Romans 9

God is the creator. He is under no obligation to save anyone. He is perfectly in his right to send the entire human race to hell. He created us. We are his creation. He can do as he will. It is only of his grace and mercy that he chose to save some, and that only because of the redemptive grace of His Son.

The statement that you spoke, seems to be a direct quote from Finney. That is what he would have said.
What about the time period that elapses before a person sins? Will that person goes to heaven? What if it is possible for a child to not sin for ten years, fifteen years? twenty years? Finney thought it would be theoretically possible to build a "Christian society" based on the doctrine of "sinless perfection" which a denial of the sin nature of man leads to.

But the teaching of Psalm 58:3 negates all that. So does the teaching of Jeremiah 13:23, which you have never responded to. Man is a sinner by nature, from his birth onward, and cannot help but sin. He is guilty from the day he is born. He is born with a sin nature. God is under no obligation to wait until he sins. Where in the Bible does it teach that?

 

GE:
I think you have made a valid statement; especially in your last sentence.

 

GE:
To me it looks inexplicable how we could differ, dear Dr Walter; you really have me puzzled-- but about something I could not care less about.

 

I have not missed the point of the chapter, it is a presumption of unconditional individual election that has added to it.
A person can start out in the "children of the flesh" group represented by Esau and then become a part of the "children of promise" represented by Isaac. So even if unconditional election is true; that section cannot be used to prove it.

 

Note clearly how DW continues to beg the question as to the manner in which God foreknows, and assumes without proof that it must be a matter of necessity because God foreknows it. DW could not be further from the truth on this matter. He limits and Infinite God to the foreknowledge of mere finite man, foreknowing only matters of necessity. So much for God's ways being higher than our ways. One does no service to an Almighty Infinite God by limiting His attributes and abilities to that of mere finite men.

It is NOT about whether or not God could be wrong as DW tries to coin the argument, but rather the question should be, does His foreknowledge necessitate the outcome? I say, with reason and Scripture, absolutely not if moral agents are praised or blamed for the outcome.

 

Don't beg....ask God for confirmation of what is true. Do you know what that means?

 

HP: You might consider reflecting on what it means to beg the question, or assume something without proof that you should be establishing with facts as opposed to merely espousing an unproven assumption. If we are going use wisdom when establishing what we believe is truth, we need to understand this point clearly and recognize when others are merely begging the question as opposed to setting forth clear evidence to support their conclusions.

 

So you won't seek God for conformation because???

 

I myself was not even arguing on foreknowledge. I didn't even mention it. My point was (even if unconditional election were true, as I allowed) that you cannot use that "objection" passage as proof of UE and its flipside, reprobation (what the "objection" is always assumed to be against). The opposition was to the refuting of national election. And you seemed to even acknowledge my point there, but now you're again implying that the objection is over the lack of "justness" of individual election/reprobation as opposed to foreknowledge.

 

OK, I meant he was refuting physical "national" election and teaching the elect nation was spiritual.

Isaac/Jacob and Esau represented the different nations. Originally, the physical nations, and now, they have become types of the spiritual nations. So nobody was objecting to God "choosing Issac over Esau" for salvation as individuals. Nobody was thinking "poor Esau, and all other 'non-elect' after him. They had no chance to escape Hell". That's a modern dispute that we project onto the passage. It's just not in the context.
The Jews of course relished the choice of Issac, as it favored them (so they thought). What they opposed was the transfer from physical to spiritual, and that God would hypothetically "find fault" with them by "choosing" them without justifying them based on the physical identity.

 

HP: Here DW begs the question as to ‘how they are born supernaturally,’ and ‘by what means God uses to birth them into the Kingdom.’ DW blindly and falsely supposes it is by the same means God chose natural Israel to receive certain privileges and glory, which had no stated conditions. No where does this passage or any other indicate that spiritual Israel is chosen by God in the same fashion as were the physical children of Israel.

Furthermore, there is not even the slightest indication in this passage that God did not make the choice of physical Israel He did apart from some consideration of the character of Jacob being as such as one that God knew would follow Him. DW likes to make mention of these words as proof that God just 'arbitrarily selected' him without any regard to the manner in which he would direct his life or the choices to follow God he would eventually make by the folling verse: “Ro 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”

The question is does this verse indicate unconditional election of even Israel himself? Absolutely not. It does indicate that before he was born, or prior to ever making one solitary moral choice that God predestined a plan of life for him and his descendants. It does show absolute proof of God’s omniscience of the future but in no wise explains to us all that went into God making the choices He did to use Israel in this fashion. Only a Calvinist or one leaning hard towards Calvinism would try to say that God takes no consideration of the future choices one will freely make when electing those that He chooses. DW is standing this passage on its head to support the Calvinistic notions of determinism that simply are not supported by this text or any other and that flies in the face of any semblance of reason or justice on the part of God making His choices of the elect. All that can be reasonably assumed is that because it might appear to us from our finite abilities of foreknowledge that God may appear to us as unjust or unfair, He is not unfair or unjust. The problem lies with our finite understanding of the Infinite abilities of God in the matter of foreknowledge. It might 'appear' to us as being unjust, but if we had the Infinite ability to know matters of perfect choice as God obviously does, we could clearly see that He is not unjust in the least. It is just that His ways are indeed higher than our ways.

DW tries in vain to object that it was solely for the cause of God’s election without consideration of the men that would be formed or the freewill choices they would eventually make, but that cannot be established by this text or any other. Such a view still begs the unsolved question as to ‘how’ God determines who will and who will not be of the elect. We certainly know, according to this passage, it is determined prior to our choices, but what it does not say, indicate or imply is that it is accomplished 'without consideration of those choices' God foreknows we will make.

One simple truth blows the arguments the deterministic theologian out of the water and that without fail. If in fact God’s foreknowledge can foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those that of necessity must come to pass, the simple matter of God making a determination of who the elect will be before they do right or wrong is merely an indication of His Infinite foreknowledge of those that will voluntarily and without force or coercion fulfill the conditions He has foreordained for those to comply with in order to be foreknown as one of the elect.

Of a truth DW limits the foreknowledge of God to matters of necessity which is to limit the Infinite God to abilities possessed by mere finite man. What ever happened to the God Calvinists and those leaning hard towards Calvinism so often use when convenient???? Where is the well known statement, ‘God’s ways are higher than our ways’ being indicated by the position of DW??? Why does DW bring God down to a finite realm of mans abilities (only able to foreknow matters of necessity as opposed to being able to foreknow matters of perfect choice as well) when Scripture mentions the word 'election' or speaks of foreknowledge??? Some Infinite God he in reality depicts.

 

HP: As I have shown in the previous post, that is a flat out misrepresentation of the Scriptures or reason. God foreknowing something before one in reality does anything good or evil by no means is an indication that election is determined apart from consideration of everything foreknown involving the choices of man. That is a false and unsupported notion DW consistently errors concerning. Again, the simple truth that God can and does foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as things of necessity completely destroys the notion DW is trying to make.

The ‘rather than’ DW speaks of is not a part nor indication of the text. DW reads in this notion of foreknowledge opposing freedom of the will for it is not indicated by reason or this passage in Romans. There is no pitting of doing good or bad against the election as DW tries to do. Scripture only indicates God made His Just election antecedent to the decisions actually being made by man. What's new with that? God is Omniscient or not??? God being Omniscient in no wise makes everything that will occur the results of deterministic fatalism as DW appears to be implying.

Scripture is simply indicating that there is no injustice with God due to our finite abilities of understanding God’s election from our limited abilities of foreknowledge, i.e. the limited ability of only foreknowing matters of necessity. When one considers the notion that God can and does foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those things of necessity, such a deterministic manner ( as observed in Calvinism and those leaning hard towards Calvinism without fail inject into this and other passages as well) of interpreting this texts falls flat.

In summary, because God elects something to come to pass it does not necessarily indicate that He is not electing in accordance to His Omniscient understanding of the voluntary and free will choices of man, and those choices of man being an intrinsic part of such election.

 

>So you won't seek God for conformation because???

Because he gives conflicting answers and smarter (and more spiritual) people than I am can't sort them out.

 

HP: First, if it is truth God IS the source of it. Some truths are so self evident, that to question them, or seek evidence to try and ‘prove them’, is simply absurd. Such is the case concerning the following first truth of reason. If one is going to be praised or blamed for their actions one must have a contrary choice as a clear possibility.

If man is to be held morally accountable, man must be able to do something other than what he does under the same set of circumstances apart from consideration of mere punishment or rewards.