What Scriptures?
Theology Club: Other than glorification, what is the need for the Holy Spirit in the open view?
- Thread starter BrianJOrr
- Start date
BrianJOrr
New member
You got it wrong. I never said I was a pastor. Though I do pastoral ministry, I am in the ordainment process, it's not about cooking and serving food, though it is a great way to serve the community. Pastoral ministry is the preaching and teaching the word of God, feeding the sheep, and praying for the flock. Your error in presuming what a front-line pastor is just further shows me you have no idea what a pastors role is, according to Scripture.
I am surprised that you made such an error considering what the face value reading of Scripture says.
Regardless of your remarks, you till have not resolved the tension. Unless you see the passages as two separate occurrences, which I don't think you do.
Musterion and lighthouse, I have addressed your questions with Scripture, but you just don't like the answers. You guys have not even interacted with the texts I used, so as to refute my understanding and use of them. That tells me you can't argue against it, nor can you mount a counter view that is coherent with Scripture.
And what about Gen.3:15? Anyone? And John 6:64?
musterion
Well-known member
Negative.
You are the typical reformed drone who has never thought to actually examine the implications of Reformed theology but once those implications are called to your attention, you avoid them. That's typical Clavinist behavior here on TOL. You will prove to be no exception.
BrianJOrr
New member
The Scriptures say he can. God's Word is clear on that. I think you need to spend some time in Romans 9-11. Paul gives his defense of that very thing. If I can't rest on Paul's words as my defense, and yet that still doesn't answer your question, then nothing else will. You just need to get over the fact that you, and everyone else, cannot fully comprehend God's unsearchable and inscrutable ways. Once you get there, to the end of the sidewalk as I like to say, you have to be ok with that it ends there. And then your faith in God's Word, his promises, and his wisdom has to be were you hang up your hat of pride and submit to God's will. He is sovereign over everything yet we are responsible for our decisions and God is just in holding us accountable for those. Furthermore, his will does not force us to do anything we don't want to do, which is why we are accountable. We sin because we are sinners.
It's not a contradiction because I can fully demonstrate with the Scriptures that this is the case.
And I am happy to send you my book to demonstrate that.
It's not a contradiction because I can fully demonstrate with the Scriptures that this is the case.
And I am happy to send you my book to demonstrate that.
musterion
Well-known member
That is not what Rom 9 teaches.
The God of the Bible can't damn someone for doing exactly that which He (secretly, according to you) preordained them to do, while blaming them for it as if they had the free will to choose otherwise. That would make His stated reason for condemning them a lie.
The God of the Bible can't damn someone for doing exactly that which He (secretly, according to you) preordained them to do, while blaming them for it as if they had the free will to choose otherwise. That would make His stated reason for condemning them a lie.
musterion
Well-known member
Paul said God is free to use nations -- the actual context of Romans 9-11 -- as He sees fit, and has done so throughout history. That is the God of the Bible.
Paul did not say God refused to enable individuals to believe the Gospel and then damns them for not believing it. That is the god of Reformed theology and it is a lying idol...one that condemns non-breathers for not breathing, when the reason they don't is because they can't, and the reason they can't is because your false god chose not to give them lungs.
Paul did not say God refused to enable individuals to believe the Gospel and then damns them for not believing it. That is the god of Reformed theology and it is a lying idol...one that condemns non-breathers for not breathing, when the reason they don't is because they can't, and the reason they can't is because your false god chose not to give them lungs.
BrianJOrr
New member
I will go ahead and paste in a portion of my book addressing that argument from a college professor, who advancing his views did not address it; either he did not want to handle it or just knew that he couldn't and left it out:
(From pp. 36-44)
"Now, while Richardson does not mention it, I think it’s important that we address a common objection regarding the “whom” as it pertains to God’s sovereign choice and purpose in election. The main objection from non-Calvinists is that when Paul writes of election in Roman’s 9:1-13, they believe that “the passage is not speaking about electing of individuals but nations.” The Reformed position sees that the Scriptures speak of election primarily as an individual election unto salvation, with the election of nations in God’s purpose in history to be secondary. So then, the question is, “Is predestination in reference to individuals or nations?” Let’s work through the passage. However, before beginning our examination of Romans 9, it is important that we briefly backtrack through Romans 8, and the rest of the letter, to set our context for Romans 9.
In Romans 8, Paul expresses to us that our guarantee of deliverance is assured in the love of God through Christ Jesus. Nothing can separate us from him. His purpose in this chapter is to demonstrate to all Christians that there is no longer eternal condemnation for those who are in Christ (8:1). Those who are in Christ have been made alive by the Spirit to walk in a way that is now pleasing to God (8:1-8). How is that? Because God sent his Son to die in the flesh, condemning the sin of the flesh, “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (8:4). Those who are in Christ now have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them giving life to those who were once dead (8:9-10). Through this indwelling of the Spirit, we have now been adopted in the family of God, for we are now “sons of God” (8:14). And, this is important for the next chapter, the Spirit is our witness, our guarantee, that we are children of God and fellow heirs with Christ and will be glorified with him (8:16-17). So, Paul is affirming for us that those who are in Christ, the elect, are now part of the covenant. And they were predestined to be part of it (8:28-30). This language of election was originally specific to the people of Israel in the Old Testament. Israel was God’s chosen people who were the heirs of blessing to receive the promises God had purposed for them. In Deuteronomy 7, Moses tells us that Israel was chosen to be a “people holy to the LORD” (7:6a). Israel was chosen as his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth . . . because . . . the LORD set his love on you (7:6b-7). Israel shall be “blessed above all peoples” (7:14).
From this, we see that Israel was supposed to be blessed above all, for it was the chosen people, the descendants of Abraham, that were to become a great nation and receive all the blessings that come with the covenant God made with them (Genesis 15; 17). Those who were circumcised and received the Law from God were the elect of God. From our understanding of what the OT says regarding Israel, we can see how those who are Jews might object to what Paul is saying in this chapter. However, we need to be reminded of what Paul has already clearly expressed in the previous sections of this letter.
In Romans 1, Paul made it clear that the entire race of mankind is guilty of sin in its rejection of God. In Romans 2, Paul makes sure to explain to the Jews that this guilt and judgment for that guilt of transgression is not only a Gentile problem but a Jewish one as well. In Romans 3, Paul silences any objection to this universal indictment by making the charge that “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (3:10-12). He then goes on to say that though all Jews and Gentiles “fall short of the glory of God” (3:23), God has manifested his righteousness through Christ, by putting him forward as a propitiation for sin to be received by faith, as a gift, which redeems and justifies the guilty (3:24-25).
Paul grounds this radical shift in understanding the purposes of God from a Jewish perspective in chapter 4, in which he goes back to the covenant of promise made with Abraham demonstrating that he was made righteous by faith not works (4:1-12). And that the promise is fully dependant on faith, which is only guaranteed to those who share in the faith of Abraham (4:16), that is, those “who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord” (4:24). In chapter 5, Paul gives us a picture of what this means for one who is a Christian. Chapters 6 and 7 are a deeper treatment of what it means to be in Christ. Paul demonstrates the significance of baptism, Christ’s death and resurrection, which is our death and resurrection to life in him, leaving the old man behind on the cross, and being released from the law of death to serve the law of God.
Now that we have the context, Paul’s explanation regarding the reception of Gentiles into the family of God through faith, seems to pose a foreseen issue on Paul’s end to an objection regarding the promises that Israel is supposed to receive. That is what chapter 9 seeks to answer. After Paul closes chapter 8 with the glorious assurance of God’s love for the elect, Paul begins his explanation of the foreseen objection: “What about Israel?” What is to come for those who are his kinsmen by birth, descendants of the patriarchs? In Romans 9:1-13, he writes,
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This 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. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though 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 him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Paul recognizes that there is a distinction between the offspring according to the flesh and the Spirit. That is why we see Paul’s anguish in this chapter. He is so distraught by this issue that he wishes that he was “accursed and cut off from Christ” (9:3). His brothers, kinsmen according to the flesh, to them belong this blessing, the promises, and the inheritance from God. Seeing that they will not receive this, Paul goes into the justification of God, explaining that God’s word has not failed. His word is intended for the offspring of Abraham; however, it is for those who are offspring by promise (by faith), not by the flesh. And to buttress this truth, Paul demonstrates God’s sovereign choice in election in the account of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 18:10, 14; 25:23 (cf. Mal. 1:2,3).
Paul makes it clear that though they were from the flesh of their forefather Isaac, and had not done anything good or bad, God’s purpose of election would continue in Jacob. Esau would serve him. This choice was based on God’s will alone, according to his predetermined plan, having nothing to do with any foreseen choice by the two children—“Not because of works but because of him who calls” (9:11). Paul establishes the correlation between the accursed (those who are of the flesh; Esau) and the elect by promise (by the sovereign election of God; Jacob). God’s word has not failed; however, “not all who have descended from Israel belong to Israel” (9:6b). If all of Israel were to be the “beneficiaries of the Messianic salvation . . . then the word of God has fallen, since many Israelites are accursed and cut off from the Messiah.”
In his treatment of Romans 9:1-23, John Piper (addressing the objection of election to nations and not individuals) writes,
Paul’s main goal in Romans 9:6b-13 was not to prove that God freely elected the nation of Israel, but rather his goal was to establish a principle by which he could explain how individual Israelites were accursed and yet the word of God had not fallen. What Romans 9:6b proves is that in Paul’s mind the election of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau established an ongoing principle whereby God elects unconditionally the beneficiaries of his blessing not only in the establishment of the nation from Israel by Jacob and his sons, but also within that very nation so that “all those from Israel, these are not Israel.”
For the sake of our argument, and to continue with Paul’s argument defending the justification of God, we cannot leave Romans 9:1-13 to stand alone. In Romans 9:14-23, Paul strengthens his position by answering an objection to God’s election premised by unfairness on God’s part. He writes,
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For 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.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But 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?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
In these verses, Paul explains that there is no injustice in God’s sovereign choice and takes us back to two OT verses which allude to God’s demonstration of his sovereignty over creation and in his ultimate plan of redemption (Exodus 33:19; 9:16). In 9:15, Paul inserts Exodus 33:19 as his grounding for his answer to the objection. In this passage, Moses asked the LORD, “please show me your glory” (Exodus 33:18). God responds favorably to him and says, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (33:19). Revealing his glory is a demonstration of this grace, and the purpose of this revealing is one of mercy and favor. Those whom God reveals himself to, favorably, have received this not on what they have done but because of God’s choice to do so.
Furthermore, Paul’s use of this verse (Exodus 33:19) and Exodus 9:16 regarding Pharaoh was to demonstrate that his choice has nothing to do with man’s will or desire to submit to the LORD. Again, the Reformed position, as affirmed in Scripture, clearly teaches us that man is fallen and cannot please God. Pharaoh was a pagan idolater, under the wrath of God, “whose breath and heartbeat was his only as God extended it to him. . . . Pharaoh could not and would not desire to resist.” Not only do we see in the Exodus account that Pharaoh hardens his own heart (7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 32; 9:34), we also see that God hardens it as well (4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10) by not extending mercy and grace to change his will; rather, he pulls back giving Pharaoh over (Romans 1) to his sin-filled, blackened heart. And this is the point Paul is making in Romans 9:15-18. Because of Pharaoh’s hardness, he continued to push back against the omnipotent will of God, only to be broken by it, but also, and most importantly, that the LORD would display his glory to Pharaoh and the Egyptians in destruction and judgment and to Israel in God’s rescue and deliverance of them. This is the demonstration of his power in Pharaoh; it was the reason he raised him up (Romans 9:17). So, we see that whomever he has mercy on, their hearts and desires are then channeled toward the LORD, and whomever he does not show mercy to, he hardens, giving them over to their own sin and destructive desires.
In Romans 9:19, Paul addresses another foreseen objection to God’s will in election. In an elaborated paraphrase, the objection is, “If that is the case with Pharaoh, then how can God find fault? Who then can resist God’s will if it is him alone who gives mercy to whom he wills and hardens whom he wills?” What does Paul say? Using the words of Job when facing the same issue, Paul says, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (9:20). God does not have to give us an answer. Why? Because he is the potter and we are the clay, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with the lump, making “one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use” (9:20-21). Paul concludes, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (emphasis added, 9:22-23). There is a parallel here between vessels of wrath and vessels of glory. Both are from the same lump; however, each are formed for different purposes according to God’s plan. “A vessel of wrath is one prepared for destruction that will experience God’s wrath; a vessel of mercy is one prepared for glory.”
So, what we see in this section of Romans, what Paul is asserting, is that God’s purpose in election “is free from human influence not only in historical roles [nations] but also in the determination of who within Israel [individuals] are saved and who are not.” Therefore, if God elects individuals within a nation, this proves beyond contestation that God can and does elect individuals to salvation. He does not merely elect nations as corporate entities in a non-salvific manner, but in addition to that, he elects individuals for salvation in eternity past (Rom 8:29)."
I would suggest for further reading you read John Piper's The Justification of God
(From pp. 36-44)
"Now, while Richardson does not mention it, I think it’s important that we address a common objection regarding the “whom” as it pertains to God’s sovereign choice and purpose in election. The main objection from non-Calvinists is that when Paul writes of election in Roman’s 9:1-13, they believe that “the passage is not speaking about electing of individuals but nations.” The Reformed position sees that the Scriptures speak of election primarily as an individual election unto salvation, with the election of nations in God’s purpose in history to be secondary. So then, the question is, “Is predestination in reference to individuals or nations?” Let’s work through the passage. However, before beginning our examination of Romans 9, it is important that we briefly backtrack through Romans 8, and the rest of the letter, to set our context for Romans 9.
In Romans 8, Paul expresses to us that our guarantee of deliverance is assured in the love of God through Christ Jesus. Nothing can separate us from him. His purpose in this chapter is to demonstrate to all Christians that there is no longer eternal condemnation for those who are in Christ (8:1). Those who are in Christ have been made alive by the Spirit to walk in a way that is now pleasing to God (8:1-8). How is that? Because God sent his Son to die in the flesh, condemning the sin of the flesh, “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (8:4). Those who are in Christ now have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them giving life to those who were once dead (8:9-10). Through this indwelling of the Spirit, we have now been adopted in the family of God, for we are now “sons of God” (8:14). And, this is important for the next chapter, the Spirit is our witness, our guarantee, that we are children of God and fellow heirs with Christ and will be glorified with him (8:16-17). So, Paul is affirming for us that those who are in Christ, the elect, are now part of the covenant. And they were predestined to be part of it (8:28-30). This language of election was originally specific to the people of Israel in the Old Testament. Israel was God’s chosen people who were the heirs of blessing to receive the promises God had purposed for them. In Deuteronomy 7, Moses tells us that Israel was chosen to be a “people holy to the LORD” (7:6a). Israel was chosen as his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth . . . because . . . the LORD set his love on you (7:6b-7). Israel shall be “blessed above all peoples” (7:14).
From this, we see that Israel was supposed to be blessed above all, for it was the chosen people, the descendants of Abraham, that were to become a great nation and receive all the blessings that come with the covenant God made with them (Genesis 15; 17). Those who were circumcised and received the Law from God were the elect of God. From our understanding of what the OT says regarding Israel, we can see how those who are Jews might object to what Paul is saying in this chapter. However, we need to be reminded of what Paul has already clearly expressed in the previous sections of this letter.
In Romans 1, Paul made it clear that the entire race of mankind is guilty of sin in its rejection of God. In Romans 2, Paul makes sure to explain to the Jews that this guilt and judgment for that guilt of transgression is not only a Gentile problem but a Jewish one as well. In Romans 3, Paul silences any objection to this universal indictment by making the charge that “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (3:10-12). He then goes on to say that though all Jews and Gentiles “fall short of the glory of God” (3:23), God has manifested his righteousness through Christ, by putting him forward as a propitiation for sin to be received by faith, as a gift, which redeems and justifies the guilty (3:24-25).
Paul grounds this radical shift in understanding the purposes of God from a Jewish perspective in chapter 4, in which he goes back to the covenant of promise made with Abraham demonstrating that he was made righteous by faith not works (4:1-12). And that the promise is fully dependant on faith, which is only guaranteed to those who share in the faith of Abraham (4:16), that is, those “who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord” (4:24). In chapter 5, Paul gives us a picture of what this means for one who is a Christian. Chapters 6 and 7 are a deeper treatment of what it means to be in Christ. Paul demonstrates the significance of baptism, Christ’s death and resurrection, which is our death and resurrection to life in him, leaving the old man behind on the cross, and being released from the law of death to serve the law of God.
Now that we have the context, Paul’s explanation regarding the reception of Gentiles into the family of God through faith, seems to pose a foreseen issue on Paul’s end to an objection regarding the promises that Israel is supposed to receive. That is what chapter 9 seeks to answer. After Paul closes chapter 8 with the glorious assurance of God’s love for the elect, Paul begins his explanation of the foreseen objection: “What about Israel?” What is to come for those who are his kinsmen by birth, descendants of the patriarchs? In Romans 9:1-13, he writes,
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This 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. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though 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 him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Paul recognizes that there is a distinction between the offspring according to the flesh and the Spirit. That is why we see Paul’s anguish in this chapter. He is so distraught by this issue that he wishes that he was “accursed and cut off from Christ” (9:3). His brothers, kinsmen according to the flesh, to them belong this blessing, the promises, and the inheritance from God. Seeing that they will not receive this, Paul goes into the justification of God, explaining that God’s word has not failed. His word is intended for the offspring of Abraham; however, it is for those who are offspring by promise (by faith), not by the flesh. And to buttress this truth, Paul demonstrates God’s sovereign choice in election in the account of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 18:10, 14; 25:23 (cf. Mal. 1:2,3).
Paul makes it clear that though they were from the flesh of their forefather Isaac, and had not done anything good or bad, God’s purpose of election would continue in Jacob. Esau would serve him. This choice was based on God’s will alone, according to his predetermined plan, having nothing to do with any foreseen choice by the two children—“Not because of works but because of him who calls” (9:11). Paul establishes the correlation between the accursed (those who are of the flesh; Esau) and the elect by promise (by the sovereign election of God; Jacob). God’s word has not failed; however, “not all who have descended from Israel belong to Israel” (9:6b). If all of Israel were to be the “beneficiaries of the Messianic salvation . . . then the word of God has fallen, since many Israelites are accursed and cut off from the Messiah.”
In his treatment of Romans 9:1-23, John Piper (addressing the objection of election to nations and not individuals) writes,
Paul’s main goal in Romans 9:6b-13 was not to prove that God freely elected the nation of Israel, but rather his goal was to establish a principle by which he could explain how individual Israelites were accursed and yet the word of God had not fallen. What Romans 9:6b proves is that in Paul’s mind the election of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau established an ongoing principle whereby God elects unconditionally the beneficiaries of his blessing not only in the establishment of the nation from Israel by Jacob and his sons, but also within that very nation so that “all those from Israel, these are not Israel.”
For the sake of our argument, and to continue with Paul’s argument defending the justification of God, we cannot leave Romans 9:1-13 to stand alone. In Romans 9:14-23, Paul strengthens his position by answering an objection to God’s election premised by unfairness on God’s part. He writes,
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For 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.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But 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?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
In these verses, Paul explains that there is no injustice in God’s sovereign choice and takes us back to two OT verses which allude to God’s demonstration of his sovereignty over creation and in his ultimate plan of redemption (Exodus 33:19; 9:16). In 9:15, Paul inserts Exodus 33:19 as his grounding for his answer to the objection. In this passage, Moses asked the LORD, “please show me your glory” (Exodus 33:18). God responds favorably to him and says, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (33:19). Revealing his glory is a demonstration of this grace, and the purpose of this revealing is one of mercy and favor. Those whom God reveals himself to, favorably, have received this not on what they have done but because of God’s choice to do so.
Furthermore, Paul’s use of this verse (Exodus 33:19) and Exodus 9:16 regarding Pharaoh was to demonstrate that his choice has nothing to do with man’s will or desire to submit to the LORD. Again, the Reformed position, as affirmed in Scripture, clearly teaches us that man is fallen and cannot please God. Pharaoh was a pagan idolater, under the wrath of God, “whose breath and heartbeat was his only as God extended it to him. . . . Pharaoh could not and would not desire to resist.” Not only do we see in the Exodus account that Pharaoh hardens his own heart (7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 32; 9:34), we also see that God hardens it as well (4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10) by not extending mercy and grace to change his will; rather, he pulls back giving Pharaoh over (Romans 1) to his sin-filled, blackened heart. And this is the point Paul is making in Romans 9:15-18. Because of Pharaoh’s hardness, he continued to push back against the omnipotent will of God, only to be broken by it, but also, and most importantly, that the LORD would display his glory to Pharaoh and the Egyptians in destruction and judgment and to Israel in God’s rescue and deliverance of them. This is the demonstration of his power in Pharaoh; it was the reason he raised him up (Romans 9:17). So, we see that whomever he has mercy on, their hearts and desires are then channeled toward the LORD, and whomever he does not show mercy to, he hardens, giving them over to their own sin and destructive desires.
In Romans 9:19, Paul addresses another foreseen objection to God’s will in election. In an elaborated paraphrase, the objection is, “If that is the case with Pharaoh, then how can God find fault? Who then can resist God’s will if it is him alone who gives mercy to whom he wills and hardens whom he wills?” What does Paul say? Using the words of Job when facing the same issue, Paul says, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (9:20). God does not have to give us an answer. Why? Because he is the potter and we are the clay, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with the lump, making “one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use” (9:20-21). Paul concludes, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (emphasis added, 9:22-23). There is a parallel here between vessels of wrath and vessels of glory. Both are from the same lump; however, each are formed for different purposes according to God’s plan. “A vessel of wrath is one prepared for destruction that will experience God’s wrath; a vessel of mercy is one prepared for glory.”
So, what we see in this section of Romans, what Paul is asserting, is that God’s purpose in election “is free from human influence not only in historical roles [nations] but also in the determination of who within Israel [individuals] are saved and who are not.” Therefore, if God elects individuals within a nation, this proves beyond contestation that God can and does elect individuals to salvation. He does not merely elect nations as corporate entities in a non-salvific manner, but in addition to that, he elects individuals for salvation in eternity past (Rom 8:29)."
I would suggest for further reading you read John Piper's The Justification of God
TIPlatypus
New member
@OP
That's right, we have no doctrines.
I do not believe that we cannot choose to accept God's gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit. Paul is not talking about accepting the Holy Spirit here. You cannot walk in the way of God without it. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to receive the Holy Spirit.
Translation?
This prayer asks that God may move peoples hearts, so that they will want to follow God, by accepting into the Holy Spirit. Our job is to give them the opportunity. They are no longer lost in sin, because they know about Jesus now. All that remains is for God to change their hearts and for them to accept the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, but God wiped all those people off the face of the Earth. You cannot say that what scripture says all people were like then is what scripture says all people are like now.
I agree with that. Someone does need the Spirit to be saved.
As Platypusist, I believe that salvation is in both our hands. God has done his bit. Jesus died on the cross for us. It is up to us to accept this gift. Of course salvation is in God's hands. He could have chosen not to send his son done, and then we would definitely all be doomed.
God can impress his will on a human being. We can still reject him or accept him despite this. But certainly it will influence our decision a great deal for the better.
We need the Holy Spirit to do good works. We need the Holy Spirit to remind us not to strike back when someone hits us, to remind us to love our neighbour, even if we find that difficult, and so on. That is the role that the Holy Spirit has in our lives.
Please only exact quotes. Thanks
Look forward to hearing your reply.
That's right, we have no doctrines.
I do not believe that we cannot choose to accept God's gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit. Paul is not talking about accepting the Holy Spirit here. You cannot walk in the way of God without it. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to receive the Holy Spirit.
Translation?
This prayer asks that God may move peoples hearts, so that they will want to follow God, by accepting into the Holy Spirit. Our job is to give them the opportunity. They are no longer lost in sin, because they know about Jesus now. All that remains is for God to change their hearts and for them to accept the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, but God wiped all those people off the face of the Earth. You cannot say that what scripture says all people were like then is what scripture says all people are like now.
I agree with that. Someone does need the Spirit to be saved.
As Platypusist, I believe that salvation is in both our hands. God has done his bit. Jesus died on the cross for us. It is up to us to accept this gift. Of course salvation is in God's hands. He could have chosen not to send his son done, and then we would definitely all be doomed.
God can impress his will on a human being. We can still reject him or accept him despite this. But certainly it will influence our decision a great deal for the better.
We need the Holy Spirit to do good works. We need the Holy Spirit to remind us not to strike back when someone hits us, to remind us to love our neighbour, even if we find that difficult, and so on. That is the role that the Holy Spirit has in our lives.
Please only exact quotes. Thanks
Look forward to hearing your reply.
TIPlatypus
New member
About Satan and God inciting David. If you look to see the numbers afterwards. They are different. In 2 Samuel, there are 800,000 men who can take the sword in Israel, and 500,000 in Judah. In 1 Chronicles, there are 1.1 million in Israel and 470,000 in Judah. I don't think this was the same census.
BrianJOrr
New member
The differences of these numbers from those in 2 Sam 24:9 are problematic. It may be that the number of men from Judah is included in the total for "all of Israel" (that is, including Judah with 470,000 not "and in Judah"). The Book of Chronicles may exclude some elements, such as Levi and Benjamin, from its account (see 21:6; Joab did not carry through completely the census David had ordered). Or the numbers may be approximations. Beyond this, one or both texts may suffer from errors of copying.
We see that in the genealogies and other instances of parallel books like in the synoptic. I believe there is complete agreement in orthodox circles that these two events are in fact the same.
Usually it is the skeptics who use instances like this to support an argument against inerrancy. And I am not implying that you are
Lon
Well-known member
Er, but you assert it "Absolutely" and more than once. You didn't do as well at the 1on1 that you think you did. I suppose it is like the Enyart Lamerson debate, where OV thought they 'won.' Not a good showing, really.
You are 'absolutely' an assertion king. I believe the one-on-one was not in your favor, honestly. I don't believe it went well for you at all there.
Well, you 'absolutely' look for lynch-pins that you can hang a supposed victory on in your debate style. They do not at all prove your point, you are simply willing to be deluded by it. It doesn't matter if Brian can read or not, all of Christendom reads these scriptures against your Open View assertions. Shoot even Open Theists oppose a lot of your specific theology and disagree with you, and that is 'with' them embracing a plain read.
The real issue is exactly as I described in our 1-on-1, that you take the more obscure narrative passages and try to build doctrine off of narrative rather than what clearly is pedantic and plain to your face. In effect, not only did I show that narrative is a bad place to build "all" doctrine, but also that your own stance on plain meaning isn't followed because you go to obscure and tricky passages to try to build Open Theist doctrine and I gave proof of scriptures that are destroyed by a simpleton reading rather than a plain reading. You cannot say God 'relents' when only 6 verses prior to it, God says He doesn't. Why? Simply because it is literally made 'unclear' that God could even remotely 'change His mind' by the very passage used to try and teach that! It is horrible bible-reading!
In the post to which I replied asking for Scripture you provided none. You have continued to provide none in response to my request.
What about it?
You already have a thread on that and I have posted in it.
Lon
Well-known member
I think I misread this as well. I don't know why this particular often doesn't convey on TOL, but I think he (and I) read "didn't provide any scripture in thread" rather than scripture to answer a specific question.
Can you remember which post # it was LH? Thanks.
BrianJOrr
New member
Doctrine: “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group” (Websters)
So you don’t have any beliefs?
Bible verse? I defer you to a post I made here on this subject
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4268887&postcount=126
I did not quote a Bible verse, just referenced one.
Again, I defer you to: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4268887&postcount=126
Are we not all from Adam? Where in the Scripture do you get the idea that fallen man has changed since Gen. 6:5?
Jeremiah 17:9; Titus 1:15-16; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Romans 1:28-31; Ephesians 4:17-18; Jeremiah 10:7-8,14; Matthew 7:11; 15:19; Genesis 8:21; Proverbs 10:20; Proverbs 28:26
I, again, differ you to http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4268887&postcount=126
Amen!
With your statement, is it possible then that God could have sent his Son to die on the cross, taking all our sins, and yet no one receive him, making his death to be in vain?
If man could truly choose to do good according to God’s law, then why send Christ? If man has the natural ability to submit to God’s law, then why hasn’t any man been able to do it?
You have to ask yourself, if man doesn’t seek God, for it is not in his nature to do so (I defer to my link), something has to happen to his nature. This change in heart is what God said he would do in the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26). You can try to persuade a lion to eat vegetables but you know he never will because by nature he is a carnivore and only needs, wants, and desires meat. Just like us who are sinners; we don’t want what is holy, good, and righteous.
I know plenty of people who do those things without the Holy Spirit; it’s the motive that is misplaced, for theirs is rooted in man’s glory, not in God’s glory—that's the difference.