May God "Violate" Your "Freewill"?

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I’m currently debating with atheist friends of mine over truth, and right and wrong. And I’m praying that God violates their free will.

Scripture describes them thus:


And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
— 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

I’m praying for the Light to shine out of darkness.


For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
— 2 Corinthians 4:5-6
 
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Rom 9:19-24
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?
For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou
that repliest against God?
Shall the thing formed say to him
that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the
potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make
one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power
known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction
: And that he might make known the riches
of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore
prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called,
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
.

Once again, you take a couple of minutes to copy and paste a few verses, ASSUME your ideas into those verses without giving any proof whatsoever that those verses even back your assumptions.

This passage says nothing at all about God violating man's free will. The context of Romans 9 is about God casting His once chosen Jews off (Romans 11:20-20) and Paul is arguing in Romans 9 that God was just in doing so. Paul is refuting the objections he knew the Jews would have in God casting them off. Roamns 9 is not a discourse on Calvinsim but a refutation of Calvinism.

Romans 9:19 "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

It was in God's plan before the world began that Christ would come to earth and shed His blood for the sins of man. God foreknew at the time He sent Christ that those Jews would use their free will to reject Christ and crucify Him. Christ's message hardened the heart of those Jews for they did not like it. So God used those Jew's free will rebellion against Christ to bring about His will in Christ dying for man.

So verse 19 is the Jews posing the question that God hardened their heart (not against their will but by sending them a message they did not like) and God used their disobedience to further His will in bring about Christ's death, then how can God find fault with us Jews?

Yet Paul shows the Jews were responsibile for their own free will in hardenng their own hearts and rejecting Christ and God has the right to use their rebellion to further His will. Because God can use man's rebellion to further His will does not excuse man's rebellion therefore God was just in cutting the Jews off for their rebellion against Christ.

Romans 9:20 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

Paul is questioning those Jews, who are you Jews to question God in having cast you off. Paul reaffirms in v20 that God has the right to use the free will choices of wicked, rebellious men to accomplish His own will. GOd does not need your permission to use you has He pleases. Yet NOT in any of this did God violate the Jew's free will but instead used their free will choices to advance His own will.

Romans 9:21 "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
This verse does not give a basis as to why God makes one person a vessel of honor and another person a vessel of dishonor. But that does not mean GOd acts capriciously using no basis or that the basis is unknown.

Jeremiah 18:7-11 does NOT teach that God predestines men against their will but actually show God uses man's free will (whether men choose to do evil and OBEY NOT or OBEY by repenting) as to whether God shows mercy or not-- as to how God fashions vessels. Hence OBEDIENCE to God's will is the basis as to how God fashions one vessel unto honor (those that obey) and others to dishonor (the disobdient). 2 Timothy 2:20-21 "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work."


Romans 9:22 "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

Paul's point here to those cast off Jews is how can they be accusing God of being unjust in casting them off when God has been longsuffering towards you that you do the right thing.
2 Peter 3:15 the longsuffering of God is salvation. God was longsuffering of the rebellion of the Jews for centuries they might be saved, but now they have rejected Christ therefore God's longsuffering ended so God JUSTLY has now cast them off (Romans 11). God's longsuffering is to lead men to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) but if men refuse to repent with God having given them space to repent then God's wrath upon them is JUST and NOT against their will. Calvinism makes NO SENSE AT ALL in having God being longsuffering towards those He already predetermine to be lost against their will. One commentator puts it "(What a disgusting thing it would be to say: "Isn"t God wonderful for enduring those he eternally predestined to damnation (i.e. vessels of wrath fitted for destruction?!)" -Dunagan.

If Calvinism UNconditional election is true, then God would have not ever cast off His elect Jews and make the non-elect Gentiles His elect.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Mans will isnt free from Gods Supreme Sovereign Will !
Yet God in His sovereignty does not violate men's free will.

Romans 9:17 "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."

It was God's soverieign will that He do 2 things with Pharaoh:
1) show His power in Pharoah
2) have His name declared throughtout all the earth.

---This verse does NOT say God raised Pharoah up to violate Pharoah's free will so God could then bring about these 2 things.
---had Pharaoh used his free will to obey God and let the people go, then God would have accomplished His will in showing His power over this great King and God's name would be maginified
---yet Pharoah of his own free will chose to disobey and God used Pahraoh's disobedience to accomplish these 2 things.

So we have God accomplishing His sovereign will WITHOUT violating man's free will. It would go against God's nature to make Pharaoh disobey against Pharaoh's own free will then God punishes Pharaoh for the disobedience God forced upon Phraoh to do. Calvinism makes God culpable for man's actions, unjustly making man accountable for the wrong that God forced man to do.
 
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Again, CONTEXT means everything.


The "free will" of "natural man" (before regeneration) is to SIN.
Because they are spiritually DEAD and slaves in Satan's Kingdom
"natural men" have a "sin nature" and always choose to SIN.
They WANT to SIN... They SIN of their own "free will".


It is not until AFTER a "natural man" (DEAD in sin) is regenerated
by God and "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit of God as he is "translated"
from the DEATH of Satan's Kingdom to the LIFE of God's Kingdom,
that a man has the "free will" to do any good (not sin).


Again, CONTEXT means everything.
The "free will" of fallen man is to SIN.
The "free will" of regenerated man is to NOT SIN.


This is Christian theology 101.


Jim
Man is not born with a totally depraved nature where man is locked into being able to choose to do that which is not well. Genesis 4:7 God shows that Cain had the ability to choose to do well or choose to not do well. God even tells Cain to rule over sin which God would know would beimpossible if there were such a thing as total depravity. When it comes to sin man is 'without excuse' because man of his own free will chooses to sin therefore culpable for his own choices. Man therefore cannot use EXCUSES as "the devil made me do it" or "I can help sinning for I was born that way". The idea of total depravity would actually give man an excuse for his sins instead of man being accountable and culpable for the sins he freely chose to commit. If one were born without legs, can you justly hold him accountable for not walking? No. No more than God could hold men accountable for sinning if they were born with a total depraved nature that makes them that way against their will.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Once again, you take a couple of minutes to copy and paste a few verses, ASSUME your ideas into those verses without giving any proof whatsoever that those verses even back your assumptions.

This passage says nothing at all about God violating man's free will. The context of Romans 9 is about God casting His once chosen Jews off (Romans 11:20-20) and Paul is arguing in Romans 9 that God was just in doing so. Paul is refuting the objections he knew the Jews would have in God casting them off. Roamns 9 is not a discourse on Calvinsim but a refutation of Calvinism.

Romans 9:19 "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

It was in God's plan before the world began that Christ would come to earth and shed His blood for the sins of man. God foreknew at the time He sent Christ that those Jews would use their free will to reject Christ and crucify Him. Christ's message hardened the heart of those Jews for they did not like it. So God used those Jew's free will rebellion against Christ to bring about His will in Christ dying for man.

So verse 19 is the Jews posing the question that God hardened their heart (not against their will but by sending them a message they did not like) and God used their disobedience to further His will in bring about Christ's death, then how can God find fault with us Jews?

Yet Paul shows the Jews were responsibile for their own free will in hardenng their own hearts and rejecting Christ and God has the right to use their rebellion to further His will. Because God can use man's rebellion to further His will does not excuse man's rebellion therefore God was just in cutting the Jews off for their rebellion against Christ.

Romans 9:20 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

Paul is questioning those Jews, who are you Jews to question God in having cast you off. Paul reaffirms in v20 that God has the right to use the free will choices of wicked, rebellious men to accomplish His own will. GOd does not need your permission to use you has He pleases. Yet NOT in any of this did God violate the Jew's free will but instead used their free will choices to advance His own will.

Romans 9:21 "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
This verse does not give a basis as to why God makes one person a vessel of honor and another person a vessel of dishonor. But that does not mean GOd acts capriciously using no basis or that the basis is unknown.

Jeremiah 18:7-11 does NOT teach that God predestines men against their will but actually show God uses man's free will (whether men choose to do evil and OBEY NOT or OBEY by repenting) as to whether God shows mercy or not-- as to how God fashions vessels. Hence OBEDIENCE to God's will is the basis as to how God fashions one vessel unto honor (those that obey) and others to dishonor (the disobdient). 2 Timothy 2:20-21 "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work."


Romans 9:22 "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

Paul's point here to those cast off Jews is how can they be accusing God of being unjust in casting them off when God has been longsuffering towards you that you do the right thing.
2 Peter 3:15 the longsuffering of God is salvation. God was longsuffering of the rebellion of the Jews for centuries they might be saved, but now they have rejected Christ therefore God's longsuffering ended so God JUSTLY has now cast them off (Romans 11). God's longsuffering is to lead men to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) but if men refuse to repent with God having given them space to repent then God's wrath upon them is JUST and NOT against their will. Calvinism makes NO SENSE AT ALL in having God being longsuffering towards those He already predetermine to be lost against their will. One commentator puts it "(What a disgusting thing it would be to say: "Isn"t God wonderful for enduring those he eternally predestined to damnation (i.e. vessels of wrath fitted for destruction?!)" -Dunagan.

If Calvinism UNconditional election is true, then God would have not ever cast off His elect Jews and make the non-elect Gentiles His elect.
Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans 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 goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, 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 (a diatribe 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 and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

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?

This is the 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?”

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

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 by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of 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 they 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 as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about on one pot being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?


Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.




The Jews were given a higher position on earth, but with that position came added responsibility which they poorly handled. I do not see them in Rome having any advantage over the gentile Christians, but what do you think?


I will add comments about Paul using Jerimiah’s reference to the Potter, since they are very different. In Jerimiah the pot has not been made and is still clay being molded by the Potter, with Paul the pots are completed and have gone forth.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How in the world could NONE include the "tares" of Satan
or those OUTSIDE the church or those CREATED for "wrath"
or those who were NEVER MEANT to "have their sins forgiven"?

Indeed.

Those who believe they are included would suffer a great and painful cognitive dissonance unless their doublethink skills were strong...huge.

But I don't use the appellations of these folk to separate them into categories but as the elect have many metaphors to refer to them so do the non-elect, the ones in your list which names all non-elect and so refer to the same people, Satan's demons tossed to the earth by Michael and the holy elect angels.

It is a personal buggaboo that created for wrath only refers to the creation of their lives on earth, NOT to their whole existence from the moment of their coming into existence...not tha tI think that iswhat you mean.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And yet people ASSUME that the COMMAND to repent implies
the ABILITY to do so (before regeneration).

I assume that the command to those with an inability to respond (non-elect tares) is to prove to the ones who can respond (sinful elect) that the reprobate are beyond hope and that therefore the banishment to the outer darkness is an absolute necessity and their holiness requires acquiescence to this.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I’m currently debating with atheist friends of mine over truth, and right and wrong. And I’m praying that God violates their free will.

Scripture describes them thus:
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4

ImCo
this would not be a violation of their free will in the least but only of their enslaved addicted sinful will, quite a different thing. GOD certainly broke thru my sinful will to bring me back to HIM when I returned to HIM after going astray from HIM, 1 Peter 2:25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If Calvinism UNconditional election is true, then God would have not ever cast off His elect Jews and make the non-elect Gentiles His elect.
I can't accept your assumption that the Jews are the elect and the Gentiles were non-elect. It is not the flesh that makes a Jew, Romans 2:28, and that which does makes a Jew is that which also makes a true Christian, ie, the fulfillment of the promise of election in him.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans 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 goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, 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.

Yes, Paul used various teachimg methods but the question is, what is the topic of Romans 9? Is Paul giving a discourse on Calvinism's ldea of unconditional election? No!

From Romans 11 Paul knows God has cast off his brethren in the flesh, the Jews (Romans 10:1). Paul also knows the Jews would have objections to God having cast them off and in Romans 9 Paul provides an air-tight argument against those objections.

God long promised the Jews a Messiah and a kingdom and now that God cast the Jews off the Jew accuses God of being unrighteous, unjust on His promises. Yet God did deliever on His promises and it was not God's fault the Jews rejected Christ and His kingdom, the church. Therefore God was just in casting them off due to their unbelief. God was longsuffering with the Jews but when they rejected CHrist, God rejected them.

To make his point God was just in casting off the Jews, Paul uses 3 OT examples:
--Jacob and Esau
--Pharoah
--potter and the clay

I won't spend time in discussing all 3 but deal with the first one, Jacob and Esau. The Jew's stronghold idea was that simply because they were descendants of Abraham GOd MUST save them due to that physical birth, lineage. But Paul refutes this. (John refuted it in Matthew 3:9). Paul was to show the Jew God does NOT have to base His promises on physical descent. Note Paul did not use Isaac and Ishmael for had he used these 2 men, then the Jew would argue that God DID choose Isaac over Ishmael due to the physical birth/lineage, that Isaac was the true son of promise whereas Ishmael was the son of a handmaid.

So Paul skipped a generation to Jacob and Esau for both were the sons of Isaac whom the Jews considered to be the true son of promise. Now the Jews could not make the same argument between Jacob and Esau they could with Isaac and Ishmael.

Now if God had to base His promises on the physical birth, then God would have to have also chosen Esau/Edomites for they were just as much the true sons of Isaac/Abaham as was Jacob/Israel. Yet God did NOT choose Esau thereby proving God does not have to base His promises on physical birth.

Paul points out "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."

Children of the flesh (Ishmael & other children of Abraham) are NOT the children of God but children of promise are counted for the seed. Hence the physical birth, even at the time of Abraham, did make one a child of God thereby Paul shatters the Jew's stronghold claim of their physical birth that God MUST choose them.

Romans 9:11 "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.."

Jacob and Esau had done no good or evil, hence they were alike showing God's choice was totally sovereign and not based upon anything either twin had done, for again, neither had done anything good or evil. Even though Jacob was chosen he did nothing to merit that choosing for he had done nothing, no good or evil.
This verse has NOTHING to do with the Calvinistic idea of unconditional election but Paul was proving God's choices/promises were not based upon physical birth.

So Paul cuts out the Jews argument that God was unjust, unrighteous in casting them off by proving God does not have to base His promises on physical descent/lineage.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I can't accept your assumption that the Jews are the elect and the Gentiles were non-elect. It is not the flesh that makes a Jew, Romans 2:8, and that which does makes a Jew is that which also makes a true Christian, ie, the fulfillment of the promise of election in him.

Let me give some clarification:
Under the OT law of Moses the Jews were God's elect and not the Gentiles. But after Christ came and the Jews rejected Christ, then God cast off the Jew and grafted in the Gentile (Romans 11:20-23). So under the NT, anyone who is a Christian, Jew or Gentile, is a spiritual Jew, Romans 2:28-29 an elect of God. Christ in His death broke down that middle wall of partition (the OT law, Ephesians 2:14-15) that divided Jew and Gentile and the NT brings both together ("of twain one new man") in Christ as one, (Romans 1:16; Galatians 3:28). The Jews who obeyed the gospel in Acts 2 and the Gentiles that obeyed in Acts 10 became one in Christ.....Christians.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: TedT
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, Paul used various teachimg methods but the question is, what is the topic of Romans 9? Is Paul giving a discourse on Calvinism's ldea of unconditional election? No!

From Romans 11 Paul knows God has cast off his brethren in the flesh, the Jews (Romans 10:1). Paul also knows the Jews would have objections to God having cast them off and in Romans 9 Paul provides an air-tight argument against those objections.

God long promised the Jews a Messiah and a kingdom and now that God cast the Jews off the Jew accuses God of being unrighteous, unjust on His promises. Yet God did deliever on His promises and it was not God's fault the Jews rejected Christ and His kingdom, the church. Therefore God was just in casting them off due to their unbelief. God was longsuffering with the Jews but when they rejected CHrist, God rejected them.
First off: Paul is not saying: “God cast the Jews off”, for they have let “working for salvation”, get in the way of them having salvation as a result of faith. The whole theme of Romans is Jews and Gentile are equal in the areas that matter (faith), since the Jews have hurdles and the Gentiles have different hurdles it all equals out. They need to be one, think of themselves as no better then the other.

Ro. 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Paul goes on to say: Ro.10: “But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.” So, some are accepting the good news.

Ro. 11: 1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!

Ro. 11: “5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” The remnant here are Jews.

Ro. 11: “Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!... salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.” Paul is talking about the Jews.

The point Paul is trying to get across to the Jews and the Gentiles is: Although the Jews were given a great position to begin with in the world prior to Christ, they did not fulfill their greater responsibility nor did they take real advantage of their higher status. Most Jews failed stumbling over the Law and seeking salvation y the Law, but gentiles are no better off, so all are equal.


To make his point God was just in casting off the Jews, Paul uses 3 OT examples:
--Jacob and Esau
--Pharoah
--potter and the clay
This in no way supports the point “God cast off the Jews”, but give a diatribe support for the wrong conclusion that Jews are better then Gentiles and not equal at this time.

Just because you leave the Potter’s shop a vase for a special use or a vase for a common use, both have his mark on them (meaning you meet His standard for the Job you are given). Only after leaving the shop does the can the vase become damaged (a crack) and not fit for the Potters mark and thus made for destruction. The Potter does not make clay pigeons, but useful items, which after leaving the shop can become worthless.


I won't spend time in discussing all 3 but deal with the first one, Jacob and Esau. The Jew's stronghold idea was that simply because they were descendants of Abraham GOd MUST save them due to that physical birth, lineage. But Paul refutes this. (John refuted it in Matthew 3:9). Paul was to show the Jew God does NOT have to base His promises on physical descent. Note Paul did not use Isaac and Ishmael for had he used these 2 men, then the Jew would argue that God DID choose Isaac over Ishmael due to the physical birth/lineage, that Isaac was the true son of promise whereas Ishmael was the son of a handmaid.
So Paul skipped a generation to Jacob and Esau for both were the sons of Isaac whom the Jews considered to be the true son of promise. Now the Jews could not make the same argument between Jacob and Esau they could with Isaac and Ishmael.

Now if God had to base His promises on the physical birth, then God would have to have also chosen Esau/Edomites for they were just as much the true sons of Isaac/Abaham as was Jacob/Israel. Yet God did NOT choose Esau thereby proving God does not have to base His promises on physical birth.

Paul points out "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."

Children of the flesh (Ishmael & other children of Abraham) are NOT the children of God but children of promise are counted for the seed. Hence the physical birth, even at the time of Abraham, did make one a child of God thereby Paul shatters the Jew's stronghold claim of their physical birth that God MUST choose them.

Romans 9:11 "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.."

Jacob and Esau had done no good or evil, hence they were alike showing God's choice was totally sovereign and not based upon anything either twin had done, for again, neither had done anything good or evil. Even though Jacob was chosen he did nothing to merit that choosing for he had done nothing, no good or evil.
This verse has NOTHING to do with the Calvinistic idea of unconditional election but Paul was proving God's choices/promises were not based upon physical birth.

So Paul cuts out the Jews argument that God was unjust, unrighteous in casting them off by proving God does not have to base His promises on physical descent/lineage.
You have got to remember this is a diatribe! In Paul’s use of Diatribes similar to David’s use of the diatribe teaching method in his lament psalms, the imaginary debater with the “wrong conclusion” will give his strong support for the wrong answer first. The wrong answer in Ro. 9 being Jews are way better then Gentiles, so what is the very best support for that wrong conclusion? God chose Jews over gentiles like Jacob (a Jew) over Esau (a Gentile) and Isaac (a Jew) over Ishmael (a gentile). Paul will end up showing the Jews have just as many problems accepting salvation as the gentiles so their exhaled position did not and is not helping them. They are both in an equal position, just having different issues.


I am in total disagreement with the Calvinist’s interpretation of Romans 9, which you should realize from my post. I do like the fact you brought up both Jer. 18 and 2 Tim. 2:20 which further supports the individual can change the direction of the vessel he/she started out to be and in Jer. You have the individual responsible for changing the results.
 
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
First off: Paul is not saying: “God cast the Jews off”, for they have let “working for salvation”, get in the way of them having salvation as a result of faith. The whole theme of Romans is Jews and Gentile are equal in the areas that matter (faith), since the Jews have hurdles and the Gentiles have different hurdles it all equals out. They need to be one, think of themselves as no better then the other.

Romans 11:15 "For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?"
Romans 11:20 "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:"

Paul does say those Jews were cast away, broken off for unbelief.

bling said:
Ro. 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Paul goes on to say: Ro.10: “But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.” So, some are accepting the good news.

Ro. 11: 1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!

Ro. 11: “5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” The remnant here are Jews.

Ro. 11: “Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!... salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.” Paul is talking about the Jews.

The point Paul is trying to get across to the Jews and the Gentiles is: Although the Jews were given a great position to begin with in the world prior to Christ, they did not fulfill their greater responsibility nor did they take real advantage of their higher status. Most Jews failed stumbling over the Law and seeking salvation y the Law, but gentiles are no better off, so all are equal.

GOd did cast the Jews as a nation off but those Jews (just a remnant) who became Christians were not of the Jews cast off.

Romans 11:1-2 "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,"

Who are the "His people" Paul said God had NOT cast off? It cannot refer to fleshly Israel for later in Romans 11 we see God did cast off, broke off fleshly Israel. So the "His people" must refer to Christians...those Jews (and Gentiles) who became Christians remained God's people. Paul was in the flesh a Jew himself (an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin) but he was not of fleshly Israel that was cast off for he became a Christian, one of God's people that was not cast off.

bling said:
This in no way supports the point “God cast off the Jews”, but give a diatribe support for the wrong conclusion that Jews are better then Gentiles and not equal at this time.

God did cast off fleshy Israel but God did not cast off "His people" (Jews and Gentiles who became Christians).


bling said:
Just because you leave the Potter’s shop a vase for a special use or a vase for a common use, both have his mark on them (meaning you meet His standard for the Job you are given). Only after leaving the shop does the can the vase become damaged (a crack) and not fit for the Potters mark and thus made for destruction. The Potter does not make clay pigeons, but useful items, which after leaving the shop can become worthless.



You have got to remember this is a diatribe! In Paul’s use of Diatribes similar to David’s use of the diatribe teaching method in his lament psalms, the imaginary debater with the “wrong conclusion” will give his strong support for the wrong answer first. The wrong answer in Ro. 9 being Jews are way better then Gentiles, so what is the very best support for that wrong conclusion? God chose Jews over gentiles like Jacob (a Jew) over Esau (a Gentile) and Isaac (a Jew) over Ishmael (a gentile). Paul will end up showing the Jews have just as many problems accepting salvation as the gentiles so their exhaled position did not and is not helping them. They are both in an equal position, just having different issues.


I am in total disagreement with the Calvinist’s interpretation of Romans 9, which you should realize from my post. I do like the fact you brought up both Jer. 18 and 2 Tim. 2:20 which further supports the individual can change the direction of the vessel he/she started out to be and in Jer. You have the individual responsible for changing the results.

I am not in disagreement with you that Paul used a rhetorical type argument in Romans 9.

My point has been WHAT is the topic of Romans 9? Does Romans 9 teach Calvinistic unconditional election? No. Romans 9 is Paul's argument agianst the Jews accusation that God was unjust in having cast them off per Romans 11.
 
Upvote 0

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2020
3,824
327
66
Georgia
✟125,375.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yet God in His sovereignty does not violate men's free will.

Romans 9:17 "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."

It was God's soverieign will that He do 2 things with Pharaoh:
1) show His power in Pharoah
2) have His name declared throughtout all the earth.

---This verse does NOT say God raised Pharoah up to violate Pharoah's free will so God could then bring about these 2 things.
---had Pharaoh used his free will to obey God and let the people go, then God would have accomplished His will in showing His power over this great King and God's name would be maginified
---yet Pharoah of his own free will chose to disobey and God used Pahraoh's disobedience to accomplish these 2 things.

So we have God accomplishing His sovereign will WITHOUT violating man's free will. It would go against God's nature to make Pharaoh disobey against Pharaoh's own free will then God punishes Pharaoh for the disobedience God forced upon Phraoh to do. Calvinism makes God culpable for man's actions, unjustly making man accountable for the wrong that God forced man to do.
Mans will is governed by Gods sovereign will ! Mans will isnt free from Gods Sovereing Will. Take James advise friend James 4:13-16

13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Romans 11:15 "For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?"
Romans 11:20 "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:"

Paul does say those Jews were cast away, broken off for unbelief.

The NIV I feel does a better job of expressing the message: 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. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Paul is not talking about “all” Jews, as Paul has expressed before, but those who are rejecting the Gospel and the same is true of anyone who is rejecting the gospel. Paul is using and analogy of a tree and says these that have been cut off hopefully can be grafted back in so it is not some permanent casting away never to return. This cutting off is in hopes of their return. God is doing all this to help the Jews to be reconciled.

Ro. 10:23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

The problem I am having with what you are saying is the idea, God has cast away all Jews and replaced them with Gentiles, when it is only those unbelieving Jews at this time are “cast off”, but even they are being provided through the jealousy with this grafting in of the gentiles to seek repentance.

Again, Paul is not providing the Jewish Christians in Rome with the false idea Jews have been cast off and replaced by Gentile, which would only add to the Jewish Christians disliking the Gentile Christians, but Paul is providing additional reasons to welcome their Gentile brothers into fellowship in hopes of making the nonbelieving Jews jealous of the new fellowship of Gentiles and Jews can have. It is complicated, but there was persecution of the Jews in Rome and they were forced to leave Rome, but the Christian Jews could leave their property and business in the hands of Gentile Christians who were allowed to stay in Rome, so when the Jewish Christians returned their businesses and property were well cared for, while the unbelieving Jew lost everything, unless they allowed Gentile Christian to take care of their property also.




GOd did cast the Jews as a nation off but those Jews (just a remnant) who became Christians were not of the Jews cast off.
God is and has always done the very best thing to help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective (Jews or Gentiles) and with the Kingdom everyone is treated equally whether Jew or gentile. God does cast away for at least a while those rejecting the “Good News”. God never cast way permanently the Jews or any other nation or group since the Spiritual Kingdom has come.


Romans 11:1-2 "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,"

Who are the "His people" Paul said God had NOT cast off? It cannot refer to fleshly Israel for later in Romans 11 we see God did cast off, broke off fleshly Israel. So the "His people" must refer to Christians...those Jews (and Gentiles) who became Christians remained God's people. Paul was in the flesh a Jew himself (an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin) but he was not of fleshly Israel that was cast off for he became a Christian, one of God's people that was not cast off.
You are taking “his people” out of Paul’s context which is “for I also am an Israelite”, so in this context “His People” = “Israelite”. God’s people referred to the nation of Israel many times in the Old Testament, for the promises were unto them. Just because a person is part of God’s nation here on earth does not mean they are the saved, since they have to accept Him as Father/God. Paul explains Israel is different then the Gentiles since the Israelites were given many blessings and many responsibilities as vessels made for a very honored special purpose. These vessels after being born (leaving the Potter’s shop) were glorious, but they were poorly handled and cracked. Being made worthless by their own actions made then good for the garbage dumb, just as common cracked vessels are only good for garbage.


God did cast off fleshy Israel but God did not cast off "His people" (Jews and Gentiles who became Christians).
See above




I am not in disagreement with you that Paul used a rhetorical type argument in Romans 9.

My point has been WHAT is the topic of Romans 9? Does Romans 9 teach Calvinistic unconditional election? No. Romans 9 is Paul's argument agianst the Jews accusation that God was unjust in having cast them off per Romans 11.
Again, all of Romans including Ro. 9 is trying to show the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians they are equal and not the hurtful idea to the Jews that the gentiles have replaced the Jews. The Jews started out very special people for a very special purpose (like a clay vessel made to hold oil in the temple), while the gentiles started out made by God to be just common vessels. It just does not matter when it comes to the all-important idea of salvation through faith. Remember the starting Diatribe question: “Is God unjust?” Does God treat everyone equally in the areas that really matter (salvation)?

Romans 9-11 answers that question.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Junia

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
2,795
1,387
42
Bristol
✟31,159.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I do not subscribe to "ists" or "isms". I've no doubt that some of my beliefs fall into some category or other. God is sovereign (I read Spurgeon's sermon on that) Fine. God's will shall be done. Now it is God's will that none should perish but that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Except that leads to Universal Reconciliation theology. I have issues with that, although I would like it to be true. I don't believe it is possible to reconcile these things completely. Every argument has a counter argument. And does it matter? I'm not convinced that it does.
I

Yeah I agree with this

I think both Calvinism and arminians are extreme views and the truth is more in between.

I think extremist beliefs can be a bit dangerous. I don't see God as some extremist but a sensible pragmatic just judge
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mans will is governed by Gods sovereign will ! Mans will isnt free from Gods Sovereing Will.
Then our sin, our desire to sin, is by HIS will. I cannot accept this because a source of pure Light cannot create dark / evil: 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is LIGHT; in him there is no darkness at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Butterball1
Upvote 0

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2020
3,824
327
66
Georgia
✟125,375.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then our sin, our desire to sin, is by HIS will. I cannot accept this because a source of pure Light cannot create dark / evil: 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is LIGHT; in him there is no darkness at all.
Then you don't accept that God is absolutely Sovereign over man in every way.
 
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The NIV I feel does a better job of expressing the message: 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. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Paul is not talking about “all” Jews, as Paul has expressed before, but those who are rejecting the Gospel and the same is true of anyone who is rejecting the gospel. Paul is using and analogy of a tree and says these that have been cut off hopefully can be grafted back in so it is not some permanent casting away never to return. This cutting off is in hopes of their return. God is doing all this to help the Jews to be reconciled.

Ro. 10:23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
"Rejection" - "cast off" - "broken off" would mean the same thing that God cast off fleshly Israel from being His elect. Yet not all fleshly Jews were cast off as Paul, for those that became Christians would be God's people.

Romans 11:23 "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."

The fact those fleshly Jews that were cast off can be grafted in AGAIN, implies that had been cast off. There would be no need for them to be grafted in again if they were never cast off to begin with.

bling said:
The problem I am having with what you are saying is the idea, God has cast away all Jews and replaced them with Gentiles, when it is only those unbelieving Jews at this time are “cast off”, but even they are being provided through the jealousy with this grafting in of the gentiles to seek repentance.

Again, Paul is not providing the Jewish Christians in Rome with the false idea Jews have been cast off and replaced by Gentile, which would only add to the Jewish Christians disliking the Gentile Christians, but Paul is providing additional reasons to welcome their Gentile brothers into fellowship in hopes of making the nonbelieving Jews jealous of the new fellowship of Gentiles and Jews can have. It is complicated, but there was persecution of the Jews in Rome and they were forced to leave Rome, but the Christian Jews could leave their property and business in the hands of Gentile Christians who were allowed to stay in Rome, so when the Jewish Christians returned their businesses and property were well cared for, while the unbelieving Jew lost everything, unless they allowed Gentile Christian to take care of their property also.

I never said God cast off all Jews, I even showed Paul was a fleshly Jew but not cast off. What God did was cast off fleshly Israel from being His chosen people to making Christians His chosen people and any fleshly Jew or Gentile who becomes a Christian therefore is of God's chosen people - Christians. Those fleshly Jews in Acts 2 who obeyed Peter and became Christians then became of God's chosen people.

But only a very few fleshly Jews became Christians, Paul says "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:" Romans 9:27 "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace (became Christians)" Romans 11:5. In Acts 2 there was about 3000 who became Christians, very much a remnant from among millions of Jews.

bling said:
God is and has always done the very best thing to help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective (Jews or Gentiles) and with the Kingdom everyone is treated equally whether Jew or gentile. God does cast away for at least a while those rejecting the “Good News”. God never cast way permanently the Jews or any other nation or group since the Spiritual Kingdom....

God accepts anyone, Jew or Gentile, that becomes a Christians sine now Christians are God's chosen people. Thereefore just being a Jew in the flesh is not enough to be saved, the Jew must become a Christian

bling said:
You are taking “his people” out of Paul’s context which is “for I also am an Israelite”, so in this context “His People” = “Israelite”. God’s people referred to the nation of Israel many times in the Old Testament, for the promises were unto them. Just because a person is part of God’s nation here on earth does not mean they are the saved, since they have to accept Him as Father/God. Paul explains Israel is different then the Gentiles since the Israelites were given many blessings and many responsibilities as vessels made for a very honored special purpose. These vessels after being born (leaving the Potter’s shop) were glorious, but they were poorly handled and cracked. Being made worthless by their own actions made then good for the garbage dumb, just as common cracked vessels are only good for garbage.



See above

I covered this already. Romans 11:1-2
"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
"

"His people" CANNOT refer to fleshly Israel for the text in Romans 11 shows God did reject, cast off, broke off fleshly Israel. Again no need for God to graft in fleshly Israel AGAIN (Romans 11:23) if the fleshly Jew if he was never cast off to begin with.

What GOd did was CHANGE who His chosen people now are..chnaged from fleshly Israel (no longer God's chosen) to Christians (now God's chosen).

The reason Paul was not cast away even though he was a fleshly Jew was because he be came a Christian. Therefore Paul was grafted in again as beong of God's chosen for he became a Christian.

Those 3000 Jews in Acts 2 who became Christians were grafted in again having become Christians. They had been cast off being fleshly Jews but grafted in again when they became Christians.

I am not seeing why you don't understand this and I don't think I can explain any more simple than what I have.


bling said:
Again, all of Romans including Ro. 9 is trying to show the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians they are equal and not the hurtful idea to the Jews that the gentiles have replaced the Jews. The Jews started out very special people for a very special purpose (like a clay vessel made to hold oil in the temple), while the gentiles started out made by God to be just common vessels. It just does not matter when it comes to the all-important idea of salvation through faith. Remember the starting Diatribe question: “Is God unjust?” Does God treat everyone equally in the areas that really matter (salvation)?
Romans 9-11 answers that question.

Romans 9 Paul is proving God was just in having cast off, broke off, rejected the fleshly Jew due to the fleshly Jew's rejection, unbelief in Christ. Yet those Jews who became Christians were grafted back in again as God's chosen. Romans 9:8 just being a Jew in the flesh is not sufficient to save, one must become a Christian (child of promise) to be a child of God/Christian.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Mans will is governed by Gods sovereign will ! Mans will isnt free from Gods Sovereing Will. Take James advise friend James 4:13-16

13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.

Even though God is sovereign that does not mean He must violate man's free will and make men sinners just so He can punish men. That would be unjust on God's part.

God carried out His sovereign will Romans 9:17 in--

1) showing his power over Pharaoh
2) magnifying His name

God did these 2 things WITHOUT violating Pharaoh's free will. God left it in Pharaoh's power as to HOW God would carry out these 2 things. Whether Pharaoh obeyed God or disobey, God was going to carry out these 2 things but again, God left it up to Pharoah as to HOW it would happen.

Had Pharaoh obeyed letting the people go then God would have shown His power over Pharaoh and magnified His name. But we know Pharoah chose to disobey, therefore God used Pharoah's disobedience to carry out these 2 things. So God was sovereign in carrying out His will, none could stop Him, but God did not have to violate man's free will in the process. Letting Pharoah choose for himself to disobey leaves Pharaoh culpable for his own choice. God would be culpable for Pharaoh's disobedience (sin) if God forced Pharaoh to disobey against his will.
 
Upvote 0