ECT The Sovereignty of God

[Nang]

If your religion is true, everything I say, do or believe was unalterably predestined before I ever existed and is currently being "sovereignly" controled by your control freak of a god! There's nothing I can do about it unless that same control freak of a god makes me do it!

So why should I care? It isn't a "judgment" anyway! It's just the way things are and the only way things can be. I am, according to your relgion, exactly who your god created me to be and I couldn't be otherwise.

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

Resting in Him,
Clete

Only an ungodly, unregenerate man would react so negatively to this truth, and wrest it from the context and spirit in which it was written . . which is to gove confidence of the saints amidst the wicked. For the paragraph that precedes this, says:

"11. Certainty about God's providence puts joyous trust toward God in our hearts

But when once the light of Divine Providence has illumined the believer's soul, he is relieved and set free, not only from the extreme fear and anxiety which formerly oppressed him, but from all care. For as he justly shudders at the idea of chance, so he can confidently commit himself to God. This, I say, is his comfort, that his heavenly Father so embraces all things under his power - so governs them at will by his nod - so regulates them by his wisdom, that nothing takes place save according to his appointment; that received into his favour, and entrusted to the care of his angels neither fire, nor water, nor sword, can do him harm, except in so far as God their master is pleased to permit. For thus sings the Psalm, "Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust; his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday" &c. (Ps. 91: 2-6.) Hence the exulting confidence of the saints, "The Lord is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me? The Lord taketh my part with them that help me." "Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear." "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." (Ps. 118: 6; 27: 3; 23: 4.)" Calvins' Institutes, Book 1.17.11

 

[Shasta]

I know. You do not believe that God is actively and absolutely sovereign over all He has created.

The ONLY reason a person hardens their own hearts, is because God has not seen fit to change their hearts to love Him.

Man, by nature, does not love God, cannot love God, does not want to love God.

The human heart was hardened due to Adam's original sin, and made subject to Godly judgement, and the only remedy or rescue from hellfire, is God's grac . . . if He chooses to give a sinner a new heart to love and believe in Him.

Pharaoh's heart was hard from birth and God did not choose to spiritually change it.

That is the teaching of Romans 9:15-22

Pharaoh's heart WAS hardened towards God but Romans 9 is talking about a hardening towards a specific move of God - that of delivering Israel out of Egypt. Referring to the Exodus, Romans 9 says that God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart. This hardening happened during the events not at Pharaoh's birth.

It is true that Pharaoh was lost and as far as we know he was never under the conviction of the Spirit. When the Bible uses the term "hardened" in this context it means only that that God allowed resistance to arise in Pharaoh specifically resistance against letting Israel go. Regardless of what you say, GOD periodically hardened his heart beyond the primal antipathy of natural man against God. This was done so that God could "multiply his signs and wonders (Exodus 7:3)". Had Pharaoh allowed them to leave when Moses first met him the world would never have seen the 9 plagues or the mighty deliverance at the Red Sea.

Hardness of heart can be applied not just to man's general lack of receptivity to God but to their opposition to His specific redemptive purposes. When we read Exodus we find that Pharaoh at first resists God's commands but when the plague is lifted he relents. Subsequently the word often says Pharaoh hardened His own heart (e.g., Exodus 8:32). Sometimes God hardens his heart. Sometimes Pharaoh hardens his own heart. If his "heart being hardened" means he resists Gods command then relenting must mean that he gives in, at least temporarily. During these admittedly brief periods of surrende his heart was not hard (resistant towards freeing them). Of course he was not motivated by a crisis of conscience but by fear and self-interest; nevertheless with respect towards letting them go his heart was no longer "hard" (at least temporarily).

The fact that the Bible sometimes says God hardened His heart, and other times that Pharaoh "hardened his own heart" shows that your idea that this is saying he had a permanently hardened heart "from birth" is incorrect. His birth and childhood are never mentioned. However, Pharaoh actions show that he indeed had volition and, in fact, he regularly changed his mind in response to pressure. If his heart was absolutely hardened from birth he would never have been able to relent at all. His opposition to God's and whatever purposes He had in mind would have been continuous and complete.

Your error lies in assuming the issues in Pharaoh's case (and in Romans 9) are about the salvation of his soul and that of particular individuals. Roman's 9 shows how God's purposes work even when men's hearts are hardened. Remember, in Romans 9 Paul is addressing the question of whether Israel's "partial hardening" implies God's plan, promises and purposes for Israel have failed. Paul cites examples from Israel's history to show how human resistance can end up revealing God's miraculous power and wisdom.

 

[Nang]

Pharaoh's heart WAS hardened towards God but Romans 9 is talking about a hardening towards a specific move of God - that of delivering Israel out of Egypt. Referring to the Exodus, Romans 9 says that God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart. This hardening happened during the events not at Pharaoh's birth.

The Exodus is not the subject of Romans 9. Romans 8:31 through Romans 11 is about Election.

It is true that Pharaoh was lost and as far as we know he was never under the conviction of the Spirit. When the Bible uses the term "hardened" in this context it means only that that God allowed resistance to arise in Pharaoh specifically resistance against letting Israel go.

Your "context" is not accurate; thus your conclusions are wrong.

Pharoah showed resistance and unbelief in God's commands, and God chose not to change Pharoah's heart to believe and obey, for His own good reasons.

Regardless of what you say, GOD periodically hardened his heart beyond the primal antipathy of natural man against God.

A hard heart is an unbelieving heart. "Primal antipathy" is the Godly curse of Total Depravity. The only remedy, is God's mercy and God only gives His mercy to whom He wills . . and it was not Pharoah. Romans 9:15-18

Pharoah was born an unbeliever, and God elected to leave Pharoah in his unbelief, in order to show His absolute sovereign power over him. Exodus 9:16

Your error lies in assuming the issues in Pharaoh's case (and in Romans 9) are about the salvation of his soul and that of particular individuals. Roman's 9 shows how God's purposes work even when men's hearts are hardened. Remember, in Romans 9 Paul is addressing the question of whether Israel's "partial hardening" implies God's plan, promises and purposes for Israel have failed. Paul cites examples from Israel's history to show how human resistance can end up revealing God's miraculous power and wisdom.

Romans 9 teaches divine Election of individuals versus Reprobation of individuals. (Romans 9:8-13)

Nothing national about the context of these chapters. God's workings with men is always personal, and according to His eternal purpose and good pleasure. Ephesians Chapter One.

 

[Clete]

Only an ungodly, unregenerate man would react so negatively to this truth, and wrest it from the context and spirit in which it was written . . which is to gove confidence of the saints amidst the wicked. For the paragraph that precedes this, says:

"11. Certainty about God's providence puts joyous trust toward God in our hearts

But when once the light of Divine Providence has illumined the believer's soul, he is relieved and set free, not only from the extreme fear and anxiety which formerly oppressed him, but from all care. For as he justly shudders at the idea of chance, so he can confidently commit himself to God. This, I say, is his comfort, that his heavenly Father so embraces all things under his power - so governs them at will by his nod - so regulates them by his wisdom, that nothing takes place save according to his appointment; that received into his favour, and entrusted to the care of his angels neither fire, nor water, nor sword, can do him harm, except in so far as God their master is pleased to permit. For thus sings the Psalm, "Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust; his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday" &c. (Ps. 91: 2-6.) Hence the exulting confidence of the saints, "The Lord is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me? The Lord taketh my part with them that help me." "Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear." "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." (Ps. 118: 6; 27: 3; 23: 4.)" Calvins' Institutes, Book 1.17.11

The additional context does not change the meaning one iota!

You don't deny it. You don't even argue the point! All you can say is, "Yeah, Clete! You make an absolutely valid point there that I wouldn't want to refute if I could!"

Your god is an arbitrary figment of your imagination that has nothing to do with the God who created you and who sent His Son to satisfy the necessities of justice on your behalf.

You don't even believe that your god had to send anyone to die for sin! He could just as easily made everyone's nose itch, had everyone blow cheese on their neighbors face and said "Wipe the snot off your face for salvation!" and that would have been, in your idiotic theological worldview, just as valid a way of atoning for sin as anything else.

What a pathetic sad excuse for a god! Who could worship that?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

The additional context does not change the meaning one iota!

You don't deny it. You don't even argue the point!

I argued your claim by putting your Calvin quote into its immediate context . . which argues itself in spirit and purpose.

Your god is an arbitrary figment of your imagination that has nothing to do with the God who created you and who sent His Son to satisfy the necessities of justice on your behalf.

You don't even believe that your god had to send anyone to die for sin! He could just as easily made everyone's nose itch, had everyone blow cheese on their neighbors face and said "Wipe the snot off your face for salvation!" and that would have been, in your idiotic theological worldview, just as valid a way of atoning for sin as anything else.

The Reformed view of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, is one of promise AND necessity (as you also admit as necessary for the execution of divine justice, in your own words underlined above).

So you have no basis to accuse me of denying the necessity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to remedy sin, as promised by God in the beginning of time . Do not even try to go there . . .

You are an empty suit, Clete, presenting an empty argument against the Reformed faith.

 

[Clete]

I argued your claim by putting your Calvin quote into its immediate context . . which argues itself in spirit and purpose.

As I said, your additional quotation does nothing at all to change the meaning of what I quoted. The quote I presented is a well-known quote that I have yet to see one single Calvinist deny the truth of as quoted! All you are doing to muddying the water or making some weak attempt to rationalize your own doctrine to yourself. No matter what you do, you cannot escape this clearly taught doctrine that is universally accepted by all Calvinists...

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

”He testifies that He creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isaiah 45:7); that no evil happens which He hath not done (Amos 3:6).* Let them tell me whether God exercises His judgments willingly or unwillingly.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 18, Paragraph 3)

“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

The Reformed view of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, is one of promise AND necessity (as you also admit as necessary for the execution of divine justice, in your own words underlined above).

So you have no basis to accuse me of denying the necessity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to remedy sin, as promised by God in the beginning of time . Do not even try to go there . . .

Will you admit then that God is compelled to do things by logical necessity?

That's a 'yes' or 'no' question, Nang. I'd be willing to wager that you will not answer it.

I know your doctrine teaches that salvation (and damnation) are entirely arbitrary. On what basis do you make the claim that your doctrine teaches that Calvary was of logical necessity?

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​

If salvation is arbitrary, why would Calvary be necessary?

You are an empty suit, Clete, presenting an empty argument against the Reformed faith.

Yeah, this empty suit is destroying you by doing little more than quoting your own source documents.

BUT...

IF I'm an empty suit, it's because your god made me that way, right?! I can't be anything else even if I wanted to be and I wouldn't even want to be unless your god made me want to be. Everything that happens, according to your own source documents, happens exactly as your god predestined them to happen before time began.

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

SO WHY SHOULD I (OR ANYONE) CARE?

That's another question you're not at all likely to answer.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Will you admit then that God is compelled to do things by logical necessity?

No.

God is not compelled to do anything other than what He wills and purposes.

The Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was necessary under the Law to work justice on behalf of sinners. Divine Justice demands the ultimate punishment for sin is death, and it was the love of God and His will, to provide a vicarious death on behalf of many.

I know your doctrine teaches that salvation (and damnation) are entirely arbitrary.

Only in an absolutely sovereign sense. God, as King over His creation, possesses the right to show mercy to whom He wills. (Romans 9:14-18) It is His right and authority to choose who will abide in His Kingdom. {Even human kings reflect these Godly rights and authority, and determine who will be allowed into their courts.}

On what basis do you make the claim that your doctrine teaches that Calvary was of logical necessity?

On the basis of Divine Covenant and the Word of God, which promised remedy for sin in the garden. Genesis 3:15

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​

If salvation is arbitrary, why would Calvary be necessary?

"Salvation" is not arbitrary. Election of which souls God gathers into His Kingdom is His right to choose.

Do not attempt to confuse divine determination with necessity. Necessity is satisfaction of all legality; receiving divine mercy is pure grace.

Yeah, this empty suit is destroying you by doing little more than quoting your own source documents.

You cannot "destroy" me. I abide in Christ and am sealed by His Holy Spirit with the guarantee of everlasting life. I stand for the Word of God, which is Immutable.

IF I'm an empty suit, it's because your god made me that way, right?! I can't be anything else even if I wanted to be and I wouldn't even want to be unless your god made me want to be. Everything that happens, according to your own source documents, happens exactly as your god predestined them to happen before time began.

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

SO WHY SHOULD I (OR ANYONE) CARE?

That's another question you're not at all likely to answer.

How can you claim to love God if you do not care about His Truth?

 

[Clete]

No.

God is not compelled to do anything other than what He wills and purposes.

The Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was necessary under the Law to work justice on behalf of sinners. Divine Justice demands the ultimate punishment for sin is death, and it was the love of God and His will, to provide a vicarious death on behalf of many.

Way to contradict yourself, Nang!

I mean, Calvinists contradict themselves all the time but rarely do they do so in such a blatant manner.

"No, God is not compelled by logical necessity but the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was necessary."


How is it possible that anyone can buy into this stuff?!

Only in an absolutely sovereign sense. God, as King over His creation, possesses the right to show mercy to whom He wills. (Romans 9:14-18) It is His right and authority to choose who will abide in His Kingdom. {Even human kings reflect these Godly rights and authority, and determine who will be allowed into their courts.}

What other "sense" is there?

You're the one here saying that God absolutely controls everything!

Do you mean to suggest that "absolutely" doesn't mean "absolutely"?

On the basis of Divine Covenant and the Word of God, which promised remedy for sin in the garden. Genesis 3:15

You're saying then that God is subject to the Law?

"Salvation" is not arbitrary. Election of which souls God gathers into His Kingdom is His right to choose.

Way to contradict yourself, Nang!

You're your own worst enemy! :chuckle:

Do not attempt to confuse divine determination with necessity. Necessity is satisfaction of all legality; receiving divine mercy is pure grace.

You're either a liar or you're stupid.

Allow me to educate you...

If something is "necessary" in terms of logic it means it is the only possible result (conclusion) from a series of facts or events according to the rules of logic.

It is the law of identity! A is A

2+2 NECESSARILY equals 4 (Given the definitions of the terms in the statement "2+2=4")

You cannot "destroy" me. I abide in Christ and am sealed by His Holy Spirit with the guarantee of everlasting life. I stand for the Word of God, which is Immutable.

Your god does not exist. Therefore it's "son" doesn't exist and you've placed you trust if a god that does not exist. If you think that you can be saved by an arbitrary figment of your imagination, you've got a shock coming.

The God is scripture is just! He is not arbitrary, NOR CAN HE BE! Any belief to the contrary is blasphemy. And again, if you think you can be saved by a God you systematically blaspheme on a daily basis, you've got a really big shock coming.

And beleive me. This website will be used as evidence against you. You will be without excuse.

How can you claim to love God if you do not care about His Truth?

His (the) truth is the only thing I care about. Truth cannot contradict itself, Nang. I do not believe in self-contradictory doctrines of men.

Why do you?

 

[Nang]

Way to contradict yourself, Nang!

I mean, Calvinists contradict themselves all the time but rarely do they do so in such a blatant manner.

"No, God is not compelled by logical necessity but the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was necessary."

Nothing contradictory to the above statement, if a reader is able to comprehend it presents two equally logical premises:

You just seem unable to see them.

You're the one here saying that God absolutely controls everything!

Yes, and you are denying the absolute sovereignty of your Maker. You believe He is limited, changeable, and subject to the will of His creatures.

You're saying then that God is subject to the Law?

No. But God's creatures are. And God willfully provided a vicarious sacrifice of the Son, in order to satisfy the necessary demands of His holy Law, on their behalf.

Not on His behalf. But on their behalf.

That is absolute love. That is absolute grace.

And you fail to praise Him with thanksgiving for what He has done . . . you refuse to acknowledge His absolute sovereignty and power and righteousness.

You're either a liar or you're stupid.

You hate the Truth because you are blind to the Truth. So your only resort, is usage of ad hominem against me.

I am not stupid. I understand your lack of understanding and spiritual quandry. . .

The God is scripture is just! He is not arbitrary, NOR CAN HE BE!

Seems you do not know the definition of "arbitrary."

His (the) truth is the only thing I care about. Truth cannot contradict itself, Nang. I do not believe in self-contradictory doctrines of men.

You believe in "Open Theism" and befriend MADists, do you not? Their goofy teachings match your ideas of a limited and changeable God, do they not? If anything proves to be contradictory, it is these inferior kind of attempts to replace Gospel Truth with post-modern humanism.

Good luck with them . . .

 

[Clete]

I don't need luck. I have scripture and sound reason. I need nothing else and will refuse anything else. Most especially, the lunatic doctrines of injustice that Calvin believed because of his Catholic upbringing.

 

[Shasta]

The Exodus is not the subject of Romans 9. Romans 8:31 through Romans 11 is about Election.



Your "context" is not accurate; thus your conclusions are wrong.

Pharoah showed resistance and unbelief in God's commands, and God chose not to change Pharoah's heart to believe and obey, for His own good reasons.



A hard heart is an unbelieving heart. "Primal antipathy" is the Godly curse of Total Depravity. The only remedy, is God's mercy and God only gives His mercy to whom He wills . . and it was not Pharoah. Romans 9:15-18

Pharoah was born an unbeliever, and God elected to leave Pharoah in his unbelief, in order to show His absolute sovereign power over him. Exodus 9:16




Romans 9 teaches divine Election of individuals versus Reprobation of individuals. (Romans 9:8-13)

Nothing national about the context of these chapters. God's workings with men is always personal, and according to His eternal purpose and good pleasure. Ephesians Chapter One.

Saying that we do not need to consult background scriptures is tantamount to saying we should not "search the scriptures" which Paul said was the noble enterprise of the Bereans. Remember, the scriptures they consulted were also in the OT. I suppose, instead of doing that it is better to consult commentaries of men like John Calvin as if they were the final authority. I, for one, prefer to follow the principles of sound hermeneutics and allow "scripture to interpret scripture."

From looking at the text of Romans 9 it is clear that the general subject is the apostasy of the nation Israel. Paul makes this the focus as early as verse 3:

my brothers,[a] 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 the (system of sacrificial worship), and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ (Romans 9:3-5)

His opening remarks concern his kinsmen, which are a particular race called Israelites, who possess the covenants (Abrahamic and Mosaic), the law, the worship system, and the promises. It could not be more clear that he is entering into a discussion about the Jews.
Israel was called and chosen but they ended up out of God's will, disinherited from the promises of God. Paul makes the case that, despite appearances, God's purposes have not failed (Romans 9:6a). Thus far he is talking about how God works through peoples/nations.

Next, Paul discusses other examples of how God chooses people to carry out his purpose. He brings up the case of Esau and Jacob. Looking back to the time of their birth we find that when Rebecca was pregnant her twin sons seemed to be striving against one another in her womb. God Himself prophetically interprets this event.

I suppose if Calvin could have put his own words here He might have had God say something like, "two individuals are fighting in your womb - one of the two I have predestined to be irrevocably damned and the other I have predestined to be unconditionally saved." He might also have added, "even though they are unborn fetuses I have already decided to hate one and love the other, not on the basis of anything about them but according to my 'sovereign' choice."

What the scripture actually says is,

“Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”
(Genesis 25:23)

More evidence that the prophecy about Rebecca's children was not about them but about their descendants can be found in the last part "And the older shall serve the younger." There is no evidence that Esau ever served his brother or that Jacob subjugated his brother's family. The prophecy to Rebecca was not about Esau and Jacob as individuals but about the two nations and two peoples that would come from them. Jacob's descendants became the nation of Israel while Esau's became the nation of Edom. Between the two, God chose Israel to be the spearhead of His redemptive plan (Exodus 19:5-6). Even though Edom was not chosenfor this purpose this does not mean they were always a nation of unbelievers or that they, as a people, were delivered over to Satan. For a very long time Edom was a center of wisdom in the Middle East (Jeremiah 49:7)

It seems that you want to stay in Romans 9 and as far away from the scriptural ground for the chapter as possible. This is understandable. Romans 9 is familiar territory to the Calvinist, so much so that many cannot read the passage at all without donning the dark lenses of predeterminism first. Once that is done the meaning becomes certain. Still you cannot interpret Romans without understanding the OT scriptures upon which Paul's teaching is drawn.

 

[Nang]

Saying that we do not need to consult background scriptures is tantamount to saying we should not "search the scriptures" which Paul said was the noble enterprise of the Bereans. Remember, the scriptures they consulted were also in the OT. I suppose, instead of doing that it is better to consult commentaries of men like John Calvin as if they were the final authority. I, for one, prefer to follow the principles of sound hermeneutics and allow "scripture to interpret scripture."

I most definitely agree that scripture must be interpreted by scripture, but I also believe the better approach is to gain understanding and significance of O.T. passages according to N.T. teachings.

Prime example: The O.T. is replete with promises, predictions, prophecies, and typology pointing to the future Savior and Lamb of God who would pass over sins, but only in the N.T. can we learn this was fulfilled in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

From looking at the text of Romans 9 it is clear that the general subject is the apostasy of the nation Israel. Paul makes this the focus as early as verse 3:

my brothers,[a] 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 the (system of sacrificial worship), and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ (Romans 9:3-5)

His opening remarks concern his kinsmen, which are a particular race called Israelites, who possess the covenants (Abrahamic and Mosaic), the law, the worship system, and the promises. It could not be more clear that he is entering into a discussion about the Jews.
Israel was called and chosen but they ended up out of God's will, disinherited from the promises of God. Paul makes the case that, despite appearances, God's purposes have not failed (Romans 9:6a). Thus far he is talking about how God works through peoples/nations.

Nations are made up of individual persons, and these passages in Romans reveals God's grace shown to men through particular redemptions . . sovereign Election supersedes the O.T. nationalistic beliefs of the Jews that they were elect only as a whole people. Because of their national downfall and loss of Jerusalem, Paul is teaching that a remnant would still be saved by the election and grace of God; Jacob being an example of a vessel of grace, and Esau and Pharoah as condemned vessels prepared for destruction. Romans 9:22-23

Next, Paul discusses other examples of how God chooses people to carry out his purpose. He brings up the case of Esau and Jacob. Looking back to the time of their birth we find that when Rebecca was pregnant her twin sons seemed to be striving against one another in her womb. God Himself prophetically interprets this event.

I suppose if Calvin could have put his own words here He might have had God say something like, "two individuals are fighting in your womb - one of the two I have predestined to be irrevocably damned and the other I have predestined to be unconditionally saved." He might also have added, "even though they are unborn fetuses I have already decided to hate one and love the other, not on the basis of anything about them but according to my 'sovereign' choice."

What the scripture actually says is,

“Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”
(Genesis 25:23)

Yes, but approaching the O.T. to comprehend the N.T. is not wise, IMO, because they are not developed into full revelation.

More evidence that the prophecy about Rebecca's children was not about them but about their descendants can be found in the last part "And the older shall serve the younger." There is no evidence that Esau ever served his brother or that Jacob subjugated his brother's family.

This is your literal take on the matter, and you are missing the spiritual. The elect sons of God rule over their brethren, because they are chosen in Christ. The beloved, spiritual children have the blessed position in the promised Redeemer, that far surpasses the earthly life events of their forebears during O.T. times.

The prophecy to Rebecca was not about Esau and Jacob as individuals but about the two nations and two peoples that would come from them. Jacob's descendants became the nation of Israel while Esau's became the nation of Edom. Between the two, God chose Israel to be the spearhead of His redemptive plan (Exodus 19:5-6). Even though Edom was not chosenfor this purpose this does not mean they were always a nation of unbelievers or that they, as a people, were delivered over to Satan. For a very long time Edom was a center of wisdom in the Middle East (Jeremiah 49:7)

Well, this is just your opinion, based upon an asserted presupposition on your part.

It seems that you want to stay in Romans 9 and as far away from the scriptural ground for the chapter as possible. This is understandable. Romans 9 is familiar territory to the Calvinist, so much so that many cannot read the passage at all without donning the dark lenses of predeterminism first. Once that is done the meaning becomes certain. Still you cannot interpret Romans without understanding the OT scriptures upon which Paul's teaching is drawn.

Again, I say you cannot interpret the O.T. prophecies fully, without studying their fulfillments in the days of Christ and His Apostles' teachings. A Kingdom of God was promised all through history to the Jews, but only after the events of the Incarnation was the spiritual fullness of the promises to both Jews and Gentiles made known.

 

[Cross Reference]

God cannot violate Himself.

 

[Shasta]

I most definitely agree that scripture must be interpreted by scripture, but I also believe the better approach is to gain understanding and significance of O.T. passages according to N.T. teachings.

Prime example: The O.T. is replete with promises, predictions, prophecies, and typology pointing to the future Savior and Lamb of God who would pass over sins, but only in the N.T. can we learn this was fulfilled in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.



Nations are made up of individual persons, and these passages in Romans reveals God's grace shown to men through particular redemptions . . sovereign Election supersedes the O.T. nationalistic beliefs of the Jews that they were elect only as a whole people. Because of their national downfall and loss of Jerusalem, Paul is teaching that a remnant would still be saved by the election and grace of God; Jacob being an example of a vessel of grace, and Esau and Pharoah as condemned vessels prepared for destruction. Romans 9:22-23



Yes, but approaching the O.T. to comprehend the N.T. is not wise, IMO, because they are not developed into full revelation.



This is your literal take on the matter, and you are missing the spiritual. The elect sons of God rule over their brethren, because they are chosen in Christ. The beloved, spiritual children have the blessed position in the promised Redeemer, that far surpasses the earthly life events of their forebears during O.T. times.



Well, this is just your opinion, based upon an asserted presupposition on your part.



Again, I say you cannot interpret the O.T. prophecies fully, without studying their fulfillments in the days of Christ and His Apostles' teachings. A Kingdom of God was promised all through history to the Jews, but only after the events of the Incarnation was the spiritual fullness of the promises to both Jews and Gentiles made known.

This is very interesting. You might have cautioned me about the dangers of depending too much on commentaries written by post-NT theologians (men like John Calvin, for instance). Instead you take me to task about the dangers of consulting the sacred texts which Paul cited which formed the basis for his teaching. Despite your hints that I have somehow misinterpreted the OT verses you gave no exegetical evidence that I did.

As you know the Reformation started because a few men had the courage to bypass the traditions that had been handed down to them. Instead they referred back to the original scriptures which was supposed to be the source of all doctrine and practice. I imagine they too must have been warned about the dangers of questioning the traditional interpretations of the highly revered theologians and priests of earlier times.

Now it is true that the OT cannot be fully understood without the revelation found in the NT. However, the reverse is also true, like the saying goes: the Old is in the New contained, the New is in the Old contained. Actually. one should be the mirror image of the other. Thus, when Paul is explaining doctrine and he cites the OT we would expect that his source accurately reflects what he is saying.

When our beliefs about what Paul was saying does cannot be not confirmed by an accurate exegesis of his OT citations my first impulse is not to alter the meaning of the reference. It is, or should be, to re-assess my understanding of what Paul's remarks. Apparently, though, when it comes to Romans 9 the OT context must be ignored or revised so that it better supports determinism. Thus the ultimate interpretational template becomes not the scriptures themselves but a belief system.

When I went back and examined Paul's references I did not use a Gnostic decoder ring. I read them in the context in which they originally appeared which is what being a "Berean" is all about. Though you have acknowledged that students of the word should follow the hermeneutical principle of "letting scripture interpret scripture" when it comes to actually doing it you become surprisingly reluctant at least when when determinism is in questions. It is plain you do not want to look at the OT objectively and so you make up all kinds of reasons why that is dangerous. I think I know why. Calvin's interpretation of Romans 9 just does not play well if one strays from familiar territory of the chapter or even looks more carefully at background passages.

You have suggested that I do not understand the nature of Messianic prophecy,the teachings of the apostles or their views on the Kingdom. Well, maybe I do not but you would not know that since we have never talked about those subjects. On the other hand, if you follow the teachings of Calvin as closely as you appear to then I might be able to make a fairly educated guess about your beliefs (though I can always hope you do not follow him completely). At any rate, I do know that Calvin, was an amillenialist who (in accordance with his hero Augustine) believed in "replacement theology" . His total ignorance of dispensational truth (which was held by the Early Church Fathers who preceded Augustine) is most likely why he could not accurately interpret the relationship of the Jewish people to the plan of God, a major subject in Romans 9. I would, rather not go this direction but you brought it up.

 

[Nang]

Despite your hints that I have somehow misinterpreted the OT verses you gave no exegetical evidence that I did.

Hints at misinterpretation of OT verses on your part was never entertained on my part . . I simply argued it a better method of hermeneutics to interpret the OT by the NT, rather than vice versa.

Now it is true that the OT cannot be fully understood without the revelation found in the NT. However, the reverse is also true, like the saying goes: the Old is in the New contained, the New is in the Old contained. Actually. one should be the mirror image of the other. Thus, when Paul is explaining doctrine and he cites the OT we would expect that his source accurately reflects what he is saying.

My approach is: The old is in the new EXPLAINED; the new is in the old contained.

Apparently, though, when it comes to Romans 9 the OT context must be ignored or revised so that it better supports determinism.

The OT context of the elect "nationalism" of Israel EXPLAINS through typology, the election of the spiritual church body of Jesus Christ revealed in the NT.

It is plain you do not want to look at the OT objectively and so you make up all kinds of reasons why that is dangerous.

I never claimed it dangerous to reference the OT scriptures . . I simply introduced my belief that scriptural revelation is given in chronological/historical order. The comprehension of NT revelation stems from and develops from the premises and promises of the OT.

You have suggested that I do not understand the nature of Messianic prophecy,the teachings of the apostles or their views on the Kingdom. Well, maybe I do not but you would not know that since we have never talked about those subjects.

I haven't?

On the other hand, if you follow the teachings of Calvin as closely as you appear to then I might be able to make a fairly educated guess about your beliefs (though I can always hope you do not follow him completely).

Please don't guess . .

At any rate, I do know that Calvin, was an amillenialist who (in accordance with his hero Augustine) believed in "replacement theology" .

Like Calvin & Augustine, I am amil, but such approach to eschatology has nothing to do with a "replacement theology" (which IMO is a fallacy).

His total ignorance of dispensational truth (which was held by the Early Church Fathers who preceded Augustine) is most likely why he could not accurately interpret the relationship of the Jewish people to the plan of God, a major subject in Romans 9. I would, rather not go this direction but you brought it up.

There was no "Dispensational truth" held by the ECF, as advocated in these days. You would be hard put to prove any such claim.

 

[Cross Reference]

God cannot violate Himself.

What does that mean?? What is it about God that even He cannot "violate" and which govereigns His nature?

 

[Shasta]

[=Nang;4918519]Hints at misinterpretation of OT verses on your part was never entertained on my part . . I simply argued it a better method of hermeneutics to interpret the OT by the NT, rather than vice versa.

I am glad that you accept my exegesis of the OT. BTW I am doing nothing more than reading the quotations Paul makes. I am doing that to better understand what he said. What do you think it meant when the Bereans "searched the scriptures" It meant they studied the writings Paul quoted which happened to be in the OT. You speak as if I put the OT above the new in some kind of idiosyncratic exegetical methodology. I do not do that. It appears to me that you neglect to do background study because it affects the way you have learned to read Romans 9. Calvin read the OT references and discussed them. You should try it.

My approach is: The old is in the new EXPLAINED; the new is in the old contained.

I think you know that is what I meant but if you want to say "touche" very well.

The OT context of the elect "nationalism" of Israel EXPLAINS through typology, the election of the spiritual church body of Jesus Christ revealed in the NT.

Every last person in Israel was never in the center of God's will. There had to be an individual response to the national calling. In the same way there needs to be an ongoing response from individual people in the Church. The NT warns that if "God did not spare the natural branches neither will He spare you." Hebrews is replete with comparisons between OT and NT believers and warnings for BELIEVERS against turning back (etc).

I never claimed it dangerous to reference the OT scriptures . . I simply introduced my belief that scriptural revelation is given in chronological/historical order. The comprehension of NT revelation stems from and develops from the premises and promises of the OT.

I agree. Still, our understanding has to be based on a proper interpretation of all scriptures particularly those quoted in the NT. Whenever Paul quotes Genesis, Hosea, and Malachi the truth he is bringing up is in those texts. I do not believe he is altering the OT texts in order to make it better fit into his points.

Like Calvin & Augustine, I am amil, but such approach to eschatology has nothing to do with a "replacement theology" (which IMO is a fallacy).

There was no "Dispensational truth" held by the ECF, as advocated in these days. You would be hard put to prove any such claim.

The earliest Church Fathers (those who lived before 300AD) were pre-Millennialists including including: Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, Lactantius and Commodianus. Some early writers did not address eschatology. Origin did not accept the idea because he disdained the material world on philosophical grounds. As a rule, however, the Early Church used a literal approach to interpreting scriptures. Since "The Millennium" is the name of a particular "dispensation" it is perfectly proper to say that the ECF had "dispensational" beliefs.

 

[Shasta]

All right, for a moment let us assume that Paul is using Jacob and Esau not to represent nations that were either chosen or not chosen (for specific purposes). Let us suppose, as you have, that they are exemplars of individual people who have been pre-selected by God to salvation or damnation. Assuming this is true, let us see where it takes us. Paul writes, "As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13). Venturing into that apparently perilous practice of reading his OT sources we find that this comes from the prophet Malachi:

2"I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob; 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness" (Malachi 1:3).

If Jacob and Esau represent individual people, elect and non-elect respectively, then we must conclude that before anyone is born, not on the basis of anything they do or will do, God has already chosen to love only a relatively small number. The rest, God actively HATEs. He is not merely angry about something they have done. All this happens before their birth. Neither does God hate them for what He foreknowsthey WILL do. God brought these people into being specifically to serve as recipients of His divine fury. God, in this paradigm, is not merely indifferent to the vast majority of fallen humanity. He actively HATES them and has set them up to inherit a weight of suffering that no human can imagine. Auschwitz does not compare to what God has prepared for those whom He has decided to hate.

Let's look at it another way. If Calvin is right about this then even the Apostle Paul had more love for his fellow Jews than God.

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 (Romans 9:3).

Christ was cut off and “became a curse” for us but He did this (ostensibly) only for “the elect” and not for anyone else. When Paul said he was willing to be cursed by God he meant for the sake of those who had already rejected. Paul did not say "I would almost prefer to be cut off from God for the sake of my brethren (that is, for those who are secretly among the chosen). Instead Paul said he would be the sacrifice for ALL the apostates! How much less charity does Calvin’s God have for His chosen people than Paul!

In this respect, Calvin’s God is much like Allah, who most certainly does NOT love the majority of unbelieving humanity. Allah ONLY loves those who submit to Him. This resemblance is not coincidental. Both Islam and Calvinism are deterministic systems in which God’s control and power (i.e., His "sovereignty")dominates and has subsumed most of His other attributes.

The foundational presumptions upon which T.U.L.I.P. is based came from Augustine whom Calvin quoted more than 100 times in his “Institutes.” Augustine, called by some “The Father of the Catholic Church,” was steeped in the determinist religion of Manichaeism before his conversion. Manichaeism was a form of Gnosticism that originated in Persia but became prevalent subsequently in Arabia where Muhammeds movement arose. It is worth noting, however, that Augustine's views about determinism were in opposition to all the Greek speaking Church Fathers who had lived before him. Unlike Augustine the ECF taught freewill and denounced determinism as "Gnostic."

Despite the antiquity of the determinist doctrine, the unconditional consignment of some people to a unalterable destiny of damnation runs contrary to the beneficent nature of God(1 Timothy 2:4) It renders Jesus command to “love our enemies” hollow since both He and the Father hate theirs. The very reason the Savior tells us to love (and not hate) our enemies is because that is what the Father is like (Matthew 5:43-45).

 

[Nang]

Both Islam and Calvinism are deterministic systems in which God’s control and power (i.e., His "sovereignty")dominates and has subsumed most of His other attributes.

This is important to discuss . . .

The Sovereignty of God does not stand above His many attributes, but rather, sums them up. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, loving, righteous, just, holy, wise, etc. . . all is why and what makes Him Sovereign. There is no such thing as one divine attribute dominating over another, for God is a simplistic Being.

Thus, His attribute of benevolence does not dominate over His attribute of being perfectly and totally Just. At the core of your argument, is the notion that God is less than loving if He does not save all men, or at least make the effort. Not so. God is revealing and extending justice when He leaves a soul in their sins . . and that is as righteous as His revealing and extending mercy and grace to many others.

IOW's, anything God chooses to do, is good.

In our finite and tainted understanding, there is no room for us to find fault with His determinations.

Despite the antiquity of the determinist doctrine, the unconditional consignment of some people to a unalterable destiny of damnation runs contrary to the beneficent nature of God(1 Timothy 2:4)

See. There you say it. You find fault with God for not saving or making an effort to save universally.

But God has the authority to call whom He names into His Kingdom, and the right to share His glory only with those Christ has made fit to share His inheritance. The dying Lord Jesus came as Testator and as a dying Man, righteously declared a Last Will and Testament regarding His "wealth" and named who He pleased to receive His blessings. (Hebrews 9:15-28; Ephesians 1:11-12))

It renders Jesus command to “love our enemies” hollow since both He and the Father hate theirs. The very reason the Savior tells us to love (and not hate) our enemies is because that is what the Father is like (Matthew 5:43-45).

No, the reason we are told to love our enemies, is because all of us are wicked sinners. I have no right to hate, for I deserve the same justice from God as any other. Plus, I do not know if the person I want to hate might not be shown love, mercy, grace and salvation from God tomorrow.

Appreciation of saving grace cannot be full, until one grasps how righteous and pure God is, in His acts of Justice. Hellfire is a horrible truth, but it is exactly what each and every one of us deserve for our sins, lack of love for, and disobedience against God and His Word.

God will be glorified in His acts of Justice as well in His acts of grace.

For He is the one and only Sovereign God Almighty. (Isaiah 46:8-13)

 

[Tambora]

Because God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, loving, righteous, just, holy, wise, etc. . . all is why and what makes Him Sovereign.

Umm, one can be sovereign and be a total jerk.

There is no such thing as one divine attribute dominating over another.

I agree.
And those attributes include hate, jealousy, wrath, vengeance, etc.

God is revealing and extending justice when He leaves a soul in their sins

In what parallel universe do you believe that purposely making one that can be nothing but dirty, and then brutally punishing them for being dirty as "justice"????
Is that some parallel universe where up is sideways and black is yellow???

IOW's, anything God chooses to do, is good.

Why?
GOD would be unstoppable whether He chooses to do good or bad.

But God has the authority to call whom He names into His Kingdom, and the right to share His glory only with those Christ has made fit to share His inheritance.

GOD has the authority to make purple elephants, but we should go by what He actually says He will do and what He has done, and not what He could do.

John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have no right to hate

Ecclesiastes 3:8 KJV
(8) A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.