|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 30, 2007 15:43:53 GMT -5
Someone recently emailed me wanting to inquire into the Arminian view of Romans chapter 9. This was my response: ----------------------------------------------- The debate during the Reformation was whether or not God chose individual people for salvation. But the debate in the days of Paul was over the Gentiles as a whole people group. Has God really brought salvation to the Gentiles? Aren't the jews the "chosen" people? Roman's chapter Nine teaches a General Selection of Nations, not a Particular Selection of Individuals. When God choose Jacob (Israel) over Esau (Edom) this was the selection of not single individuals, but of overall nations. Malachi 1:2-3 says God loved or choose Jacob but hated or did not choose Esau. Verse 3 is a specific reference to their "heritage", how Esau's heritage was laid waste. Paul sums up his own arguement in verses 30-31 by saying that the Gentiles have actually attained unto righteousness in Jesus Christ. And who are we to say God shouldn't offer salvation to the a certain group of people? God has mercy and whomever He wants. And He want's to offer salvation to the Jews as a whole and the Gentiles as a whole. And so Romans chapter 9 is Pauls arguement for God offering salvation to the Gentiles as a whole people group. This was always God's plan. The Jews were not the only "chosen" people, but the gentiles were chosen as well, because God had preplanned long ago to have a people be called by His name which were not called by His name. But "chosen" is not unconditional, as God's dealings with Israel show. A good book you can read on Romans 9 is found at: www.gospeltruth.net/mystery_of_christ.htmGod Bless you! Jesse Morrell www.OpenAirOutreach.com
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Mar 30, 2007 15:52:44 GMT -5
If God is referring to nations why does he refer only to individuals?
Jacob.
Esau.
pharaoh.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 30, 2007 19:18:06 GMT -5
I do not believe that verse about Jacob and Esau is talking about anything other than the nations of Jacob and Esau. When I read where it is referencing to, I see it talking about the nations because right before and after the verses in Malachi it mentions Edom and Israel. It was prophesied before they were born that Israel would be greater than Edom.
Here is something that has to be true about that chapter. If you come to any other conclusion than what Paul did, you are wrong and have missed his argument.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 31, 2007 1:50:58 GMT -5
There are sub-arguments, though. Consider the middle part: 17For 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."18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But 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?' "21Does 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? The view that attempts to relegate Romans 9 to a mere statement that we are saved through faith and not by works is wrong - that is just one of the points therein. If we are not talking about predestination of individuals, then verse 19 may as well not be there, because in that verse Paul is predicting (infallibly!) that what he is saying will provoke the objection "It's not fair!" or "Then why does God still blame us, for who resists His will?" I am not sure if it is possible for Jacob and Esau to be spoken of here in both nation and individual form, I will have to think about that more. However, verse 19 would simply make no sense if this sub-section was not viewed as dealing with individual predestination.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 31, 2007 14:57:23 GMT -5
The way I read it is that verse 30 and on is the conclusion of his arguments used in the rest of the chapter. Do you see it in a different way?
I guess I read it presupposing the conclusion. I read the gist of it being "God can do what he wants. He has decided that is is by faith in Christ. Israel has missed it because they didn't seek it by faith, so now the only ones who are the children of Abraham are the ones who are in Christ."
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Apr 2, 2007 9:38:21 GMT -5
I hold to the view that Romans 9 is about individuals as well. In Romans 9 the unsaved Jews were the ones who held to corporate election. I think (for now )Paul's point is that election is not corporate but individual and conditioned on faith. Tyler, Who is it that Paul anticipates making the objection in verse 19? Steve
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 2, 2007 10:51:46 GMT -5
Steve, have you changed anything from this old post of yours? -------------------- I will attempt here to give an interpretation of Romans 9 that is faithful to the context. I contend that this passage of Scripture when understood in context does not support the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election. I invite comments, criticisms, corrections, and questions for clarity. I believe that one of the keys to understanding the meaning of Romans 9 is to examine Paul’s own summary of his argument at the close of the chapter. As Grant Osborne says about this summary: “If our conclusions about the author’s argumentation differ from the conclusion he himself provides, it is clear we are misunderstanding his argument.” Paul begins his summary in verse 30 by asking the question, “What shall we say then?”. He then proceeds to explain the point he has developed in this chapter. “That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone.’ As it is written: ‘See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’” (Vs. 30-33) Paul’s point in Romans 9 is that unbelieving Israel is lost. The objections throughout the chapter are not coming from Arminians against God’s sovereign choice to unconditionally elect and reprobate. They come from unbelieving Israel; God’s chosen people of whom Paul says, “Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ…” (Vs 4-5). The unbelief of the majority of the Jews and their present rejection for that unbelief is the issue Paul is dealing with throughout Romans 9-11. F. Leroy Forlines says, “A proper understanding of how Romans 9 relates to election begins with a proper grasp of the problem Paul is dealing with. That problem is the Jewish concern that Paul does not go along with the Jewish belief in the corporate salvation of all Jews as the Covenant Seed of Abraham.” Let me try to break this passage down as I understand it. Romans 9:1-4a Paul begins chapter 9 by expressing his anguish that most of his fellow Israelites are unsaved. Romans 9:4b-5 They are lost despite the fact that they are God’s chosen people: Romans 9:6-13 This begs the question: If God’s chosen people are lost, then has God’s word failed? Paul’s answer is no. God never promised to save all of Abraham’s seed just because they descended from him. Paul argues that God is completely justified in rejecting unbelieving Jews. He goes on to point out that even the Jews don’t regard all of Abraham’s seed as part of the covenant seed of Abraham. They already acknowledged that the descendants of Ishmael were not part of the covenant, but only those descended from Isaac. Furthermore, they held that not all the descendants of Isaac were part of the covenant, but only those descended from Jacob. The point Paul was making is that even the Jews admitted that God had not promised salvation to all of Abraham’s descendants. It’s vital to understand that the context of verses 10-12 is Paul making the point that not all the natural seed of Abraham are a part of the covenant seed. Paul is not trying to lay out a doctrine of unconditional election to salvation in this passage. That is foreign to the context. Read in context, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”, is simply serving to make the point that the Jewish concept of the unconditional election of all Jews as the covenant seed must be discarded. Romans 9:14-29 Again the key is to keep this in context. When Paul says, “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!” (14), he is not refuting the Arminian, but the unbelieving Jew. If this is so, then it must be recognized that the Jews had no problem with the rejection of Ishmael and Jacob. Once again Forlines notes, “The only trouble the Jews had with unconditional election was that according to Paul, God had not unconditionally elected all Jews as they had thought.” Paul denies that God is unrighteous in not saving all Jews. In this passage Paul declares that God saves whom He wills and d**ns whom He wills, Jews or otherwise. The quote from Exodus 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”, supports this point. Robert Picirilli explains, “Even in the wilderness, when we might think all the nation was automatically entitled to His favor he said: ‘I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.’ In other words, He wanted it clearly established that neither Moses nor Israel had any special claims on Him that took away His sovereign right to act as He chose. Nor will He show mercy to all of them just because they were Israelites in the flesh.” God has sovereignly chosen to have mercy on believers and reject unbelievers, Jews or otherwise. So when Paul says, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.", he is simply repeating what he's been saying throught the book of Romans: We are justified by faith and not by works. Once again this smacks the face of the unbelieving Jew's concept of works righteousness. Romans 9:30-33 Paul makes it clear in his summary that the reason that so many Jews were not saved is not based on the idea that God unconditionally elected some rather than all Jews. Rather, it is because they had failed to meet the condition of faith in Christ. As Forlines so aptly summarizes, "In other words, not all Jews are saved because salvation is conditioned on faith and not all Jews have met the condition. This is the bottom line: salvation is conditioned on faith. And conditional salvation calls for conditional election." If you have comments or questions on specific verses in the passage I'll be happy to try to explain where I stand in more detail. Steve source here
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Apr 2, 2007 16:10:43 GMT -5
When God choose Jacob (Israel) over Esau (Edom) this was the selection of not single individuals, but of overall nations. Nay nay, God said he hated Esau. Also, aren't nations comprised of individuals? So even if I could grant you the possibility of God hating a nation in Romans 9, does that really matter?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2007 8:53:13 GMT -5
Nay nay, God said he hated Esau. Also, aren't nations comprised of individuals? So even if I could grant you the possibility of God hating a nation in Romans 9, does that really matter? Thou hast made sure where the quote under concideration originith, right? Gen 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she [was] barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If [it be] so, why [am] I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 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;) Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Apr 3, 2007 16:45:36 GMT -5
Josh and all others who make the "nations" argument - if God hates the nation of Esau, that means He hates the individuals who make up that nation, right?
Steve, you asked who Paul is anticipating the complaint from in verse 19 - I think it is an unbeliever, or possibly a Christian (i.e. me, while I was still a semi-pelagian/arminian/somewhere-in-between) who believes that just because that "[therefore] God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden", this means they are not accountable for their sin. I don't see how this verse would make any sense if the complaint was coming from a person who was complaining that faith apart from works is what truly saves a man (by grace, and through faith, of course), as opposed to what they thought would save them, i.e. works or works + faith; even in this instance, it would ultimately God who both mercies and loves the elect, and hardens and stumbles the reprobate. I think the error you run into is you are making the means of salvation which is also being explained here into a mutually exclusive subject (it isn't - Paul is talking about both), and saying that just because Paul affirms that Israel stumbled over the stumbling stone because she took the wrong path towards genuine religion means that we are necessarily talking about ONLY that point, and not the point of larger scope which is being discussed in v. 14-24 - which is that God is the ultimate cause of anybody coming to faith or rejecting Him.
In fact these verses talk about how God hardened Pharaoh for the sole purpose of destroying him, and making His glory known to the world. It is so direct that I do not see how this can be denied. Sure, I could dress up the way I describe the situation a bit, but that doesn't change the picture - God hardened Pharaoh for His own glory. From this Paul concludes that God hardens whom He will, and has mercy on (or "mercies", more literally, in "the greek") whom He will, and from here he goes to anticipate the immediate fleshly reaction: "IT'S NOT FAIR!"
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 12, 2007 21:44:15 GMT -5
Romans 9 must always be read in context of Romans 10 and 11. Pauls arguement carries on to explain how the nation of Israel was cut off while the nation of the Gentiles was grafted in.
Esau was a nation, Jacob was a nation, Isreal was a nation, and the gentiles were a nation.
Romans 9 teaches that it was always God's plan, since the foundation of the world, to extend salvation beyond the nation of Israel to the nation of the Gentiles.
This was a repeated theme for the Apostle Paul:
Ga 3:8 - And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
God is now calling all nations, all people, everywhere to repent! Acts 17:30-31.
This was a very hot topic in the days of Paul. The fact that salvation was being offered to the Gentiles caused no small stir among the jews. Peter himself had to explain himself to his brethren when he preached to the gentiles.
Ac 13:47 - For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Ac 28:28 - the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles
Ro 11:11 - salvation is come unto the Gentiles
A major problem was that the jews thought that because they were "chosen" that their salvation was unconditional. But Paul wrote Romans 9,10,11 to show that they were cut off because of unbelief!
-------------------------------------------
The same brother I sent the original email to asked about God hardening Pharoahs heart. This was my response:
Hey,
Great questions.
God did harden Pharoahs heart, but how did He do it? It was by bringing judgments to Egypt. I am told that my preaching about sin and hell "turns people off". Likewise, God bringing judgment to Egypt "hardened Pharoahs heart". I turn people off, God hardens people, but there is still the essential element of free-will in both cases.
But God forgives who He wills to forgive and God condemns who He wills to condemn. Who does He will to forgive? The humble. Who does He will to condemn? The proud and sinful. So there is still the essential element of free-will.
Lately I have been pondering, "Many are called but the chosen are free". Who does God choose to save? Those who respond to his call. Who does God choose to condemn? Those who do not respond to His call. God choses to save all those who believe. We are chosen because we believe, rather then the calvinistic notion that we believe because we are chosen. The term "chosen" is always used in the bible to describe those whom God has already saved. He chooses to save those who repent and believe.
So many are called [or invited] but the chosen are few [because few respond to the call] .
Hope that helps,
Jesse Morrell
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 12, 2007 21:49:56 GMT -5
Good stuff Jesse...
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 13, 2007 10:04:12 GMT -5
excellent, Jesse... amen.
|
|
|
Post by sean on Apr 13, 2007 10:33:24 GMT -5
Romans 9 must always be read in context of Romans 10 and 11. Pauls arguement carries on to explain how the nation of Israel was cut off while the nation of the Gentiles was grafted in. Esau was a nation, Jacob was a nation, Isreal was a nation, and the gentiles were a nation. Amen. And if you haven't.. you should check out Robert Shanks book "Life in the Son". He deals with this same subject very well in his book.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Apr 13, 2007 14:39:47 GMT -5
Nothing I said here has even been addressed.
Rather than missing the forest for the trees... you seem to be missing the trees for the supposed forest. I agree that the overall context is about nations, Jews and Gentiles. However, this is not mutually exclusive with the idea that verses 14-24 are clearly talking about God's unconditional hardening and mercying of some people on an individual basis. This has not been addressed. Also, I've said this already, but it's been ignored: nations are made up of individuals, so just saying that it's talking about nations as if that solves the problem doesn't cut it.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Apr 13, 2007 14:43:54 GMT -5
This doesn't make any sense. You say God hardened Pharaoah's heart through disasters? Well, yes that is true - but if you admit God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then how can you leave Pharaoh any free will to not harden his heart? If God hardens hearts, then those hearts are not free to be anything but hardened and that is my point.
No, there is no element of free will there. This is all backwards. God hated Esau before Esau had even done anything good or bad. Therefore there is no way that Esau's behaviour could be cited as a reason for God to harden him and cause him to do something so foolish as giving up his blessing, or causing him to seek repentance in tears but never find it. In the same way, God loved Jacob before Jacob did anything good and bad, and this is the reason that Jacob was favored - not something that Jacob did. Even aside from that - if you want to say that God hardens people because of something they do, but you don't want to attribute the fact that they were doing something bad in the first place to the sovereignty of God, then you have maverick molecules. This means God is not entirely sovereign. These people somehow got evil on their own, or due to the sovereign working of the devil. This is dualism and it is not Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 14, 2007 19:28:48 GMT -5
Biblical predestination is God pre-destining- nations. God loving Jacob and hating Esau had nothing to do with their individual salvation. It was not that Jacob was automaticly saved and Esau was automaticly d**ned. The bible never teaches that, but many have assumed it. Rather, the bible says that God choose Jacob to be the blood line in which the Messiah would come, who would extend salvation to all nations. Just like Isaac was chosen of Ishmael, Jacob was chosen over Esau, because the Messiah would not come from both their decendants. One of them needed to be picked (not for salvation and the other for d**nation, but for the blood line). And God picking one over the other had nothing to do with their own personal works, but rather it was because of God's good pleasure. Romans 9:11God choose Israel (Jacob), in order to bless all nations: Isa 49:6 - And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. God's plan or determination has always been to extend the offer of salvation to all nations, that anyone from any nation can willingly repent and believe and be saved: Ge 22:18 - And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Acts 15:17-18: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Romans 9, 10, and 11 should be read in context of each other, along with having the historical context in mind: the debate on whether or not the jews alone were chosen or if God predestined to extend salvation to the gentiles. Romans 9:24So the bible says that God has eternally decreed: Ro 10:12 - There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. [whether Jew or Gentile] The eternal decree of God is that anyone who willingly calls upon Him shall be saved, but His eternal decree is not specificly who will be the ones that call upon Him. The forethought of God was to have a holy people, so God predetermined to have a holy people, but He never determined the people. The very fact that he wants a holy people excludes the possibility of zombies, robots and machines. They must be voluntarily or willingly choosing good over evil if they are to be holy. A very short, but a very good read is Jed Smocks: Mystery of Christ Revealed: www.gospeltruth.net/mystery_of_christ.htm
|
|
|
Post by joem on Apr 14, 2007 22:15:28 GMT -5
If someone truly holds to a Calvinist view of predestination why would they even participate in a debate of this sort? If everything has been scripted by God and there is no free will, they will never be able to convince anyone of anything as a change of mind would require the excersising of free will.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 14, 2007 22:33:24 GMT -5
Why have earnestness in your prayers or urgency in evangelism if the exact # of the saved and the exact # of the d**ned has been eternally decreed (or eternally foreknown) since you cannot change it at all?
If what will be cannot help but to be, why dream that you can change anything?
Why was Paul so earnest in his prayers and so urgent in his evangelism? He had good theology.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Apr 15, 2007 2:00:18 GMT -5
Biblical predestination is God pre-destining- nations. God loving Jacob and hating Esau had nothing to do with their individual salvation. It was not that Jacob was automaticly saved and Esau was automaticly d**ned. The bible never teaches that, but many have assumed it. What do you mean by "automatically"? This could be taken several ways. If you mean that Jacob was unconditionally elected and Esau was unconditionally reprobated, then that is what I believe. If God loving one person and hating another has nothing to do with their salvation, what could? So you are saying that the main point of Romans 9 is that Jacob was chosen over Esau such that Christ would come from Jacob, and that is the thing that Paul expects objection towards? I have never heard this from any Arminian or non-Calvinist before. This totally avoids (I am going to assume non-intentionally) the whole argument I just made on verses 14-24. God hardens people. Unconditionally. God also mercies people unconditionally. He will harden and mercy those whom He wants do. Therefore there is no free will on the part of those who are hardened or mercied in order to do anything but exactly that. This is what Paul immediately expects objection to - when he says, "One of you will say, 'But why does God still find fault? For who resists his will?'" It is the same question that you guys are asking when you say "How can God punish somebody for something He predestined them to do?" Paul responds with "Who are you to talk back to God? Will the pot say to the Potter, 'Why have you made me like this?'" None of your posts have dealt with this directly. The whole "it's just talking about nations and blessings" attempt at an explanation fails to even address these verses or the intent of the author in writing them. This does not follow from the verse you just quoted, or the ones from Genesis and Acts that follow. The verse describes the salvation unto the end of the earth. You have more work to do before you prove that this is talking about an egalitarian offer to every single person - just like you have more work to do in order to try to say that John 3:16 MUST be talking about every single person who ever lived. I brought this up, and reasons for why I came to the conclusion that this kind of language cannot always be used to conclude a universal atonement, in a previous thread on free will. Those points were not responded to. See reply #3 on this thread: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=doctrinaldiscussion&action=display&thread=1174613323This was the thread where after I posted, the discussion of free will went from Scripture to the Early Church Fathers and a minor point concerning the heresy of pelagianism. So you are saying that because Romans 9:24 mentions the nations of Jews and Gentiles, this means that the previous verses can't be talking about anything else but these same promises to Jews and Gentiles? That is not what the text says. You seem to be reading it backwards - reading a later verse into the earlier verses even though that's not the flow of the argument Paul is giving. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive anyway - the mentioning of the fact that God has blessed nations AND he has, and does harden and mercy people on an individual basis which is what verses 14-24 are talking about. So there are maverick molecules then? In what sense is God in control of the universe? How can God actually be sovereign if there is something behaving, or even in existence that is not within His eternal decree? Besides, the "whosoever" causes no disagreement here. I agree that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. What you are trying to say is that therefore, God doesn't choose the people who call upon Him. The bible says both, and what you are trying to say does not logically follow from the verse that you quoted. This means that there is a probability larger than zero that God could have messed up - i.e. planned to have a people, and look - none of them exerted their free will to be part of it. How can God plan to have a holy people if it is not certain that there will be a set number of holy people who are predetermined? How does God predetermine that He will have a holy group of people without also predetermining that the individuals making up this group will be holy? If they got there somehow without being a part of God's eternal decree, then I guess they are maverick molecules that God is not sovereign over, correct? These are just silly caricatures. We aren't zombies, robots or machines by any sense of the word. I discussed this in the 1 John 1:8 thread with bullhornbob, he used the same comment. See my remarks here: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=doctrinaldiscussion&action=display&thread=1175049219&page=2 No, I do not believe I am "God's robot". I have not used this terminology. In fact, I am far more intricate than a robot could ever be, and all you are doing with this nonsense is trying to caricature my position in order to make people think it's wrong - the problem is that it's just an ad hominem attack and not a sound argument.
I have no problem with us being "robots" if that's what we are, because in that case, that is the sovereign plan and will of GOD, and in that case, who would you be to question it? But having said that, do I think we are robots? No. We are far more complicated than any robot could ever be. "Robot" is far too weak, fallible and human of an analogy to describe the sovereign control God has over the universe and His creations. I am a determinist, and as such, I do not believe we have free will, and I believe whatsoever comes to pass is the sovereign will and plan of God. It has been discussed in great detail why Arminian views of God's "looking through the corridor of time" sort of foreknowledge/predestination doesn't make sense. The only alternative from that is open theism, which makes the God of the Bible into a false god who can't tell the future and therefore fails the Bible's criteria for being God (see Isaiah 41). I agree. The fact of the matter is that they have a will to choose good over evil because God instills this will in them. If you want to try to say that love isn't genuine unless it stems from libertarian free will, please prove this from Scripture and do not rely on your own idea of what you just happen to think is right.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Apr 15, 2007 2:20:00 GMT -5
If someone truly holds to a Calvinist view of predestination why would they even participate in a debate of this sort? If everything has been scripted by God and there is no free will, they will never be able to convince anyone of anything as a change of mind would require the excersising of free will. Because we don't live in a fatalistic universe. Both the ends and the means have been predetermined. I know full well that I cannot convince Jesse or anybody else of the correct position (I do not think I am always correct, but I can honestly say I am almost entirely surely correct on this). It is God who does that. I am just a tool. Why should I bother? Because God says I should. To say that one can never be convinced to change their mind about anything without exercising a libertarian free will is to totally beg the question - circular reasoning. It assumes that in order for somebody to change their mind, there must be a freedom of the will, and that since one does change his mind, it must therefore be because he used his libertarian free will. This is clearly fallacious. Let me turn this reasoning on its head in order to immediately show that it is flawed (since a non-fallacious sort of reasoning cannot validly deduce two contradictory ideas, i.e. we have free will AND we do not have free will): "Why have earnestness in your prayers if God doesn't actually intervene into somebody's life in order to unconditionally save them? Why bother praying that God will change somebody if God is actually just waiting for that person to change by himself so He can respond by "electing" him due to his own free choice? If this is the way it works, shouldn't we just forget the whole praying for salvation thing, since God isn't going to step into somebody's life and save them without their utterly free choice to do so? Shouldn't we just set up tables and start reasoning with people without prayer, since God will have to depend on their choice and not His own eternal will in saving people?" Since this reasoning can easily be turned around on itself, it is false. We should be earnest in our prayers because God commands us to be. We should desire that all of the will of God will be established and that He will be glorified in all things - and indeed, He is, and ever shall be. This is what should drive us. If what will be cannot help but to be based on the individual free choices of sinful human beings, why do you have any hope that you can do anything to change their minds by anything you say or do? Why do you bother praying to God if this is the case - since you do not believe He will intervene and actually cause that person to be born again, of His sovereign will and pleasure alone? I agree entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 15, 2007 13:46:25 GMT -5
Do you believe in active reprobation?
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Apr 15, 2007 13:48:46 GMT -5
People seem to ignore that God elected both individuals BEFORE they were born..BEFORE they had done good or evil.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Apr 15, 2007 16:14:13 GMT -5
Do you believe in active reprobation? I lean towards that position. If you have read much by Cheung on this, I would pretty much agree with him. I am not 100% sure though. I know you have read some of his works so you probably know what I am getting at, but if not, check out the appropriate sections of his systematic theology. I still need to do some more detailed studying on that topic. Other Calvinists like Sproul, Carson, etc. have different ideas than Cheung does.
|
|