Him because He has first acted upon our hearts to desire Him. Very good example that you have submitted in choosing that passage. Thank you so much!

Doug

 

[Butch5]

I think these guys are explaining it much better than I can at around the 13-15minute mark. I saw this video in another thread.

Stephen, What they miss is that this passage is speaking of Israel. People use Romans 9 out of context often. If we read the book of Romans we find that Paul starts out with a general address to the church. However, at 2:17 he turns his attention to the Jewish believers. He continues this narrative until chapter 11 verse 13 where he turns his attention to the Gentiles. So, what he says from 2:17-11:13 is addressed to the Jewish believers in the church at Rome. Romans 9 is all about Israel. The clay, is Israel, not Christians. God made promises to Abraham and He was fulfilling them. This is what Paul is talking about. Notice how he starts, saying that the promises belong to the fathers. Paul explains how not all of Israel are the seed. In the Law, Israel was told if they kept God's commands they could go into the land. They didn't and got kicked out. The promise to Abraham and his seed was not based on the Law but on the promise of God. The Jews who were Abraham's physical seed, though that they were the heirs of the promise. However, in Galatians 3 Paul clears this up saying that the "seed" that the promise was made to was Christ. it wasn't to Abraham's physical seed, it was to Christ.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal. 3:16-18 KJV)

So, when people try to say that Romans 9 proves the election of Christians they are using it out of context. It's about Israel, that's why the clay can do nothing.

 

[Butch5]

Now, I realize that I am not in this conversation but that is a powerful and revealing passage that you submitted. The Lord will put His law into the inward parts and write the law into their hearts. This new covenant will not be like the old covenant because God is proclaiming that He will actually change the wicked hearts of stone into hearts of flesh to love Him. It is God's monergistic work to redeem His people through the power of the Spirit as explained in Romans 8. It is the "BUT GOD" of the second chapter of Ephesians. We respond to Him because He has first acted upon our hearts to desire Him. Very good example that you have submitted in choosing that passage. Thank you so much!

Doug

And yet we know that all Israel isn't saved. This shows that the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9 isn't correct. It also shows that this idea that there is nothing more required of man than simple belief isn't correct either.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The law holds people responsible based on their ability to obey or disobey it.

Not.

If someone runs a red light, they get a ticket, they get fined, they might lose their license or end up in jail.

Regardless of their ability to obey or disobey it.

If any man takes(kills) a life on purpose, then their life is required of them. God doesn't offer excuses or exemptions , does He ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Free will permeates the world as far as it concerns law.

All the world is subject to the prince of the power of the air(the devil), according to Yahuweh's Word,
even the remnant, before they are saved.

How is that "free will", anywhere ?

 

[Stephen Douglas]

And yet we know that all Israel isn't saved. This shows that the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9 isn't correct. It also shows that this idea that there is nothing more required of man than simple belief isn't correct either.

I would suggest that you read Romans 11:25-35 concerning the redemption of the House of Israel.

Of course God requires much of those whom He has saved. He requires that they lay down their entire lives for the Savior. But the gospel does not say that God will abandon His children for disobedience. Just the opposite. God disciplines and rebukes those that He loves.

Doug

 

[Butch5]

I would suggest that you read Romans 11:25-35 concerning the redemption of the House of Israel.

Of course God requires much of those whom He has saved. He requires that they lay down their entire lives for the Savior. But the gospel does not say that God will abandon His children for disobedience. Just the opposite. God disciplines and rebukes those that He loves.

Doug

I'm quite familiar with Romans. As I said in the other post, from 2:17-11:17 Paul is addressing the Jewish believers in the church at Rome and is discussing Israel. It's not about Christians.

On the contrary. Paul writes that Christ became eternal salvation to those who obey. Jesus said, some believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

 

[Stephen Douglas]

Stephen, What they miss is that this passage is speaking of Israel. People use Romans 9 out of context often. If we read the book of Romans we find that Paul starts out with a general address to the church. However, at 2:17 he turns his attention to the Jewish believers. He continues this narrative until chapter 11 verse 13 where he turns his attention to the Gentiles. So, what he says from 2:17-11:13 is addressed to the Jewish believers in the church at Rome. Romans 9 is all about Israel. The clay, is Israel, not Christians. God made promises to Abraham and He was fulfilling them. This is what Paul is talking about. Notice how he starts, saying that the promises belong to the fathers. Paul explains how not all of Israel are the seed. In the Law, Israel was told if they kept God's commands they could go into the land. They didn't and got kicked out. The promise to Abraham and his seed was not based on the Law but on the promise of God. The Jews who were Abraham's physical seed, though that they were the heirs of the promise. However, in Galatians 3 Paul clears this up saying that the "seed" that the promise was made to was Christ. it wasn't to Abraham's physical seed, it was to Christ.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal. 3:16-18 KJV)

So, when people try to say that Romans 9 proves the election of Christians they are using it out of context. It's about Israel, that's why the clay can do nothing.

Much of what you wrote there, I am in complete agreement. But there is a WHOLE lot more to this chapter than just the potter explanation of God's prerogative to extend His redemption beyond the seed of Abraham. There is the mention of twins in the womb whom have had no opportunity to do either good nor evil. Yet, seemingly without cause, God declares that He loves one and hates the other (in order that the purpose of election might stand). There is the declaration that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and will harden the hearts of whom He wills. This is powerful stuff. And then it is verse 16 which I think should end all of this debate on it's own.

"So then, it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy".

Does it get any more explicit than that?

Doug

 

[Stephen Douglas]

I think these guys are explaining it much better than I can at around the 13-15minute mark. I saw this video in another thread.

I want to respond to the content in the very nice video but I must go have dinner now. I will get to it soon. Thanks for submitting it.

Doug

 

[Butch5]

Much of what you wrote there, I am in complete agreement. But there is a WHOLE lot more to this chapter than just the potter explanation of God's prerogative to extend His redemption beyond the seed of Abraham. There is the mention of twins in the womb whom have had no opportunity to do either good nor evil. Yet, seemingly without cause, God declares that He loves one and hates the other (in order that the purpose of election might stand). There is the declaration that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and will harden the hearts of whom He wills. This is powerful stuff. And then it is verse 16 which I think should end all of this debate on it's own.

"So then, it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy".

Does it get any more explicit than that?

Doug

But it's not talking about salvation. It's talking about Israel. It's about God fulfilling His promises to Abraham. Note that Paul says the promises are the fathers. What are the promises he speaks of? They can be found in Genesis. God promised that He would make Abraham the father of a great nations, the father of many nations, that all nations would be blessed through him, and all the land that he could see. God also promised the land to Isaac and Jacob. These are the promises that are the fathers. It's the fulfillment of these promises through the nation of Israel that he is writing about. How and through which individuals God fulfilled these promises was based on His election of people. He elected Issac and not Ishmael. He elect Jacob and not Esau. He chose who He wanted to choose. They were chosen before birth so they had no input into their election. There's nothing in this passage that talks about salvation. Notice how he starts.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom. 9:1-8 KJV)

He says it's not as though the word of God has been of no effect. He then goes on to explain what he means. The physical seed of Abraham are not the seed. Remember, he's addressing the Jewish portion of the church at Rome. He's telling them that it's not the physical seed of Abraham that are the children of the God, but rather the children of the promise. The seed is coming through the line of Isaac, not Ishmael, through Jacob, not Esau. God will choose who He will choose. Remember, Israel is the elect people of God.

 

[Sam91]

I read Romans last week for my Bible reading plan, will read 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 over while your at work and get back to you hopefully. (I love Romans 12) I also have commitments that I should do.

I must confess I didn't get around to reading those Romans chapters (yet). I was busy and then watched that long video and read Corinthians. I did however read a portion of Romans 11 quoted and continued into Romans 12.

Romans 12 begins interestingly. Having explained all what had transpired before Paul writes:

"12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, [which is] your spiritual service."

Now to do this we need freewill (you will see that it is also by God's mercy that we are able to do this). If we were automatons the verse is futile. With no free will wouldn't it be written instead like this: Therefore, brethren, by the mercies .... Oh I can't even write it because it would be blasphemy and the altering of scripture. Maybe you can take the free will out the verse for yourself. Let's just say the verse would be written differently.

Later on in Romans 12 we are taught how to react to people mistreating us. Last year someone misjudged me. Rather than instinctively obeying that scripture I recalled it and decided to obey. (I'm not saying the recollection was my own doing, nor entirely the will to follow. But I could have sinned and disobeyed.) I did it more than once with that lady.

Well, the Lord used that and rewarded me a couple of weeks later. The lady gave me a card and a necklace. (After this she initiated with me a few conversations about God and by christmas said that she felt God drawing her to Him and wanted to visit a church)

The card said that I was like an angel in her eyes. The thing about the necklace was that very morning, I got a sudden inclination 'A necklace would look nice with this top.' The odds on that happening are very low. I'm not materialistic and I don't own another necklace. For me to get the idea that I'd like one and to then be presented with one two hours later must have been a small reward from the Lord. I didn't do it for a reward but I was so thankful. He reinforced His word. But why would He have done that if not to teach me to continue to obey. He wouldn't need to teach us if we couldn't choose.

Good night brother.

 

[Neogaia777]

I've said this many times before, but I don't know how many actually truly get it or got it though...

Free will is a perspective or point of view, from someone's perspective (singular) (mainly One's perspective) we don't have it, but from others perspectives (plural) mainly two here) we do have it in a somewhat limited fashion...

And from the One's perspective, "none" of the rest of us truly have it...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I've said this many times before, but I don't know how many actually truly get it or got it though...

Free will is a perspective or point of view, from someone's perspective (singular) (mainly One's perspective) we don't have it, but from others perspectives (plural) mainly two here) we do have it in a somewhat limited fashion...

And from the One's perspective, "none" of the rest of us truly have it...

God Bless!

And if those other two cannot or could not even function as if there own will(s) do not play a part when they actually may not, not from the point of view of the One anyway, how should we think we could function as if our does not, or does not play a part, (as well), etc?

We can't, it is quite impossible to function that way, we must act as if it does or we do, even though from the One's perspective it/they/me/you may not, or we really don't, or actually do not, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Stephen Douglas]

But it's not talking about salvation. It's talking about Israel. It's about God fulfilling His promises to Abraham. Note that Paul says the promises are the fathers. What are the promises he speaks of? They can be found in Genesis. God promised that He would make Abraham the father of a great nations, the father of many nations, that all nations would be blessed through him, and all the land that he could see. God also promised the land to Isaac and Jacob. These are the promises that are the fathers. It's the fulfillment of these promises through the nation of Israel that he is writing about. How and through which individuals God fulfilled these promises was based on His election of people. He elected Issac and not Ishmael. He elect Jacob and not Esau. He chose who He wanted to choose. They were chosen before birth so they had no input into their election. There's nothing in this passage that talks about salvation. Notice how he starts.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom. 9:1-8 KJV)

He says it's not as though the word of God has been of no effect. He then goes on to explain what he means. The physical seed of Abraham are not the seed. Remember, he's addressing the Jewish portion of the church at Rome. He's telling them that it's not the physical seed of Abraham that are the children of the God, but rather the children of the promise. The seed is coming through the line of Isaac, not Ishmael, through Jacob, not Esau. God will choose who He will choose. Remember, Israel is the elect people of God.

Not talking about salvation? Really? Are not redemption and salvation synonymous terms? Certainly this entire chapter deals with the promises of Abraham which includes the redemption of Abraham's seed. Does this election rhetoric (loving and choosing Jacob while in the womb and hating Esau) only apply to Israel even though it is used directly in at least 20 other verses in the New Testament? Are not all who have faith in Christ grafted into the promises of Abraham?

This entire chapter deals with redemption and how God chooses His own. Paul announces God's divine sovereignty by mentioning the intentional hardening of Pharaoh's heart for His good purpose.

"For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

But you say that all of this soley and uniquely applies only to the nation of Israel and does not reflect the general nature of God and His posture toward his creation? That is a tough pill to swallow, my friend. Quite a stretch of the mind, I would say. God promised redemption to the seed of Abraham because of faith. It is through faith that we all have access to the Father as those grafted into the promises of Abraham.

Sure, Paul is addressing the Israelites in this chapter but lays it out for all to see for all eternity. The message certainly transcends the immediate purpose of the text. God chooses His own. God chose the Hebrews, not the Chinese or the Amorites. God chose the idolater Abraham and not Lot. God chose the renegade Saul of Tarsas and not Pontius Pilate. And remember that Jesus chose the twelve, they did not choose Him. God makes choices based on His good pleasure. He hasn't only chosen the Hebrews but also everyone who has received the gift of His Spirit. To lay this entire chapter aside as only applicable to the Jews is unthinkable.

Doug

 

[Sam91]

And if those other two cannot or could not even function as if there own will(s) do not play a part when they actually may not, not from the point of view of the One anyway, how should we think we could function as if our does not, or does not play a part, (as well), etc?

We can't, it is quite impossible to function that way, we must act as if it does or we do, even though from the One's perspective it/they/me/you may not, or we really don't, or actually do not, etc.

God Bless!

If that is true the unrighteous are not responsible for their sin.

So how do they deserve destruction?

How can someone sin if they have no choice in how they act?

How can someone reject the gospel if it is not in their power to do it?

Also, a fruit of the spirit is self-control?

When someone is urged in the bible to choose life, is that just lies or mockery of those who are condemned?

Why do those who are saved get a reward?

How can someone persevere without doing the persevering?

When did you last sin? Was it you who sinned? Why ask for forgiveness when you weren't the one who made yourself sin? If you aren't the one who made you do it, then who did?

The mind boggles.