Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We can certainly agree to that, but in Romans 9, Paul is addressing the biological descendants of Abraham and only some of them carrying with them the promises. The Gentiles would not feel they were biologically born into the promises.Okay - we agree that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Any man, without exception, can be a child of Abraham.
Correct! Most Calvinists contradict themselves. They say that God calls to salvation those whom He has no intention of saving.
These verses do not teach the "general call" doctrine. The fact that the non-elect are present when the gospel is preached does not constitute a call of God to them.Acts 16:14 shows the universal call AND the effectual call all in one verse:
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
here there is no denying that the external precedes the internal.
1 Peter 2:23 shows the Word of God as being instrument of bringing about regeneration:
Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.
It would be hard to argue that the living and abiding word of God could be anything other than the preaching of the Gospel.
These verses do not teach the "general call" doctrine. The fact that the non-elect are present when the gospel is preached does not constitute a call of God to them.
"Whom He CALLED them He ALSO justified."
Here in lies your first problem: difficulties it seems to present. If you could place yourself, as best as you can, into the first century Roman Christian situation as a Jew or a gentile what Paul is saying in the context of what he has already said, would not be difficult to understand.Okay - I hope that the following might address the points that you rightfully bring up. I am not asserting that what follows is the correct understanding of Romans 9, but just an attempt at dealing with the difficulties it seems to present.
6It is not as though Gods word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abrahams children. On the contrary, It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. Not that Isaac himself was guaranteed salvation because he, as opposed to Ishmael, was chosen to be the blood-line through whom Christ would come. Let's be clear, Isaac had faith (Hebrews 11) because he chose to, not for any other reason.
8Inother words, it is not the children by physical descent who are Gods children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abrahams offspring.
What do you mean The promise was to Christ.? The promises were to Abraham and the Children of Abraham.You are not to be considered a child of God through physical descent. The promise was to Christ.
Paul is underlining his central point - God chose those through whom Christ would come. The promise would not come through the offspring of Esau.9For this was how the promise was stated: At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son. 10Not only that, but Rebekahs children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badin order that Gods purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsshe was told, The older will serve the younger. 13Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Now, it is clear to me, that Paul, in establishing this, is also establishing a principle which applies to an individual's salvation as well. Jacob did not do anything to merit the fact that Christ would come through his line. God chose. This is paralleled in the fact a man will not be saved through works of the law. God chose...that is, God chose to provide salvation in the person of Jesus Christ - and since faith in Christ is not a work, then we are not meriting salvation, but become included as heirs in God's choice...Jesus.
God had every right to do it this way.14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on Gods mercy. 17For 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. 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.God is merciful to those in Christ, and they are in Christ because of faith. Faith is not a work. Pharaoh, like all men, was rebellious, but even if he had been less evil, it would not have availed him of salvation. Salvation is only through faith. Paul also confirms that willful rebellion against God produces hardening. Again, though, we are not saved through being 'good'.
19One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will? 20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, Why did you make me like this? 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
All men, at some point, resist God's will. Only God's elect, Christ, and those in him would equate to pottery made for special purposes.
The objects of Gods wrath are not what left His shop, but through misuses have now been prepared for destruction (God does not want His name on these pots). Gods mercy comes with taking these pots distant for destruction and remaking them, these become objects prepared for glory, but objects prepared for glory are not all the same objects made originally for a special purpose (Jews), but come from both the Jews and Gentiles.22What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathprepared for destruction? 23What 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 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?Paul makes the same point.
YES!! You are right it would be very unfair/unjust if God chose to provide the provision of salvation for individuals, but that is not the injustice Paul is talking about, but Paul is talking about the apparent injustice that is perceived, especially by the Gentile Christians, that the Jews were better prepared to accept and live the Christian life by the fact of their physical birth.If the question, 'Is God unjust?', relates to whether it was unjust of God to choose those through whom Christ would come and, also, in the same way, how God chose to provide the provision of salvation for individuals, then it would offend.
Wrong!YES!! You are right it would be very unfair/unjust if God chose to provide the provision of salvation for individuals, but that is not the injustice Paul is talking about, but Paul is talking about the apparent injustice that is perceived, especially by the Gentile Christians, that the Jews were better prepared to accept and live the Christian life by the fact of their physical birth.
If you need me I can go through the whole Roman letter, showing how much Paul addresses the problem of Christians (especially Gentile Christians) forced to follow the Law especially: food, circumcision, and holidays observance (the gentiles having to start not working on the Sabbath).We don't know how many of the Christians at Rome included some Jews who still held to works of the law, even though they had faith.
So is that the injustice Paul is talking about or is it not unjust for God to aritrarially chose whom He will save?Wrong!
Paul is NOT speaking about an injustice. He is speaking about a perceived injustice on the part of those who reply against God for choosing whom He pleases.So is that the injustice Paul is talking about or is it not unjust for God to aritrarially chose whom He will save?
Having a “purpose” does not mean it is not arbitrary.Paul is NOT speaking about an injustice. He is speaking about a perceived injustice on the part of those who reply against God for choosing whom He pleases.
And God does not "arbitrarily" choose.
arbitrarily: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
God has a purpose. But you say "arbitrarily" because you just don't like that He chooses.
Having a purpose does not mean it is not arbitrary.
God could have a purpose for arbitrarily selecting some people if God is just wanting some smaller group from a large group of sinners.
Thanks bro! Reps for you.You just sidestepped his point. God cannot choose arbitrarily. For God to make a choice necessitates that it has purpose. You responded with God again arbitrarily choosing people.
So is that the injustice Paul is talking about or is it not unjust for God to aritrarially chose whom He will save?
Spot on chap!Paul is anticipating his reader to cry injustice upon hearing that God chooses to have mercy on whomever He wants and harden whomever He wants, to serve his own plans and purposes.
Consequently, when Calvinists present their understanding of divine election, we get the same objections that Paul knew we would get, which proves to us that we are understanding election the way Paul intended us to.
In other words, the only proper understanding of election is one that causes objections of injustice, just like Paul anticipated. If Paul had presented a form of conditional election, he would have never had to stop and interject a response to an anticipated objection of injustice, because nobody would ever accuse conditional election of being unjust.
Rom.9:18, ".....whom he wills he hardens." "whom he will he hardens" cannot mean that God hardens some of the wretched and lost in consequence of an absolute eternal decree, ie, won't fly my friends.
The correlative of "he hardens" is not a poor, wretched, lost sinner. The only hardening that is effected by God and which the Scriptures are acquainted with is judicial; the only objects of this hardening are men who have first hardened themselves against all God's mercy, and have done that to such an extent as to be beyond further reach of that mercy, eg, hopeully not those on this thread including me?
Not voluntas antecedens, but voluntas consequens.
The Pharaoh hardened himself then God hardened this self-hardened man.
The case of the Jews was even worse.
Just ol' old Jack's view
Rom.9:18, ".....whom he wills he hardens." "whom he will he hardens" cannot mean that God hardens some of the wretched and lost in consequence of an absolute eternal decree, ie, won't fly my friends.
The correlative of "he hardens" is not a poor, wretched, lost sinner. The only hardening that is effected by God and which the Scriptures are acquainted with is judicial; the only objects of this hardening are men who have first hardened themselves against all God's mercy, and have done that to such an extent as to be beyond further reach of that mercy, eg, hopeully not those on this thread including me?
Not voluntas antecedens, but voluntas consequens.
The Pharaoh hardened himself then God hardened this self-hardened man.
The case of the Jews was even worse.
Just ol' old Jack's view
16 Thus Joshua took all this land: the mountain country, all the South, all the land of Goshen, the lowland, and the Jordan plain[c]—the mountains of Israel and its lowlands, 17 from Mount Halak and the ascent to Seir, even as far as Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. He captured all their kings, and struck them down and killed them. 18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. 19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. All the others they took in battle. 20 For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord had commanded Moses.
16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have no bread.”
17 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? 18 Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?”
They said to Him, “Twelve.”
20 “Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?”
And they said, “Seven.”
21 So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?”
49 And when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed it was a ghost, and cried out; 50 for they all saw Him and were troubled. But immediately He talked with them and said to them, “Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.” 51 Then He went up into the boat to them, and the wind ceased. And they were greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure, and marveled. 52 For they had not understood about the loaves, because their heart was hardened.
If it is judicial, then v19 makes no sense as it is easily justified and plain to see.
Paul said that God creates from the same lump vessels for glory and for damnation.The only hardening that is effected by God and which the Scriptures are acquainted with is judicial; the only objects of this hardening are men who have first hardened themselves against all God's mercy, and have done that to such an extent as to be beyond further reach of that mercy, eg, hopeully not those on this thread including me?
Not voluntas antecedens, but voluntas consequens.
The Pharaoh hardened himself then God hardened this self-hardened man.
The case of the Jews was even worse.
Just ol' old Jack's view
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?