Romans 9

HP: Notice carefully that no one has ever stated or implied God could not elect to do some things apart from any consideration in the least of the choices of man. If DW would focus on election as involved in salvation (for that is what this discussion is really about) and quit trying to confuse the issue by such illustrations that have nothing to do with individual salvation, we could keep on track.

Of a truth, for God to do something ‘supernaturally’ does not necessitate the notion that human instrumentality was not chosen as a means to and end or that man was not involved in any manner. For instance, Scripture is clear that when the heart of man is not right, it can hamper what is, and what is not, supernaturally done.

Mt 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

 

It's not evident to others that disagree with you? I believe you don't know what confirmation is and that's why you rant on here from a natural perspective.

 

HP: Here again DW tries to get this passage of Scripture to support his brand of deterministic fatalism. He obviously is trying to tell us that he believes this proves that the will of man is not involved in God determining who will and who will not be saved. It simply does no such thing.

All that can be reasonable assumed by this text is that man does not initiate salvation nor devise the plan of salvation. It does not indicate nor imply the non-existence of conditions of salvation as DW obviously desires for it to indicate. Man does not birth himself into the Kingdom, but that in no wise implies that there are not clear conditions for him to will, without which salvation will not occur. Here is one such clearly stated condition of Scripture that involves the will of man and does no injustice whatsoever to the passage mentioned above.

“Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 

HP: And how does this verse prove anything concerning the deterministic, fatalistic, unconditional election DW ascribes to??? How do the words ‘children of promise’ negate the clearly stated conditions of salvation???? They simply do not in any manner whatsoever.

 

DW tries to make the words ‘children of promise’ as used in Galatians to somehow equate to unconditional election to salvation, YET he has tried in the past to deny he believes and supports double predestination. ( A logical end of his argument that in reality he cannot reasonably deny) Consider the following text in Romans. Ro 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the promises."

Consider the logic. If being a child of the promise equates to unconditional election to salvation, why does not being a partaker of the promises in Romans 9: 4 either indicate that all of physical Israel are indeed to be saved, or that some are promised to eternal damnation being obvious that all of physical Israel are not of the spiritual seed that in the end will be saved? Either way the utter nonsense of the position taken by DW concerning the implications of being part and parcel to a promise of God shines through. (speaking of his maintaining the false notion of unconditional election and trying to make every passage of Scripture walk on all four legs in support of that false assumption)

 

DW tries but in vain to establish a distinction between divine purposes and fatalistic determination. If it is unconditional election the end is precisely the same. Fatalistic determination by no means is necessitated to deny the existence or involvement of God. Calvinism and the beliefs shown here by DW prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. He believes in God and the involvement of God. The kicker is that God is necessity, or whatever drives the 'divine compulsion' he speaks concerning.

HP: Scripture states that purpose involves the will of man as shown clearly by God holding man accountable. No where is the purpose of God in individual salvation shown or implied to be determined solely by the will, council, or election of God

HP: When will you ever stop begging the question, and show us where election necessitates the absence of all conditions? When will you ever take God at His Word when He tells us that if we fail to fulfill the stated conditions, for that reason we will receive our damnation, and not because some were simply elected to damnation as is the clear undeniable end of your arguments?

HP: Why does this lie not surprise me?

HP: Get over it DW and show us where Scripture denies the existence of conditions to salvation?? Not one solitary Scripture you have pointed out does any such thing.

HP: Certainly He has chosen us, BUT BY WHAT MEANS?? Where does Scripture deny any and all conditions in order to be found in Him in the last day??? It does not, but rather emphatically states if the conditions are not met no salvation in the end will be realized.

DW: Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

HP: BY WHAT MEANS ARE THEY ORDAINED? Where does it say that if one is ordained to eternal life no conditions can be implied or stated? That is quite some box you draw for a Sovereign God to fit into.

Eph. 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

HP: If you so desire to read into this passage unconditional election, live with the logical end of your argument as well, i.e., the undeniable end of double predestination. Tell us again you do not believe in it.

HP: No one here has said the grounds of our salvation is works as you imply. All I have heard stated is that neither will any be saved apart from works, one of which is repentance. As mixed up as you are concerning a simple pardon and who grants one, I hold out little hope for you to see the error of how you view the stated conditions of Scripture concerning salvation.

HP: I explained this verse well in a recent post so I will not go over it again at this time. Let me just state once again that works will not save anyone on their own merit, but neither will any be saved apart from the works God calls on man to perform, starting with but not limited to repentance and faith. Yes, even faith is indeed a work in a sense as it clearly necessitates an act of the will chosen by man.

I could go through every verse DW submits, but any way you slice it not a single one proves the point DW tries to make concerning unconditional election, no not one.

 

Here is the essence of DW’s argument, and by the way, precisely the very same identical argument of every Calvinist I have ever spoken to. If the word ‘election’ is used, that means it of necessity is unconditional. If the word ‘chosen’ is used, that sets forth that limits there can be no conditions. If the word ‘ordained to eternal life’ is used, it also establishes the fact that no conditions can exist. If God states it is according to ‘His own purposes and grace’ He cannot place a condition on that which He has chosen. If God says something is ‘predestined according to the purpose of Him’ He could not have purposed to impose conditions on that something. If God hath afore prepares something for glory, God could not have chosen to do so by the means of stated conditions.

Does the reader start to see how DW begs the question as to ‘the means’ God can or has chosen to use, and in doing so clearly limits a Sovereign God to a finite box of DW’s own making? No where does Scripture state and affirm the presupposition of ‘no conditions can be attached' as DW reads into every single text.


DW is driven by tunnel vision in lock step with the philosophical and theological notions known the world over as Calvinism, which denies all conditions to salvation precisely in the same manner as does DW. They both simply achieve their desired ends by begging the question and limiting a Sovereign God to their estimation of what God can and cannot do.

Add this to your list as something a Sovereign God cannot do according to a Calvinist or one leaning hard towards Calvinism: God (according to the Calvinist or one leaning hard towards Calvinism) cannot mandate any condition whatsoever for salvation. Why? Just because in their scheme of philospohy/theology, it simply cannot be done. They simply do not will it to be so and thus they deny even the possibility God could if He so desired.

Is this approach to philosophy/theology anything short of creating a God of their own imaginations? I would certainly believe it is so. Is it not just a bit strange that those who tell us often that 'God is Sovereign' and 'His ways are higher than our ways,' would deny these principles of Omnipotent Sovereignty when it does not line up with their preconceived notions concerning what God cannot do? Why they would place such limitations on a Holy and Just God in direct opposition to the stated conditions of salvation in Scripture is beyond me.

 

The issue of double predestination cannot be avoided concerning the issues at hand. If in fact God has chosen to elect some as opposed to others, antecedent to them even being born and that prior to them doing any good or evil, there is no possible way to say they were not predestined to damnation if they are not of the elect. If you say that God acts according to compulsion and compulsion only grants the means of salvation to the elect, compulsion, not sin or anything else , drives the lost to damnation.

For DW to even attempt to deny the absolute undeniable logical deduction of double predestination mandated by his philosophical/theological notions, just as Calvin clearly admitted was true and unavoidable, is clear evidence of the utter inability of DW to reason through his own arguments let alone those of another. Yet, he argues on for argument sake I suppose, never stopping to ferret out the logical ends of his own deductions.

If the reader would like to at least read a writer that was willing to face the ends of his own arguments, as absurd as they might be, one might consider reading Calvin’s Institutes. :thumbs:

 

HP: Having defined election in his own mind according to his own wishes, DW now proceeds to reason in a circle from those philosophicaLpresuppositions.

The question is NOT about when election occurs but rather what constitutes election. DW has shown nothing to indicate it is without or apart from consideration of the clearly stated conditions of salvation.

HP: Here DW simply abuses the actual text by applying that which concerns nations and not individual salvation, and inserts his own ideas as if though the text makes his point. It does not.

HP: DW states this as if though he is actually saying something in opposition to my understanding, when the fact is that he is not addressing any point I have stated or implied. He is a master of creating his own paper ducks to shoot at and creating arguments of another out of thin air.

HP: Here DW implies he knows how the mind of God works in direct opposition to Scripture which states the conditions of salvation in such a clear manner that a a wayfaring man though a fool could not miss the import of them. Only Calvinistic theologians and those leaning hard towards Calvinism would even consider such nonsense as to deny the import of stated Scriptural conditions.

HP: So is salvation. What does that have to do with your denial of the stated Scriptural conditions of salvation?? Conditions of salvation do not deny the grace of God in salvation as you falsely try to imply. Again, you have in reality said absolutely nothing to substantiate a conditionless salvation in the least, and have denied the plain truth of the Word of God that clearly states them.

I know this may come as a shock to DW, but to deny election or grace as DW defines it is not to deny election or grace as Scripture teaches it. :thumbs:

 

Deep subject for those who can get out of the shallows of preconceived ideas. Even Paul in anticipation of those questioning Gods ways just like HP begs........"Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

 

Ro 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

HP: DW likes to have his cake and eat it too. He desires to make this passage of Scripture walk on all four legs in support of unconditional election, yet tries to deny he believes in the double predestination of Calvin. Does he not believe the plain Word of God? Cannot he read the last part of the verse quoted above?

If this passage is indicating individual election to salvation, he either cannot read or is denying the Word of God. Which is it????

 

Probem with that is, v. 11 says the children representing the "vessels" (both of them) had not even been born, nor done neither good nor evil. So that does sound like it is speaking of man in an unfallen state. In fact, when you take into consideration the past eternal decree, it is man in an uncreated state. For in the Calvinist scheme, even man's Fall was a deliberate decree of God's, since it was necessary to give those predetermined elect something to be saved from (and glorify Him) in the first place.

I've never heard a Calvinist make this distinction of "unfallen humanity" vs "[already] fallen humanity" in Rom. 9 before, and it was a good idea, but I don't think there's any way around supralapsarian double-predestination the way they read the chapter in terms of individuals. According to Calvinism, it doesn't even make a difference if a person has been born or personally commited a sin yet for them to be guilty. So that has to represent an unfallen state, especially when you speak of everything in terms of divine decrees as opposed to foreknowledge.


As far as this "why does He yet find fault; for who has resisted His will?" question:
WHAT is really being asked here? "Yet" find "fault" for what?
"Why would God unconditionally choose someone else and not me/[others], and save them by 'enabling' them to repent, yet leave me/[others] in this helpless state, dead in sin, unable to repent, yet still hold me/[them] responsible [i.e. 'find fault'] for my sin, and send me/[them] to Hell when I/[they] couldn't even 'resist His will' to place me/[them] in this state (before I[/they] were born, even) in the first place?".
This is what people are asking Calvinists today, who then in turn simply project this into the text.

But is it in the context of what the hypothetical person was asking Paul? It looks like it at first glance, and Calvinists assume so, so everytime someone questions "God holding helpless, 'totally unable' sinners responsible for their sin they couldn't repent of", the Calvinists just throw up the next verse as the quick magical answer. But "ability to repent" is not being discussed here. Neither is any inescapable state or fate. Paul had just mentioned Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh, These may be individuals, but what were they being used to illustrate? Step back another few verses: "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8)

According to Ephesians 2:3, we all started out as "children of wrath" (which would be synonymous with "vessels of wrath", "sons of disobedience"(Col.3:6), "seed of Satan" (Matt.13) and also "children of the flesh" for the Jews), and John clearly defines "children of the devil" and "children of God" as "he that commits..." or "...does not commit [practice] sin" (1 John 3:8-10). Thanks to our "depravity" (sin from Adam), nobody is born in the latter state, and so the former, as an eternal state of condemnation, is not what God unconditionally "makes" anybody. This should prove once and for all that the question and Paul's answer have nothing to do with Calvinistic reprobation or preterition.

God has declared that there are two groups: Physical Israel (which is in the same spiritual status as the rest of humanity) and spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28, 29).
"Why did God make us physical Israel only if that doesn't make us the true children of promise? As much as we try so hard to keep the Law He gave us, why is he still finding fault or not accepting us as we are? Didn't He create us as His people? Could we have resisted His will to create us this way, if this is not what He counts?"

THIS is what is being asked! HERE is where Paul says "who are you to reply back to God?" He as "the Potter" sovereignly laid out a plan, involving two categories of people; the first had a purpose, but this purpose is not the salvation of the individuals in the group, but to pave the way for the second. It's this second group one must be apart of, and who are we to question this plan? (This still says nothing about a person's inability to cross from one group to the other. The people were stubborn and refused to give up their notion of inheritance, which they would have to do to become apart of the children of promise.

 

HP: DW is not even giving his unsupported notions careful thought. What does he mean ‘if???” Election, as he supposes is true, takes place long before the clay is even literally formed. God is doing the forming according to this passage. His argument would have to conclude that man is fallen before he is even formed in this world period. He makes something other than God the author of the spirit of man and his election to good or evil, or God is indeed the author of sin, forming sinful spirits and whatever else God forms into man.

HP: Are you even reading the Scriptures DW??? God is the one forming the clay, no one else is involved. There is absolutely no other conclusion to draw from your argument that indeed God is the author of all sin. If He forms the clay, and forms it in a sinful fashion, He alone is the author of sin. You indeed paint a horrible blight on the character of a Holy and Just God!

 

Eric B., you are indeed using your God given wisdom and intelligence for something other than to support some unsupported dogma. Excellent points by the way. :thumbs: