Predestination??

[oworm]

and they do not believe, right?
Who said the whole world is the elect?

Sorry I must be having one of my thick days. please explain

 

[calidog]

Sorry I must be having one of my thick days. please explain

This all came about earlier starting in thread 152. I had a good feeling that my comment that "they would be without excuse" would come back and haunt me. I was enjoying the threads pretty well but it looked like John 3:16 was'nt clear. The bible is clear about predestination, and that those who Jesus will call His own are sent from God. I think God makes it clear that He gave (up) His Son to die for the world (all). His atoning blood gives eternal life to those who believe.
In thread 161 the question: The death of Christ was purposed to actually and eternally accomplish something. (we rightly infer this to be life to the believer)
The question: What does His death accomplish eternally for those who will reside in Hell? I answered "It sends them to hell for unbelief.

thanx for your patience.

 

[Normann]

Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Oh, yes we do make a choice in our eternity. To say God makes it for us is blasphemy.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[calidog]

excelent. Joshua 24:15 goes into my study notes. thanx. We do choose. God helps us to make the right choice. In His foreknowledge and His will the following would be true:
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[oworm]

Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Who was Joshua speaking to?

Oh, yes we do make a choice in our eternity. To say God makes it for us is blasphemy.

Thats a pretty high charge you make there my friend. Remember that the light which you claim to have in bringing such a charge will be the light by which you yourself will be judged.

 

[Espada]

Joshua 24:15

Oh, yes we do make a choice in our eternity. To say God makes it for us is blasphemy.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

On the contrary, we have all made our choice for eternity by commiting sin. God in his great mercy has chosen to send some of us a life line by summoning us to be with him. Neither you nor I have any right to question his choice.

God does not prevent us from resisting him but in his greatness, he will always over power us and we will then come to him.

For a fuller posting on my logic, please read the "Predestination - The Truth" thread where I have posted more details.

 

[Jedi]

On the contrary, we have all made our choice for eternity by commiting[sic – committing] sin.

There are some qualifications that must be put in place here. For this to be true, each person must choose to sin of their own accord. If humans have no choice but to sin, there is no sense in holding them accountable when they do. Secondly, sin is not the only choice people make. People are renown for choosing sin at one minute and choosing God the next; that is, they make inconsistent choices about whether or not they want to follow God and His ways. Though one choice of rebellion is enough to separate a person from God, Christ’s sacrifice gives humanity a sort of second chance, allowing them to respond to the question “Is that your final answer?”

God in his great mercy has chosen to send some of us a life line[sic – lifeline] by summoning us to be with him. Neither you nor I have any right to question his choice.

You’re left with a very serious problem here: why didn’t God save as many people as He could? A good parent would save as many of his sick children as he could, a good lifeguard would save as many drowning civilians as he could, so it seems that if God simply chose not to save as many people as He could, He is not a truly good God. People rot in Hell because God did not care enough to save them.

God does not prevent us from resisting him but in his greatness, he will always over power us and we will then come to him.

So… how does this work? He never prevents us from resisting him, but he will always overpowers us, forcing us to Himself? I’m afraid you’re stuck with another problem (one that has yet to be answered by anyone here, among others): if God has to contort someone’s will so that they come to Him and are thus saved, God is really not saving them at all, but at best a mere shadow of who they really are. If I were to exert force upon a young lady and mind control her so that she is drawn to me, who in their right mind would praise me for such an act? Who in their right mind would say that she truly loves me? The fact would be that it is not her at all that I am with; only what I have forced her to be (not her as she truly is). The same problem applies to God forcing people to Himself.

 

[seekingpurity047]

[/color]

There are some qualifications that must be put in place here. For this to be true, each person must choose to sin of their own accord. If humans have no choice but to sin, there is no sense in holding them accountable when they do. Secondly, sin is not the only choice people make. People are renown for choosing sin at one minute and choosing God the next; that is, they make inconsistent choices about whether or not they want to follow God and His ways. Though one choice of rebellion is enough to separate a person from God, Christ’s sacrifice gives humanity a sort of second chance, allowing them to respond to the question “Is that your final answer?”



You’re left with a very serious problem here: why didn’t God save as many people as He could? A good parent would save as many of his sick children as he could, a good lifeguard would save as many drowning civilians as he could, so it seems that if God simply chose not to save as many people as He could, He is not a truly good God. People rot in Hell because God did not care enough to save them.



So… how does this work? He never prevents us from resisting him, but he will always overpowers us, forcing us to Himself? I’m afraid you’re stuck with another problem (one that has yet to be answered by anyone here, among others): if God has to contort someone’s will so that they come to Him and are thus saved, God is really not saving them at all, but at best a mere shadow of who they really are. If I were to exert force upon a young lady and mind control her so that she is drawn to me, who in their right mind would praise me for such an act? Who in their right mind would say that she truly loves me? The fact would be that it is not her at all that I am with; only what I have forced her to be (not her as she truly is). The same problem applies to God forcing people to Himself.

Rom. 9:19-20

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

To the glory of God,

Randy

EDIT: Might I also add that God saves who He wants to save, not who he COULD save, becuase He could save everyone, if it was His will. I mean, He's powerful enough. I think you need to figure out what is God's priority by using scripture.

 

[Jedi]

Rom. 9:19-20

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

Oh, this passage again; a favorite among Calvinists but terribly abused by them. If you’ll notice, nowhere in Romans 9 is salvation the topic of focus. What you have here is God creating people certain ways (e.g. tall, thin, short, fat, good at math, poor at math, etc), essentially, their lot in life. Being made with certain gifts and being placed in a certain area in a certain time is quite different from God forcing a person to Himself. Long story short, God made you you, but nowhere in this passage does the text promote the idea that the choice you make is decided by God (and hence not your choice at all).

EDIT: Might I also add that God saves who He wants to save, not who he COULD save, becuase[sic – because] He could save everyone, if it was His will. I mean, He's powerful enough . I think you need to figure out what is God's priority by using scripture.

Again, this assertion holds terrible problems concerning the nature of God, as I described above. To copy and paste the problem I described a few paragraphs ago: “Why didn’t God save as many people as He could? A good parent would save as many of his sick children as he could, a good lifeguard would save as many drowning civilians as he could, so it seems that if God simply chose not to save as many people as He could, He is not a truly good God. People rot in Hell because God did not care enough to save them.”

 

[cygnusx1]

No more than a child controls his father whenever they wrestle. The father refrains from using his full strength because he so values the interaction with his child. Similarly, simply because God can control everything does not mean He must. God has given man freedom to choose, but this in no way controls God.



Determinism, in this case, is the idea that God decides your fate apart from your will. Before you were born, He thought to Himself “I shall make him go to heaven” or “I shall make him go to hell.” Stronger forms of Determinism assert that everything, even if a branch falls from a tree on to your head, is done by God. The problem with this is very easy to see: it makes God the direct cause of everything, including evil and all of man’s rebellious choices. Ultimately, Determinism makes a mockery of the cross of Christ: God made man sin, then He came down to pay the penalty for that sin to forgive them of what He made them do.



Only if this were possible. It is not, simply because (as I said before) some people refuse to be saved. As it is, it’s rhetorical nonsense to say that God can force someone to freely choose Him; the words are there but the meaning is gone. We might as well say God can create a smelly color or a square circle, but this is no limit to God’s power. Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.



The question still remains: why does He save some and not others? We would throw a parent in jail for this sort of behavior toward his children. How is it any less vile when we attribute this behavior to God? If God is truly all good, He would save everyone possible (just as a good parent would save as many of his sick children as he could). If God does not save all He can, then the conclusion is grim: God is not all good. This being so, all of morality (having its basis in God) is thrown into utter chaos for if not even God Himself is truly good, by what standard do we measure “goodness?”



Quite right, but this has to be their choice. Calvinism (again, referring to five-point Calvinism) takes that away, placing the choice of their salvation entirely on God. Calvinism takes all ability for goodness away from humans and describes God as saving only some and not all He can, which throws His goodness into question (since an entirely good God would do everything possible to save people, not simply choose some and leave others regardless of their wills).



Granted, but as I said before, this really doesn’t solve the problem. Instead of asking “Why doesn’t God save as many people as possible,” the question is rephrased to say, “Why doesn’t God make as many people as possible His children (and thus save them)?” It’s the same question in a different form.



You would make the Calvinist in my class very proud.

This response still doesn’t dodge the bullet, though. I might as well say, “See? My computer chooses whatsoever it desires based on the program I put into it.” The reality is that the computer chooses nothing – its decisions are what I told it to decide by programming it a certain way. It is not free and therefore cannot be held responsible for the “choices” it makes (which are really nothing more than the kinds of choices I forced it to make). This really throws morality into chaos. How can we condemn a man for evil if God programmed him that way? He had no choice in the matter. On the same token, how can we praise a man for doing good if his good “decisions” were forced upon him? He could have done nothing else. It makes no sense at all to hold a person morally responsible for actions he does if he could have done nothing else.

Suppose there is a car salesman who takes a customer to the lot and says, “Choose any car you like, but it can only be black.” Though the customer may choose what style of black car he would like, we could not hold him responsible for choosing a black car. In the same way, if a person is so predisposed toward a given type of action (whether evil or good), we cannot hold him accountable for evil nor praise him for good because he carried out such actions any more than we can blame the customer for choosing a black car.



Yet the problem still remains: God forces the wills of people toward one position or the other. Whether God forces people against their wills or apart from it, it is still force and the people being forced are thus not responsible for what they were forced to do, leaving them neither accountable for bad nor praiseworthy for good.



But by your own admission, you could have done nothing else, so there is really no choice at all in the matter: God made you do it by forcing your will. Saying, “I willed this to be so” is irrelevant, since what God forced is your will. The only way out here would be to say “But people can reject God even after seeing their need of Him,” but I have yet to see a Calvinist who would admit such a thing.



This distinction I’ve seen numerous Calvinists make does them very little, if any, good in escaping the problem of God forcing people to accept/reject Him. The Calvinists have only moved from a God that drags prisoners to Heaven or Hell against their wills to a God who mind controls them into the comforts of Heaven or the miseries of Hell. There is still no love, no moral goodness, no choice, and in fact, no real persons there at all (for if God has to contort and control a person’s will in order to save them, He is really not saving them at all, but at best a mere shadow of who they really are).



Oh, it’s very accurate. I haven’t had anyone here explain to me how God is not forcing people (by your own admission, “Force” is the correct terminology) to accept/reject Him. Simply because God is holding the strings of a puppet instead of holding the leash of a rebellious dog does not make God any less forceful or responsible concerning the fates of human beings.



And if you had taken any courses in philosophy or theology, you would know that simply stating “straw man” does not do any good. You must explain how it is a misrepresentation of your stance, not merely claim it is. To date, I have not seen this done, so your words here ring hollow.

If it comes down to a choice between Determinism by God and indeterminism , I will choose determinism every time ......... there can be no more of a mockery of the cross that Jesus dies with his fingers crossed!

 

[Normann]

I continue to post in this thread just in case someone reads it with a teachable spirit. My motive is not to try to change the minds of those set on the false teaching of a liar.

Both history and the Bible will show that John Calvin was a false teacher.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[JimfromOhio]

I continue to post in this thread just in case someone reads it with a teachable spirit. My motive is not to try to change the minds of those set on the false teaching of a liar.

Both history and the Bible will show that John Calvin was a false teacher.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Better be careful, there are those who view every denominations within the forum is a false teacher. Stick with doctrine rather than man.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Reformationist-

I completely agree. For this very reason, I contend that we are only able to truly have assurance our own salvitic state, and even that assurance may ebb depending upon the manner in which we nurture our relationship with our Lord. However, with the Apostle, I am confident that the Lord will finish what He starts and I believe that He has established a covenant with my household.

Where do you get this idea that a covenant has been established with your household...Is this in the Bible? How is this covenant different than the Jews who were born into the old covenant?
If people are elected before the foundations of the earth then there cant be a covenant because you didnt exist yet to make one. Unless your family line is sure of election which doesnt appear to be what your saying.

I don't understand what you mean here.

Basically what I meant was we cant presume someone is elect "until they show otherwise", the man next door could have been the model Christian to us, but what if he later did a major sin like murder. In this case "until" he murdered someone would not be a fair indication of his "showing otherwise" beacuse that is a moment in time and we dont know if his future actions include repenting. (ie his track record means nothing)

Well, I am not aware that I said that any such thing was indicated but I will say that a person's track record surely doesn't stop God from saving someone if He purposes to do so. Paul is a perfect example of that.

I agree, thats why outward works are inconclusive.

I have no clue whom God has decreed to reprobate so what is your point? I think I was quite clear that God has not made the identity of His elect public knowledge so my job is to deal with all people as if they are the elect of God, for insofar as my finite knowledge is concerned, they very well may be.

Does God want the reprobate Baptized, prayed for/with, associate with in matters concerning salvation? Isnt that kind of pointless?
In otherwords, does God want parents to teach the faith to their Children? If yes, then why would He want a reprobate to go through the Christian teachings knowing it is meaningless or even sacrilege (eg Baptizing a reprobate)?

So you are contending that if God has foreordained, that is, ordained before the foundations of the world, that you CD, will be saved, then His promise to you that you will be saved is worthless or nonexistant? If that is not your contention, why must I assume a different course for my children? If He has ordained that they be saved from the foundations of the world then He will assure they come to faith and He will keep His promise to save them.

Thats not what I was saying, I was saying how can you have a covenant/promise with God that your children are elect if that election was decided long ago?
In the case of me myself being elect, I would know that God's promise to save me myself was sure, BUT I wouldnt have any influence/knowledge on the election of someone else.

I don't know that God has guarenteed to save every child of every believer. Regardless, once again I ask you, shall I fail in my responsibilities as a parent to my child simply because I have no assurance of their election?

What are your responsibilities in general? Would you inform them there is such thing as election and non election and that the non elect dont/cant go to heaven ... If a child were to ask you if they are elect what do you tell them?

Isaac did not raise his children as believers???!!! Pray tell, where did you read such a thing?

He did, its just they were already elect and his teachings meant nothing to esau because he was non elect. Both children came from the same parents, yet what their parents did didnt have any influence on the final outcome.

Do you always respond in perfect faith to the things that come to pass though you know they come to pass by the perfect decree of God? In answer, though God is perfect, I certainly am not. I didn't say anguish was the proper response. I merely acknowledged that I imagine it would be my response.

Im not sure, I dont believe everything does come from the perfect decree of God, I believe He allows things, but doesnt command they happen. I dont believe Adam was forced to eat otherwise God wouldnt have put him in paradise to begin with. (But thats another topic/thread)

Again, I have never stated that He does so. Additionally, I could only speculate as to the answer to that question. I imagine that it would teach us much about the authority and providence of God were we to face the struggle of having non-believing children. Look at God's dealings with Job. God made it clear that He needn't answer to Job for the things He brings to pass. Was God unrighteous for loosing satan upon Job's family and property and health? God Himself called Job a "blameless and upright man." Despite that, God loosed the devil upon him and allowed the death of Job's children and the loss of his property and health. Why would God do that to a man He had graced as His servant? That is revealed to us in the latter portion of Job:

I read in ch42:

12 And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she-asses. 13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
​

It appears children are a blessing, and yes the first family was taken from him, but that doesnt mean they were reprobate in this case.

Job 42:5,6
I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”

Job's response is one of Hebrew tradition. This means that his knowledge of God, due to all that had come to pass, was even deeper now than it was before. His response to the majesty of God in spite of all of the trials he had recently endured? He repented. He saw the wickedness of his soul when compared to the mere reflection of God's majesty. He realized he had no right to question God's authority to do as He would with His creation.

Im still not sure where it indicates his children were non elect. Just because God ends someone's life doesnt mean they were reprobate, in this case they were kind of innocent bystanders not part of the main story.
In the next few verses it says:

7 After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eli'phaz the Te'manite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. 8 Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." 9 So Eli'phaz the Te'manite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Na'amathite went and did what the LORD had told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer. 10 And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends; and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. 11 Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before...
​

The interesting thing is that his fortunes were restored in full or double including a new family. I would question the election of the bad friends though, God's wrath was clearly against them.

You ask, "Why would God allow an elect to have children that were predestined to hell?" My best answer is that they, like Job, would come to truly see the majesty of God instead of assuming that their superficial submission to God's authority equated to true faith. Tell me something CD, how would you feel toward God if He decreed to take your children from you as He did Job's? Would you be able to proclaim, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.” Would you honor God for your loss? Do you think maybe, just maybe, getting through such an event would be a sanctifying experience and lesson on truly trusting God?

How can you say "like Job", your assuming his children were non elect, which I see no basis for.
Im not married and dont have any children, but God willing if Im blessed with children and they were taken away the time of their departure would influence my reaction. In any case I would be very sad of the physical loss, but depending on the time of departure I would react in different ways (eg, if they were Baptized yet or not).

 

[seekingpurity047]

Oh, this passage again; a favorite among Calvinists but terribly abused by them. If you’ll notice, nowhere in Romans 9 is salvation the topic of focus. What you have here is God creating people certain ways (e.g. tall, thin, short, fat, good at math, poor at math, etc), essentially, their lot in life. Being made with certain gifts and being placed in a certain area in a certain time is quite different from God forcing a person to Himself. Long story short, God made you you, but nowhere in this passage does the text promote the idea that the choice you make is decided by God (and hence not your choice at all).



Again, this assertion holds terrible problems concerning the nature of God, as I described above. To copy and paste the problem I described a few paragraphs ago: “Why didn’t God save as many people as He could? A good parent would save as many of his sick children as he could, a good lifeguard would save as many drowning civilians as he could, so it seems that if God simply chose not to save as many people as He could, He is not a truly good God. People rot in Hell because God did not care enough to save them.”

Umm... if that's what you think Paul is talkign about in Romans 9, you are terribly in theological error. Allow us to analyze the whole chapter, shall we?

1I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[a] my kinsmen according to the flesh.

Interestingly enough, Paul is willing to give up everything, even His own salvation (cut off from Christ) for the sake of his brothers (Israelites), meaning, their salvation. I'm sure you could agree. I mean, waht else could Paul possibly be saying here? Allow us to continue...

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Interesting again... not all Israel is Israel... therefore, there is a spiritual Israel, those whom are saved... w0w... Tremendous, MORE talk about salvation....

10And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Lalalalaslala... what's that Paul? Jacob was saved, and Esau was not!?!... w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w.... more salvation? YEP!

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Hm... mercy... what kinda mercy, Paul? Hey! Paul... mercy? What are you talking about? Well... saving mercy, perhaps? More salvation... Romans 9... salvation.... w0w0w0w0w0w0w... God hardened Pharaoh's heart... in order that His will be done upon Egypt (Ex. 7:1-5 for further refernce)... doesn't involve salvation? Yah.. and i have pizzas for hands....

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

If this actually meant people being "good in math, poor in math, blue eyes, green eyes, deformed ligaments, perfect body, etc etc", why in the world would Paul begin this instance with "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?'" There is obviously a reason why Paul would even consider their asking the question. I mean, it wouldn't be so controversial if it involved the things you named! Do you think Paul actually cares about physique when he's actually talking about salvation in the previous verses? Common!

I don't think the rest of Romans 9 is necessary to look at. I have proven my point. Read it properly. If it involved the body, shape, form of a person, there wouldn't much of a concern, and Paul wouldn't even address the questions!

I can't help but laugh at your remark... I'm sooo sorry... LOL....

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[Jedi]

If it comes down to a choice between Determinism by God and indeterminism , I will choose determinism every time ......... there can be no more of a mockery of the cross that Jesus dies with his fingers crossed!

This is nothing more than a straw man. Jesus’ death on the cross was for all who are willing to be with Him, the paying of a debt for those who would let Him pay it. The cross is simply the means to forgive people who wish to be forgiven. It never fails, there are no fingers being crossed.

On the other hand, you are left with a myriad of problems in clinging to your Deterministic God: a God who does not do all He can to save people (negligent and thus not all good), who has to force people to be with Him (a rapist), who ironically doesn’t even get what he wants (for if he has to contort someone’s will to be with Him, it is not really them He is getting at all, but at best a mere shadow of who they really are).

Umm... if that's what you think Paul is talkign about in Romans 9, you are terribly in theological error. Allow us to analyze the whole chapter, shall we?

One step ahead of you. I’ve already taken the liberty to analyze the relevant section of the passage (verses 1-10 merely talk about people foolishly relying on their physical lineage with Abraham to save them instead of a spiritual relationship with God, which is hardly relevant to the discussion of Arminianism versus Calvinism) long ago in my researching this very matter:

Romans 9:11-23

Verses 11-13 – “Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’” (NIV).

Before they were born, God had their places in life already mapped out based on his foreknowledge of who they would be. It is like arranging chess pieces on a board, placing each piece in the desired position. However, this cannot adequately be done without first knowing the nature of each individual piece. God did not strip Jacob or Esau of their free will, but only put them in specific positions as to best glorify Himself.

The phrase “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” need not be taken in the most extreme, literal sense. God instructed us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44), and so for God to hate a particular person, even if that person was God’s enemy, would go against what God Himself is teaching. The instruction to “hate” something is often used hyperbolically to illustrate a point. Luke 14:26 tells us, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple” (NIV). However, this is clearly a hyperbolic usage of the word “hate” to contrast it with the love we should have for God. Compared to the love we have for God, the love we have for even our closest kin should appear like hate. Thus the probable usage of the term “hate” here in Romans 9:13, describing God’s incredible love for Jacob that far surpassed the love He had for Esau.

This love being spoken of was also likely to have been based on the actions and attitudes of each individual. We are told that Jacob and Esau’s positions (served and servant) weren’t earned through deeds, but were put in place by God’s will. However, we are not told that the same applies for God’s love of each person. In fact, this cannot be true, since we are told by Paul earlier in Romans 2:11 that “God does not show favoritism” (NIV).

Another possible interpretation of this phrase is that it is apparent love that is being described. Blessings are often thought to be a demonstration of God’s love, and so the more blessings a person has, the more God supposedly loves them. Jacob being more blessed than Esau, it could have easily been said that God loved Jacob far more than Esau because of the difference in the amount of blessings each received.

Verses 14-15 – “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’” (NIV).

This is clearly a statement of God’s sovereignty to make choices as He sees fit. However, it leaves two very open questions: (1) Who does God want to have mercy and compassion on, and (2) is this mercy & compassion on earth or mercy concerning the receiving of salvation?

To the first, if it pertains to mercy in salvation, we are told that the Lord is “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9, NIV). Insofar as the salvation of people is concerned, God’s compassion stretches out to everyone. In the matter of salvation, God has extended His compassion to these people, but not all people are saved (Revelation 20:15). The only way this is possible is if there lies another variable in the matter of salvation: human free will. God’s compassion of salvation extends to everyone, but not all accept it.

The context of the chapter, however, favors mercy in the sense of being shown compassion during our stay on Earth. A few verses later (vv. 17-18), Paul uses Pharaoh as an illustration of the point he’s trying to get across. His description of Pharaoh is one where his role here on earth was to bring about the glory of God (much like positioning those chess pieces). It is an obvious fact that God does not strike down every single individual as soon as they do bad deeds. The wicked continue to exist in this world, and this is a demonstration of God’s mercy (as we later read in verse 22). Other times, however, God enacts judgment in this life on the wicked and they have to face the consequences of their decisions, which in the case of Pharaoh, led to the glorification of God. Thus the mercy and compassion being spoken of here, when taken into context of the illustration given, pertain to mercy and compassion during our stay on earth, and not in a salvation-oriented sense.

Verse 16 – “It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy” (NIV).

Regardless of what man wants or what he tries to do, God has the ultimate say about the consequences we face and how we are used to glorify God, in essence, our role in God’s story. This doesn’t affect who we are, but how we are used; much like the nature of a Bishop in chess isn’t altered by its position on the board. For the glory of God, more mercy is shown to some than others here on Earth; the wicked sometimes get away with their attitudes and actions now (mercy), and other times God stops them in their tracks.

Verses 17-18 – “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (NIV).

The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is a constant struggle for Christians insofar as understanding the nature of God, but this struggle is based on an oversight and misconception. In Exodus 4:21, God declares that He will harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he will not let the people go. However, the oversight in this situation is that God did not harden Pharaoh’s heart contrary to Pharaoh’s free choice. The scripture makes it clear that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. It declares that Pharaoh’s heart “grew hard” (Exod. 7:13), that he “hardened his heart” (Exod. 8:15), and that “Pharaoh’s heart grew hard” the more God worked on it (8:19). Again, when God sent the plague of the flies, “Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also” (8:32). This same or like phrase is repeated several times (see also 9:7, 34, 35). In fact, with the exception of God’s prediction of what would happen (Exod. 4:21), the fact is that Pharaoh hardened his own heart first (7:13; 8:15, etc), and God hardened it later (cf. 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27).

Scholars have pointed out that different Hebrew words for “harden” are used in this passage. Qashah, meaning “stubbornness” is used twice, once where God is the agent and once where Pharaoh is (7:3; 13:15). In both cases it is used of the overall process, not a particular act. Kabed, meaning “heavy” or “insensitive” is used many times, not only to Pharaoh’s heart, but of the plagues. God sent a “heavy” swarm of flies, hailstones, and swarm of locusts. Chazaq, meaning “strength” or “encouragement” is used on Pharaoh’s heart. When Pharaoh is the agent of hardening, kabed is used. When God is the agent, chazaq is used. Although Pharaoh is making his own moral decision, God is going to give him the strength to carry it out. Thus it is a reinforcing of Pharaoh’s own will, not the violation of it.

The sense in which God hardened his heart is similar to the way the sun hardens clay and also melts wax. If Pharaoh had been receptive to Gods’ warnings, his heart would not have been hardened by God. But when God gave Pharaoh a reprieve from the plagues, he took advantage of the situation. “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them [Moses and Aaron], as the Lord had said” (Exod. 8:15).

Verses 19-21 – “One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’ But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use” (NIV)?

This section begins with a question about the theology presented in the previous statements. Notice, however, that Paul does not answer the question but only reaffirms God’s sovereignty. The answer to such a prospective question is the same answer to why God hardened these people’s hearts in the first place: they had attitudes in opposition to God, and God’s hardening only reinforced their own wills in order that God might be glorified through them. God has used an already present evil and made it turn out for His glory.

Paul then affirms that it is God’s right to use people for certain purposes, all for His glory. Not everyone is happy with their lot in life, but God has a purpose for them being there with their given qualities in that setting, namely, the purpose of His glorification.

Verses 22-23 – “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory” (NIV).

In verse 22, we read that God is patient even with the objects of His wrath. The phrase “prepared for destruction” does not necessarily mean “made by God only for the purpose of being destroyed.” The much more probable interpretation is that because these people have acted up and defied God without repentance, they are set for destruction. They were not always this way, but their choices and sin have prepared them to be destroyed. This view is especially supported when we read earlier in Romans 2:4 that the purpose of such patience is to give them the opportunity to repent.

Ultimately, your entire reading of the text is merely a demonstration of you reading salvation into the text (like presuming any mention of "grace" or "mercy" must be salvific) resulting in a poor exegesis.

 

[Reformationist]

It sounds like, according to John 3:16, that God loved the world (all of us), and that He gave up Jesus for the world (all) and that the believers in Him would be saved. I believed, according to scripture, that Christ died for all, not just for those who would believe. It's those who would believe that would be saved. Not trying to dissect the issue of predestination, just wanted to have clarity here before going to the issue of "who would believe". thanx

While I understand that this is a popular view amongst believers, it fails to consider the incongruity of saying that Christ was sacrificed for all without exception. You see, the only way that we can contend such a thing is to likewise profess that the death of Christ, in and of itself, has no power to reconcile anyone with the Father or atone for a single sin. It actually portrays the incarnate God actually dying for those He already knew would never eternally benefit from His death. The first question that springs to mind when such a nonsensical supposition is made is, why? I often receive the response, "Well, because He loved them so He died for them even though He knew it wouldn't make a difference in their eternal disposition." To that I offer a resounding, "HUH??!!" You mean to tell me that the actual death of God Himself is, in and of itself, impotent to appease the wrath of God against a person's iniquity? I think the primary problem when discussing this issue tends to be the fact that many, like yourself perhaps, see salvation as the result of an agreement between the recipient of grace and the Godhead. It simply isn't so. The biblical foundation, the good news which we preach, is that God purposed the salvation of His elect, Jesus accomplishes it, and the Holy Spirit applies it. Man is the unworthy recipient of a covenant between the members of the Godhead.

You state, "I believed, according to scripture, that Christ died for all, not just for those who would believe. When He purposed to die for them, did He have a goal in mind? What was His death purposed to accomplish? Or is it actually your contention that the incarnate God planned to simply suffer for no particular reason and that His suffering was not intended to benefit many of those on whose behalf He suffered?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

thanx, it was actually a kind of rehetorical question.

LOL! Oh. Didn't pick up on that.

I have a strongs and a thayers, and thayer gives a further definition in context as you have quoted. But for the life of me I havent a clue as to how thayer came up with "believers" from "kosmos" from the original text. If I simply read the text of John 3:15-18 God loved the (whole) world (all). Christ died for all. Those who believe will be saved.

Again I ask, if Christ died for all, what was His death purposed to accomplish?

"That the world through Him might be saved", indicates that not all will be saved (believe).

Um...what in that passage indicates that not all will be saved? Please, oh please, don't tell me that you've come to such a conclusion because of the word "might." I certainly hope that is not the case.

I'll have to stick with God loved the world (all), and that Christ died for all, and that all did not recieve Him. That would make His elect those that have (and will) recieve(d) Him.

Fine, what was His death purposed to accomplish on behalf of those He knew would forever reject Him?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

He was sent by God to die for all.

To accomplish what??? Honestly, people throw this sentiment around so much that I think they must fail to realize that it meanst that God is either a psychotic [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] who dies for people He knows are still going to end up in hell, meaning that His death was of no benefit to them, or, that His death is simply insufficient to atone for a single sin without some contributory effort on the part of man.

Either of those views appeal to you?

 

[Reformationist]

For God so loved (all) the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoesoever (the elect) believes on Him should not perish but have eternal life. If the whole world believes, the whole world is saved. God, by doing this leaves the unbeliever without excuse.

Look what you've just claimed. You've just stated that God loved all without exception so much that by sending His Son to die on their behalf, knowing that they would not accept Him as Lord, He makes them guilty of His death so that they are without excuse and burn in hell. Sure. Very "loving" God you've portrayed there.

 

[Reformationist]

What I mean by “accept the cross” is to ultimately accept God’s ways over your own. Yet as I pointed out earlier with reference to C.S. Lewis, there are some people who will never have it any other way than their own. Do you want to be with God? Then doing so means following Him and doing things His way. If you do not wish to be with God, the alternative is to be left to yourself, cut off from the very source of goodness (God).

Thanks for elaborating. One little thing....you didn't answer my question. I said, "why are some people willing to accept the Cross and some not?"

Yet you and I both know that we are not merely “carnal” beings. When Paul repeatedly speaks of his “fleshly” desires, he does not suppose those desires are the only ones he has. There is a part of me that is inclined to sin due to its heavy influence in the world, my own tendencies to look out for myself before others, and my own animalistic desires (i.e. “desires of the flesh”). Yet there is more to me than merely these things: I am also a soul, branching beyond the mere carnal world. Besides, the NASB (the version I trust the most after having been through Koine Greek) renders the first part “the mind set on the flesh,” that is, a matter of focus for the individual. Long story short, this verse in no way supports the idea that humans are incapable of doing good of their own accord.

I didn't offer it to explain the still present desire of regenerate man (believer) to sin. What I provided to support was the truth that natural man, i.e., he with a carnal mind, is incapable of submitting to God's authority and obeying Him because he sees God as the enemy. This view of God effectively incapacitates him in the area of fiducia, personally trusting God unto salvation. Long story short, natural man is inherently incapable of attaining any good unto righteousness because natural man never desires to do the things pertaining to God and righteousness. He is a sinful creature that serves only the lusts of his flesh. Until and unless that is changed, he cannot change.

I really don’t see any basis from which you can stand in this understanding of “sin.”

Scripture is not a sufficient basis for you?

Romans 14:23
for whatever is not from faith is sin.

If what you say here is true, even a nonbeliever who saves an elderly nun from a bunch of thugs has not committed a good act but a sinful one, because he didn’t do it “by faith in Christ” or out of a “desire to obey Him” (in the most direct sense).

His act is not "good" in the eyes of God because it wasn't predicated by faith. Paint as selfless an act as you can think of. It doesn't change the fact that the "good deed" wasn't motivated by faith in God. I don't deny that God gives all men a measure of grace such that even the non-believer is capable of these acts of civic righteousness. However, these things, as nice as we may think they are, are not righteous in God's eyes because God, who can see the heart of man, knows that the motivation for the act was never based on faith in God.

The way morality works is that whenever a person chooses to do good, they are, in a very real sense, choosing God. Though their choices in these matters have little, if anything, to do with theological facts, they have clearly chosen to do good (that is, God’s way).

So your contention, however ridiculously unbibical it is, is that our motivation for our actions is of little value when considering the external appearance of the act? What if that non-believer saves the nuns so that he can receive praise and glory among men? Is His act righteous?

This is really quite vague.

What's vague about saying that every aspect of man's constituent nature is corrupted by sin?

Is man capable of choosing good over evil of his own accord or not?

In his unregenerate state, absolutely not.

If not, then good and evil have no meaning for humans: if a man cannot choose good, he can’t even choose to do a morally neutral act over an evil one with the intent of refraining from evil (since that itself would be a good act). The result, then, is that man can only do evil, but if this is so, how can humans be morally condemned? They could have done nothing else.

What you fail to take into account is that they could have done nothing else because they want nothing else. Their inability to do good springs forth from the fact that they are corrupted at their core. Their heart, i.e., their seat of reason, is sinful thus they want to serve only the lusts of their flesh.

We might as well curse water for forming currents: it has no choice in the matter.

Water is not a volitional creation and, as I said, man has a choice. It's just that in his unregenerate state his desires are only and always sinful, thus his choices are sinful.

It’s a matter of what is meant by “total depravity.” If we use it to mean that people have no sense of what good really is (“totally depraved” of goodness), then they should have never known they were totally depraved (they would have not known goodness to say they were depraved of it).

That's absolutely correct. The totally depraved do not acknowledge that they are totally depraved. In fact, if you ask them, there is nothing morally wrong with them.

Granted, merely calling some ideology doesn’t mean it is that ideology, but this still doesn’t resolve the issue of differences among adherents to a particular ideology. From what you’re asserting here, it would seem to follow that if there are any differences between your thoughts and Calvin’s concerning ideology, you would not be a Calvinist.

Well, I think that it would be acceptable to say that if a person agreed with the core issues that Calvin taught they could claim affiliation with His mindset on matters of faith. It is for the very reason you note that I do not claim to be a Calvinist. I am still learning about the Gospel and don't regulate my beliefs by what Calvin, a finite and fallible man, believed. I do, however, highly respect his insight.

Yet he burned his opposition in a debate at the stake simply because he won (interestingly enough, the debate was held in his home town of Geneva). If Calvin taught this sort of thing through example, and I’m presuming you disagree with him in this matter, then you do not agree completely with Calvin’s ideology. If this is so, by the criteria you listed above, you are not a Calvinist.

I am not a Calvinist. I am a reformed Christian. But again, I do not think one need agree with Calvin's choice to have someone burned at the stake for heresy to rightfully wear the mantle of Calvinist.

You seem to have this funny idea that God can do anything. He cannot. For example, Hebrews 6:18 blatantly states that it is “impossible for God to lie.”

Please, for my edification, show me from my own words where I've claimed that "God can do anything." What I know to be true is that God is bound by His nature. I've not purported anything contrary to that. I look forward to you supporting this accusation or, as will hopefully be the case, withdrawing it.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but it seems the God of scripture isn’t the God you’ve imagined: a sovereign God in the sense that He is “able to do anything.”

Well, I am glad to burst your bubble. I've never claimed that sovereignty means that God can do anything. I simply acknowledge that sovereignty means that God can do anything that is consistant with His nature.

This is really an unnecessary understanding of Sovereignty and Omnipotence. God is not “able to do anything,” but “able to do anything possible.”

Never stated anything contrary to that. If you feel that I have, step up to the plate and show me where I did.

Further still, you still did not answer the question: How can God remain completely good and not save as many people as He can?

I wasn't aware that I missed this question. First off, God has both the power and authority to save every person He ever creates. He simply does not choose to do so. Secondly, the reason that this does not make Him unjust is because salvation is by the graciousness of God. In case you missed it, salvation is something we don't deserve. God doesn't become a bad God for not giving unworthy man what he doesn't deserve.

Even more, how can God save anyone if He has to first force and contort their wills to be with Him (at best, saving only a shadow of who they really are)?

I have not clue. Neither I, nor any learned Calvinist I've ever encountered, purports that God does any such thing so I would not be qualified to answer that question.

Tell you what, you go ahead and worship that god. I’ll continue to acknowledge that the God of Scripture is holy and righteous and omnipotent and He saves everyone willing and never fails, leaving no one behind who wants to come to Him and giving everyone a fair shot at salvation (unlike your arbitrary, tyrannical, less-than-good god).

LOL! You know, I was reading this part of your post and, all the while, saying, "Hey, I totally agree with that, and that, and that, and that, and that, and...uh...um...what in the world....gives everyone a fair shot???" What in the world could you possibly mean? Where does the Bible say a single thing about man having "a fair shot at salvation?" Is salvation now some sort of clay bird after which man strives? The nature of fallen man as expressed in the Bible is one of enmity against God, deceit, sinfulness, self-righteousness, immorality, wickedness in thought and deed. Who is it that avails themselves of this "fair shot" of which you speak? The ridiculous part of such a view is that we already have an example of what man does with a "fair shot at salvation." He blows it. He loses for himself, and all his progeny, salvation. Good luck with the "fair shot" model of salvation. That's gonna carry you all the way to a very heated climate.