Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It may have been a one off event aimed at achieving a specific purpose.
What does that mean? He sits down (or stands up, I'm open-minded about these things) and designs and lovingly builds them to be ignoble?
I view Romans 9:18-21 as being rhetorical. In the end there will be those blaming God for their own behavior saying that God made them that way. In Acts 2, Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit and speaking in depth offers salvation to all who will "repent and be baptized". The 3000 who took up the offer that very day joined the other believers - they were not put on a probation.Your issue is with Paul in Romans 9:18-21, not me. . .take it up with him.
It's there in the text, where Pharaoh is the locus of God's sovereignty in hardening whom he wants to harden for his own purposes.
God hardened his heart (v.18) for the purpose of displaying his wrath and making his power known (v.22) in the plagues on Pharaoh's subjects, including the death of Pharaoh's own son.
God's purpose for those in Jesus Christ is a noble one, so we don't need to be bothered by his purposes for those who are not.
It is ours to trust him in all things, because in all things he works for the good of those who love him.
God specifically hardened Pharaoh (Exodus 4:21).Where does the "hardening whom he wants to harden" come from? It may have been a one off event aimed at achieving a specific purpose.
In Jesus Christ.For those who are not what?
I believe "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18)Do you believe that we all have the capacity to love God and that He loves us all where all means all (not just the mythical Elect) and love means love (so saying that God loves the Reprobates because He also sends the sun to shine on them but at the same time He hates them and has predestined them to hell doesn't count)? The bits in brackets shouldn't be necessary but are because of the redefinition of common words we've encountered in this discussion.
Strawman. . .none of the above are the words of Calvin.I think this is more about Calvanism
This is part of the discussion on free will, which pertains to the topic of the OP.than the topic of the OP anyway so we should get back to the question of whether temptation is a sin or not.
Actually, it matters not what or how I see it, only how I respond to it, and how God sees me--in the righteousness of Jesus Christ which he has imputed to me.So let me ask you, what is your biggest temptation and do you see it as a sin?
Firstly, I'm not ignoring some of your earlier posts. You've stated some interesting things. Some I'm pondering, while being a bit busy with some uninteresting necessities of life.
Next, I'm pretty certain from what I'm reading from you, that you and I are in substantial agreement. I have some questions, but mostly to make certain I understand some of the things you're saying. What mostly interests me is what comes from Scripture, and you're of the few here that use it and lay out your thoughts from it. So, please know this is very much appreciated.
Some brief Romans 9 points for your thoughts and anyone else who cares to review this re: what's being discussed:
9:1-6 Paul expresses great sorrow for his fellow Israelites, but knows that not all of them are Israel because God's word is involved in specifying in advance who would be Israel. He'll explain this, but we're dealing with God's sovereign will and decrees (and foreknowledge) here, as you've addressed in a few posts.
9:7-9 Not all of Abraham's descendants are God's children, because God alone has chosen who would be Israel. God alone has promised Israel would descend from Isaac through Abraham and Sarah.
9:10-13 Before they were born, God chose Isaac's son Jacob to be the descendant line from Isaac.
"Is God unjust (in excluding Ishmael and Esau)? Not at all!" God has the sovereign right to dispense mercy as he pleases.9:14 Some (even some we know) will question if God is unrighteous in choosing some over others. The answer to this is, Absolutely not! (BTW, this negation is fairly strong language).
9:15 Based upon what Moses said, God has concern/mercy and pity/compassion on whomever He chooses.
9:16-17 Paul thus concludes that it's not about human will, nor human effort, but about God who has mercy [on whomever He chooses to have mercy on]. As an example of this Paul uses God & Pharaoh. God raised Pharaoh up for God's purpose to demonstrate/display/make widely known in all the land God's power.
9:18 Paul thus concludes that God has mercy on whomever He Himself wills, and God hardens whomever He Himself wills.
9:19 Based upon all of this, some will question why God still blames/find fault [in people] if no one can resist/oppose God's intention/purpose (paraphrased - literally "for who has resisted/opposed His intention).
9:20... To those who would ask such a question about God - Paul draws from OT Scripture the Potter and clay analogy:This goes on to talk about God's call, only a remnant of Israel being saved, gentiles, FAITH, etc.
- On the contrary, who are you to answer back/criticize God!? Does the thing formed say to the one who formed it, Why have you made me like this!?
- The Potter (God) has "authority" over the clay. From the same batch/mixture [of clay], on the one hand God makes vessels/objects for honor/value (see vessels of mercy for glory below), and on the other hand [God makes] vessels/objects for dishonor/no value (see vessels of wrath for destruction below).
- God desired/willed: to demonstrate His wrath and and make known His power, so He patiently carried from place to place "vessels/objects (people) of wrath [He] prepared for the purpose of destruction," and to make known the riches of His glory on vessels/objects (people) of mercy, which He prepared beforehand/in advance [for His goal] for glory
God's sovereignty/authority, God's choice, God's will, God maintaining His righteousness in everything, God specifying in advance who would be His children and who would not be His children, God specifying before birth one son over another son, etc., etc., etc., is all discussed here. God does all this and no piece of clay person has any position to criticize Him or ultimately question His righteousness or why He does what He does.
As always, in God himself.If we cannot see in this God's absolute sovereign authority to righteously and justly (His R&J, not our thoughts about what's R&J) do what He wills with His creation, then we're making things up to suit our consciences, and desires, and whatever else to see Him as we want Him to be.
Sure, there's more to this, and this is some of the questioning I was asking. Where do we slice and dice (rightly divide the Word of Truth) these things to see how human will interacts with God's will.
It's a fact that God inserts Himself into human history when and where He chooses to guide it where He wills it to go. It's a fact that He places peoples into human history at times and locales He chooses for His purposes (Acts17) (as I asked before, could John the Baptist have chosen to be other than who God placed him here to be - the prophet to announce the King?). It's fact that He forms people for wrath and destruction and people for mercy and glory.
How this takes place with regard to His absolute sovereignty/rulership interacting with human will is fascinating and I'm seeing no in depth explanations in arguments from some here, just assertions, insertions, and even false argumentative allegations, and criticism for asking questions and seeking answers through exegesis and contemplative prayer and asking siblings' thoughts. From one I'm seeing Scripture and for this I'm grateful.
BTW, as I've stated several times, I understand God's unchangeable righteousness. I'm not one of those discussed in 9:14. I understand the strength of the phrase mē genoito! at the end of 9:14, because I study the original languages of Scripture, because I value the written Word of God, and thus there are certain things I do not question about God. I know He functions flawlessly within His perfect character. I also know some of us think we know more than we actually know about what He does and doesn't do.
Which sovereign authority of God's word likewise presents the sovereignty of God himself.Thanks, Clare, for moving this forward and standing on the sovereign authority of God's Word.
In the light of Romans 9:18, it is not rhetorical, it is an issue of justness in regards to God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, with Pharaoh being the example and representing mankind.I view Romans 9:18-21 as being rhetorical. In the end there will be those blaming God for their own behavior saying that God made them that way. In Acts 2, Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit and speaking in depth offers salvation to all who will "repent and be baptized". The 3000 who took up the offer that very day joined the other believers - they were not put on a probation.
They are inclined by our disposition.
The debate regarding "free will" is in philosophical terms:
free will (power to choose/execute all moral choices--including choice to be sinless), and
free agency--limited power to choose/execute moral choices.
In the Bible, we find free will is simply being able to act voluntarily, from the desire of the heart, without external constraint. It corresponds to philosophical "free agency."
Therefore, until man is regenerated, his choosing is always sinful (Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 7:11; Romans 8:7), because his heart (nature), the source of his choice, is corrupt.
So the Bible does not teach the ability of man to choose/execute all good (John 8:34), it teaches only the ability of man to choose/execute voluntarily (Exodus 25:2; Ezra 7:13), and it teaches that when man voluntarily chooses to do what pleases God, it is only because the power of God works it in him (Ezra 1:5; John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:10, Philippians 2:12-13; Hebrews 13:21).
With this understanding of Biblical free will, I think we find the answer to your question in Scripture.
(I discussed this briefly, at the bottom of post #315, p.16).
In Exodus 12:36, Exodus 14:17; 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Kings 19:7; 1 Chronicles 5:26; Isaiah 13:17; Ezekiel 14:9, we see God operating within the dispositions of men, inclining their wills to God's will. Man then freely chooses according to his disposition, without external constraint (i.e., philosophical free agency--the philosophy of free will always being the terms of this debate).
So God is sovereign, and man still chooses according to his preferences and desires (Biblical free will).
Yes, but they are directed by our nature, which is instinctively (for lack of a better word) sinful.I think what I'm seeing is mainly some wording differences we may have due to past input or realizations.
By "disposition" you are speaking of our tendencies, correct? The wording of this from some of those I listened to earlier on, and thus have in my thinking is related to our individual areas of weaknesses and strengths based in our "sin nature." IOW, some have tendencies towards some things and others towards other things.
Following.
Agree and John 6 was and is still a favorite section of mine, as is John 8.
By which (conscience and law) all men are held accountable and by which all are condemned because neither produce righteousness, which is the point of the passage.Even in this slavery to sin we can find gentiles w/o the Law doing things of the Law - Romans 2 - so we get into issues of conscience and some understanding in humanity.
Following.
I don't think the NT presents it as a sentence, correct me if you see otherwise Biblically, but simply as the nature of things, like a rattlesnake is poisonous, not because he is under sentence, but because that's just what he is.Again, serving sentences under subjection to sin and death. Agreed
I've proposed an iffy word--"instinct" just to give a basic idea of it.Agreed and glad to see Phil2:12-13.
OK, I see your wrap-up and it makes sense with what I've studied and been taught. Maybe by now you've added to what you're including in "dispositions."
Yes, I like all that "stuff" about the heavenly court of God's counsel.I think some of the earlier posts in this thread were touching on where our thoughts come from. I understand the promptings of our flesh (which ties to this OP), the world, the adversary, spirits, and I've enjoyed the work done my some, including Michael Heiser elaborating on the angelic counsel.
Oh, I wasn't expecting you to do that kind of work.I'm not digging too deep into your references in this last section other than reading the verses.
And for a specific purpose. . .his sovereignty at work again.'ve always enjoyed the scene of the counsel where the Lord asks for suggestions, a spirit answers with one, and the Lord agrees and sends him to influence the thinking of men.
It's more simple than that.So, correct me if I'm wrong, but your answer here is that when God hardens a heart, He inclines (influences in some way) that person to continue making the choices that further harden the heart. These influences can be thoughts, circumstances, opportunities, etc., where God knows what the choices will be.
Only if God had given him a disposition inclined to be someone else. He followed his own inclination given to him by God.Now, I've brought up John the Baptist a few times and asked if he could have chosen to be anyone other than who God said he would be.
Yes, as he did Pharaoh. But it's not limited to the big guys. He uses the little guys also. And it's not limited to judgment, it's also for provision.Acts 17:26 has Paul saying: 26 "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, (Acts 17:26 NKJ)
There are numerous examples of God raising up people(s) to do what He wants when He wants it done.
I don't see it so much as inserted, as it occurring in its place in time, in those in whom he planned it to occur at that time.God inserted John into history to do a specific job for Him.
Jesus, being divine, required a special providence common to nothing else.God inserted Jesus into history to do a specific job for Him.
"Insert" doesn't seem to be the right word in this regard.Does God insert just the good?
God is sovereign over all, the good and the bad.
Thanks for your kind words at the end. Likewise. Those who value and work in His Word are a treasure as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. The gospel (per Acts 2) is an offer by God (speaking by the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit) offering salvation to men who, under their responsibility, choose to "repent and be baptized". There is no Catch22.In the light of Romans 9:18, it is not rhetorical, it is an issue of justness in regards to God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, with Pharaoh being the example and representing mankind.
Again, serving sentences under subjection to sin and death. Agreed
Let me be more Biblically precise here.Clare73 said:I don't think the NT presents it as a sentence, correct me if you see otherwise Biblically, but simply as the nature of things, like a rattlesnake is poisonous, not because he is under sentence, but because that's just what he is.
It's just what mankind is since the fall--sinful in nature (by "instinct," so to speak). However, unlike "instinct," man has some say over it.
I don't think the NT presents it as a sentence, correct me if you see otherwise Biblically,
No, Jesus was tempted, yet He overcame. He understands our weaknesses, He was obedient unto death, even the death on the cross.I think most Christians would say that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin. However, I came across a contrary view regarding temptation held by John Calvin. Calvin, who usually agrees with virtually anything Augustine says, takes a different view of temptation.
"Content to designate it with the term "weakness," he (Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label "sin" that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort" (Institutes III.III.10).
One possibility is that Calvin is being inconsistent. Perhaps in other places he argues that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin but then fails to be consistent in this passage. As it stands, this passage clearly indicates that temptation is sin. In fact, the nature that could possibly sin (i.e. depraved nature) is itself sin, according to Calvin.
That's an odd position to hold, in my opinion. What would make this opinion even more controversial is the implications it has for our Lord's Incarnation. I think the orthodox position is that our Lord was tempted, but did not sin. If Calvin argues that our Lord was tempted, then (based on this passage) he would also have to conclude that our Lord sinned in even being tempted. I seriously doubt Calvin would be comfortable with that conclusion (although, Calvin is comfortable with all kinds of positions that make most folks uncomfortable). So, assuming the above passage is his settled position, Calvin is not being consistent.
At any rate, what do you think. Is being tempted itself a sin?
Yes, but they are directed by our nature, which is instinctively (for lack of a better word) sinful.
Let me be more Biblically precise here.
Actually, sin and death are not a sentence. They are simply part of fallen nature due to Adam's sin. The sentence that is on mankind is condemnation to eternal death because of the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to us (Romans 5:12-14, 18-19).
I'm beginning to understand your terminology, and I'm thinking maybe our differences are more than just terminology differences. I think the differences are conceptual.Romans 8:1 "condemnation" is "katakrima" another one of those words with a preposition added to the front of it. It speaks of the penalty of the judgment. One of the better, older suggestions for translations I've heard was "penal servitude" speaking of serving out the sentence. BDAG Lexicon is picking this up a bit:
Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)
[BDAG] κατάκριμα
• κατάκριμα, ατος, τό (In this and the cognates that follow the use of the term ‘condemnation’ does not denote merely a pronouncement of guilt [s. κρίνω 5], but the adjudication of punishment.) judicial pronouncement upon a guilty person, condemnation, punishment, penalty (s. three next entries; freq. of fines: Dionys. Hal. 6, 61 κατακριμάτων ἀφέσεις; POxy 298, 4 [I AD]; CPR I, 1, 15ff; 188, 14f; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 28, 12; Dssm., NB 92f [BS 264f]) οὐδὲν κ. τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ there is no death-sentence for those who are in Christ Jesus Ro 8:1. The context e*sp. 7:24) qualifies the nature of the judicial sentence. εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κ. (sc. ἐγένετο) (led) to condemnation or doom for all humanity 5:18. In wordplay w. κρίμα vs. 16.—FDanker in Gingrich Festschr. 105 (Ro).—DELG s.v. κρίνω. M-M. EDNT. TW.
Okay, I think this is where the difference lies--in "sentenced servitude."8:2 speaks of Christ having freed us from this. This isn't just being released from the judgment, but being released from the sentenced servitude.
Actually, it refers to "under the Law's curse," and really is not better elaborated as "under subjection to" as "in servitude," but as "under subjection to" as "in the curse of death."When we get to the concepts of being "under" law vs. grace, "under" is better elaborated as "under subjection to."
The slavery is to the sinful nature (8:9), to the curse of the law (8:15), to decay (8:21).This is why Romans 8 continues into the concepts of slavery and obedience and sin no longer having dominion over us. We've been set free from imprisonment so-to-speak.
Alright-good. So only one will involved, not two, no “secret will” of God. When God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, He did not want Adam to eat of the fruit. That was my position. God is not the author of sin. So I don't hang it on God.Did God cause Adam to fail? He did not.
Adam had complete moral power to obey God. He willingly and freely chose not to do so.
Now here we have a bit of a problem-because in your theology we end up with fallen man having absolutely no moral power to obey God, whereas in Christianity man's will is weakened, compromised; he's sick, asleep, lost, "dead", but not totally unable to respond to God's overtures, to grace. And this makes him accountable for not responding, and therefore for the sin that he’ll never conquer without God. Otherwise, we must hang all subsequent evil, at least, on God, since fallen man would have no say and God, alone, would determine man's will, and therefore his fate. He’d be hanging it on Himself in any case, as the author of sin after all.Adam was in no way forced to rebel against God's command. He had no disposition to sin, as does his fallen progeny. He had complete moral power to obey God in all things.
Sin/moral evil was useful only to teach man of its ugliness, futility, harmfulness, and of our inability to overcome it apart from God.You might want to be sitting down for this one.
"The law was added so that the trespass might increase." (Romans 5:21).
Sin was necessary to manifest God's justice, wrath, judgment and to manifest his power by judging, conquering and saving from sin.
Great. . .I didn't think that sounded like you.Alright-good. So only one will involved, not two, no “secret will” of God. When God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, He did not want Adam to eat of the fruit. That was my position. God is not the author of sin. So I don't hang it on God.
Let's not set Christianity against the Scriptures.Now here we have a bit of a problem-because in your theology we end up with fallen man having absolutely no moral power to obey God, whereas in Christianity man's will is weakened, compromised; he's sick, asleep, lost, "dead", but not totally unable to respond to God's overtures, to grace.
That's really not where the conundrum lies.And this makes him accountable for not responding, and therefore for the sin that he’ll never conquer without God. Otherwise, we must hang all subsequent evil, at least, on God, since fallen man would have no say and God, alone, would determine man's will, and therefore his fate. He’d be hanging it on Himself in any case, as the author of sin after all.
In justice--owing man nothing in this regard, whatever God does, apart from making it worse, and what is worse than the condemnation man is already under because of Adam (Romans 5:18), God justly does whatever he pleases, and we know what he pleases by what he actually does.There's really no reason for the centuries of ugly drama/sin, unless, through it, God means to gradually inform and draw man’s will to right orientation.
Man cannot find himself, God must call him, by grace. But while God must move and draw man towards Himself, man is never completely overwhelmed in will for the purpose of being saved. That's an essential truth of Christianity. It's simply absurd to think that God would’ve come up with this grand plan of creation just to save some folks at the end of the day who can’t help- have no choice-but to will rightly while damning the rest who have no choice but to will wrongly. There’s no fatherhood there, no patient, gentle parenting, teaching and drawing His children into maturity, a maturity consisting ultimately of choosing to love, with love being the very definition of justice or righteousness for man, and choice being an absolutely essential part of obtaining and expressing love. IOW, if the person cannot weigh the differences, and choose to love, then he doesn’t really love at all-and his justice is not yet realized. There’d just be this pitiful little puppet show instead, as if such a show should actually glorify God? But the primary glory of God is His love, and the glory that He crowns man with is love as man also struggles to embrace and participate in that love because, again, love is not love unless it’s a choice, both a gift and the choice to accept the gift. God’s glory is reflected in the good He does within and for His creation. God’s primary glory is His goodness, manifested by humble servitude towards man flowing from His unfathomably powerful love.
Romans 9:22-23 suggests otherwise.Sin/moral evil was useful only to teach man of its ugliness, futility, harmfulness, and of our inability to overcome it apart from God.
If God wills/creates evil does He have malice? Or is His purpose very different-to allow creation-us-to experiment with our rebellious and wayward ways in order that we might learn of their empty and harmful consequences, that we might turn from ungodliness to godliness, that we might turn from evil to good having directly learned of the distinction between the two the hard way-and of the supreme value of the latter.
Or are you suggesting that God gave the law because He likes to spread evil?? Could He have a greater good in mind instead? We’re told that there’s no accountability for sin where the law is unknown and yet the law isn’t evil in itself; in fact, it’s holy, spiritual, and good according to Rom 7, being the revealed will of God for man. It cannot be bad to hear of it. But what good comes from hearing the law? Well, we’re also told by Scripture that the law is a teacher, disclosing sin, revealing sin and our inability to overcome it. So, the more sin that we know or experience in this world the more we can and should finally learn of its harmfulness and ugliness as a result. If sin only increases the more the law is heard, then we can’t escape the fact that man has the problem, not the law. And the only reason for having this knowledge is so that man might have a change of heart, by learning of his problem with sin, and his failure at overcoming it, of his state of unrighteousness apart from God, with this knowledge being necessary precisely because his will is involved. Because then he’d be receptive to the grace that God has at the ready for convicted sinners. The more broken and repentant we are the more forgiveness and help and love He pours out. Otherwise no lessons, no such education, is necessary; it would have no value. But as it is God‘s been patiently working on turning humankind back to Himself ever since Adam first turned away in Eden. That’s why the centuries-long process of revelation and covenants, choosing a certain people to, among other things, demonstrate man’s failure at achieving righteousness, and finally birthing His Son into our world through them so that we might finally accept and embrace grace, embrace Him, when we meet Him, where He can then work righteousness in us, putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts. It takes a lot to steer stubborn man away from himself and towards God.
From the beginning of the bible through the end man is commanded, appealed to, admonished, encouraged: to choose good over evil, life over death, God over no God. But instead of, “If you will…”, as Jesus asks in Matt 16:24 and Rev 3:30, as examples, your theology seems to says, “You will…” Maybe He should’ve said, “Never mind, you don’t need to know about this stuff anyway because, strictly as a point of theology, you will follow Me, you will open the door.”
But regardless of professed theology most Christians live pretty much according to my theology in real life. They strive, they seek to persevere, to be holy and refrain from sin and to remain in Christ; they’re vigilant, they know they must bear good fruit, that what they do counts, that it’s not over and done until they meet the Just Judge and He tells them so.
So to sum up, God did nothing evil by giving the law but something good, by teaching us that we cannot be lawful, we cannot be who we were created to be, apart from Him. This is the #1 lesson man needs to learn, which Adam didn't yet comprehend in Eden. The bottom line with Adam is that he deemed it acceptable to disobey God, to deny His authority, regardless of the influences, which definitely included Eve. He hadn't yet learned something of the vast difference between Creator and creature.
Sorry about the wordiness here-and the rambling. I think it's because you’re right,
Romans 9:10-23 is pretty clear.I felt quite woozy after your post and had to take a long break, so sick of heart was I over the state of confusion present in Christianity.
I understand.I may still need smelling salts-still feeling a bit weak and could possibly relapse. Sooner the better just in case, no USPS pls.
Okay, I think this is where the difference lies--in "sentenced servitude."
Romans 5:18 and Romans 7:24 are not the same thing.
5:18 - condemnation to eternal damnation is not really "servitude," it's more akin to excruciating pain
7:24 - "body of death" is figurative for "body of sin" (6:6) from which he could not gain freedom, it hung on him like a dead corpse. I guess that could be regarded as servitude, carrying that "body of death" around everywhere he went.
When God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, He did not want Adam to eat of the fruit
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?