Elect

[Guest]

A couple of things.

First there is the assertion that Calvinism teaches we do not make choices!
Anyone who continues to make this assertion after correction is not only ignorant of Calvinism but willfully so.

Secondly, I raised the Romans passage for hopeful further discussion, but given Haas has tried that many times with little to no response or interaction of the texts he cites, I thought I would start one text at a time and see what transpires.

As far as the assertion that it is not helpful to quote one passage, make a bold statement about it and then stop, well, only a person who knows the future would be able to say that with any seriousness.
I have no intention of just stopping!

Then there is this statement

9:18
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

This should say enough, but let me expound.

God has mercy on those we wills (believers), and He will not have mercy on those he does not will (un-believers). those un-believers are left to the hardness of their own heart.

What is being said here besides nothing of any substance, not to mention, how could such an answer end up causing Paul to defend the free will of God a few verses later?
No! Paul is teaching that God is totally free in whom He saves and none of it depends upon the free will of man!

That is why Paul has to deal with the following response, which honest Arminians themselves have often said to me personally,

Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
You all know the next verse!

Also, if believers were once unbelievers, how does the above statement help us in any way?
Notice what is not being said in the above statement but implied!
Things like libertarian free will still tenatiously clung to as if the difference between the believer and the unbeliever is not God's grace and choice, but the free will of man.

That is boasting!

What else could it be called if the difference between me and my unbelieving neighbor is my decision to accept Christ?

Arminians who are honest should own the question which Paul answers above, or at least think through afresh, their theology.

You can go to other passages that have been answered, but why?
Let us camp here in Romans 9 for a while and see what transpires.

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

As far as the assertion that it is not helpful to quote one passage, make a bold statement about it and then stop, well, only a person who knows the future would be able to say that with any seriousness. I have no intention of just stopping!

So, it sounds like you are backing off your "death nail" statement. Am I right?


Now Mark, I think there is a good reason why you chose not to show verse 20 after quoting 19. Lets look at both verses together and see what we come up with.

9:19
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

9:20
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

It seems that you think Paul's question "For who has resisted His will?" is rhetorical. However, if you look at the very next verse we read " But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" indicating that Paul is talking to people who have done just that.

That is boasting!

What else could it be called if the difference between me and my unbelieving neighbor is my decision to accept Christ?

If someone offers me a gift, and I am given a choice whether or not I will receive it, I have no reason to boast if I chose to receive it. Regardless of what my neighbor will do given the same choice. My reward will be, that I get to enjoy the benefits of accepting the gift, while my neighbor does not.

I think it would do you well to go back and read Romans 9 from the beginning. This time try to keep in mind that Paul is speaking about two categories of people, and not individuals. This is obvious when we read about Jacob and Esau.

11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."

13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Paul is speaking of two nations (Israelites & Edomites), not individuals. For we know that Esau never served Jacob, as a matter of fact it was Jacob who bowed down to Esau. And there is no reason to believe Esau was not a faithfull believer, and is now burining in hell.

Next we can see how Paul uses Moses and Pharaoh in the same manner.

15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

Again, we get a contrast between Israel and Egypt.

It is then fair to assume, when Paul speaks of the elect and the non-elect, he is referring to groups of people, and not individuals.

So Mark, Paul was not talking about you the individual being elected; he was talking about you as a believer being elected.

When you star so far off track like you have, it is no wonder you end up where you are.

Robin

[Guest]

Hello again Mark,

9:18
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

What is being said here besides nothing of any substance, not to mention, how could such an answer end up causing Paul to defend the free will of God a few verses later?

Rom 11:30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
Rom 11:31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Hmm. Maybe Paul just goofed? Or not all men are disobedient, or...it's by faith:

Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

So it is faith that determines what vessel you are. From the same "lump" (Israel) God decided to make some for honorable use (the faithful) and some for dishonorable (unbelieving Israel that was destroyed in 70AD, these were "prepared for destruction").

No! Paul is teaching that God is totally free in whom He saves and none of it depends upon the free will of man!

Well since the last long drawn out thread on regeneration it was shown exegetically that regeneration is by faith, I'm not quite sure why you would make such a comment. Since faith is man trusting in God alone and not in his ability. And it's not a work.

Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

That is why Paul has to deal with the following response, which honest Arminians themselves have often said to me personally,

Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
You all know the next verse!

When Paul states "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" he's stating that by merely asking this question (Who resists His will) you are resisting God's will. This in no way affirms the Calvinist claim. It affirms rather that God's can be resisted!

Things like libertarian free will still tenatiously clung to as if the difference between the believer and the unbeliever is not God's grace and choice, but the free will of man.

That is boasting!

What else could it be called if the difference between me and my unbelieving neighbor is my decision to accept Christ?

Arminians who are honest should own the question which Paul answers above, or at least think through afresh, their theology.

Mark

And again you misunderstand Arminians. Faith is not something that can be boasted in!

Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

The scriptures say boasting is excluded because it's of faith. If your assertion is that faith is a work that can be boasted in, it stands decidedly against scripture.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

[Guest]

Matthew 13

13:1 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. 2 And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat down. And the whole crowd stood on the beach. 3 And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, 6 but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. 8 Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears, let him hear.”

Consider this situation. The disciples must have been very excited. Maybe they said “Look at all these people Jesus. This is going to be great! You can tell them what’s up so that they can be saved.” So what does Jesus do? He starts teaching in parables. Now why would Jesus do that?

Matthew 13:10-17
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
15 For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Again, why didn’t Jesus come right out and tell them what was up? His answer:

11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

[bold emphasis mine]


In another Gospel Jesus tells his disciples:

John 15:16

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.


Blessings in Christ,

Haas

[Guest]

Someone here needs to explain the mindset, purpose, and reason for the 'imaginary objector' in Paul's audience. What are they objecting to? That believers are elect of their own free will? Why object to that? Is the objector in the audience more of a calvnisist, or arminian? And how does that logically follow the topic still being carried over from the last few verses of chapter 8 (the elect being predestined).
I suppose your answer would be similiar in your explanation of why people got offended and left Christ when he said "no one can come to me unless the Father has appointed them" in John 6:65.
I see the objector with an arminian view in Paul's audience, crying about fairness, equal treatment, and injustice (why does He find fault? Who can resist His will?).
The question raised was "ok.. Paul, we hear you on predestination, salvation, etc. but there's a problem--what about national Israel?" and then Paul goes on to explain the basis for salvation is not within man, but within God, and His prerogative. The potter shall not judge God for what He does with His clay.
When you put an arminian spin on the point of the passage, the intention of the 'objector' and Paul's explanation, following the same topic from chapter8, it all falls apart and doesn't make sense.
Zoom out, look at the big picture, follow the flow-of-thought, be honest, and I think you will see the text for what it is.
I'm a little shocked, and actually kind of impressed that no one has brought up the lame "but Jacob and Esau are nations being predestined!!" argument.
Well, I may have spoken too soon, Homer hasn't weighed in yet. J/K Homer

[Guest]

I'm a little shocked, and actually kind of impressed that no one has brought up the lame "but Jacob and Esau are nations being predestined!!" argument.
Well, I may have spoken too soon, Homer hasn't weighed in yet. J/K Homer

Well it seems that you have not been reading thoroughly. Look back 3 posts and you will see this post from myself.

I think it would do you well to go back and read Romans 9 from the beginning. This time try to keep in mind that Paul is speaking about two categories of people, and not individuals. This is obvious when we read about Jacob and Esau.

11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."

13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Paul is speaking of two nations (Israelites & Edomites), not individuals. For we know that Esau never served Jacob, as a matter of fact it was Jacob who bowed down to Esau. And there is no reason to believe Esau was not a faithful believer, and is now burning in hell.

but instead of calling it lame, why don't you make your best case for the position that Paul was talking about the individuals?

Robin

[Guest]

I apologize if the "lame" comment was inflammatory.

I do see opponents of individual election, based on no merit of the person, coming up with any number of views to explain away the hard message of Romans 9, as long as it isn't individual election based on nothing within the person.

In answering your question, because the "2 nations view" has been thoroughly dealt with and refuted long ago, time and time again. John Piper did an excellent commentary on Romans 9, "The Justification of God"; in fact, did an entire 400+ page book on it. Exegeting every single passage in the Greek, looking at all the OT passages in Hebrew, and pretty much wrestling (and answering) every major objection raised.

I would be very interested in getting your take on it. The book isn't that expensive. If you forwarded me your name and address, would you be interested in reading it?

In a cursory response, Paul is giving the apostolic interpretation of OT passages much in the same way as Jesus does explaining that the 'kingdom is now; within you' (when the OT passages seem to be referring to a physical or earthly kingdom), or when James at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 quotes Amos 9, refuting those who said Gentiles had to act Jewish to be Christians by showing that the rebuilding of David’s tabernacle is the ingathering of Gentiles. God builds His final temple by living among His people.

Paul frequently used OT passages 'out of their historical context' to teach spiritual truths, especially in Romans 4 that Catholics contend against "justified by faith alone", saying it does not fit the OT passages he's quoting.

Anyhow, a few pointers showing that individuals are the issue. But one quick question, I want to know if you're more comfortable with God predestining entire nations, instead of individuals? Is that more fair for you? Is it that if you have a single person, it's quite "unfair", but as you keep adding more and more people to the list, the fairness quotient rises?

If Jacob and Esau are nations, why is Paul saying "before either one was born or had done anything good or bad", nations are 'born' and do 'good' and 'bad' things? It speaks of Rebekah conceiving twins by one man.

Verse 15 says "mercy on WHOM" and "compassion on WHOM", referring to individual people, singular, not plural, not groups.

Verse 16 says "man who wills/runs" not men, not nations, not groups. Do nations "will" and "run"? Paul refers to singular individuals again in v. 17 (Pharaoh).

Verse 18 underscores single people again with the "WHOM".

Verse 19 "who resists his will?" Entire nations all join hands and say "lets altogether now, in unison, attempt to resist God's will"? The rest of chapter 9 points out how gentiles can also be saved. Children of the promise, etc.

Again, as I said in my other post, I need a really good answer as to whether the 'anonymous pretend objector' in Paul's audience is leaning towards determinism, or free will, and then, have that explain the total overall point of chapter 8 and 9, and why Paul is presenting this polemic to the objector. Why is the issue of God's fairness and justice coming up if people are 'elected because they selected', or, God is predesting entire nations (which somehow seems more palatable to some)?

Thanks for bearing with me and considering this passage. We all need to be bereans. I hope every side's goal is glorifying God, and fine-tuning our theology not as an intellectual exercise, but as a form of worship.

[Guest]

bilbofett,
I think you are missing the point. It's not about splitting hairs over nations being predestined or the individuals that make up those nations. It's about the "election" of them and what that word means. What were they elect for? Are the individuals that constitute Jacob elect for salvation and Esau not? Is not the context trying to describe the makeup of Israel, since Paul just gave the strange statement that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Rom 9:8 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.

Paul is explaining why there are those who are not turning to the Messiah. As Paul states: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel"

Paul explains this statement in the verses that follow. Paul states what God has maintained even in the OT, that the remnant will be saved. The faithful to God will be preserved with Gentiles allowed to come in as well.

The question revolves around the election of God. Is there a reasoning behind it? It seems that there is, especially in the context of Romans 9 as stated in Jer 18;

Jer 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Jer 18:7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
Jer 18:8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.
Jer 18:9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
Jer 18:10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
Jer 18:11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 'Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.'


Paul is explaining that, as in times past, God brings judgment on the disobedient. And will do so to Israel (Rom 9:28). At the time of Paul's writing, the destruction Jesus predicted was coming (66-70AD) and Paul is explaining the sequence of events that are leading up to this event. Israel has always been "divided" and Paul uses the (OT) analogy of "one lump" of clay being used two ways by God. One is to be furnished into a self destructive role because of it's disobedient walk, and the other to bring Him glory. Just as the Church is being called out of it bondage to the law, God's Israel was called out of it's bondage in Egypt by Pharaoh. And just as the Jews were continuously hostile to the Church (1 Thes 2:13-16) and tried to destroy it at every turn, trying to bring converts to Christ back to the law (Gal 1:6-9, etc) Pharaoh also tried to hold on to Israel and not let her go. So just as God judged Egypt, God will bring judgment on unbelieving Israel, vindicating His true children.

Also notice how Paul uses the dual analogy of Jerusalem in bondage and Jerusalem above in Gal 4:21-31. This is what he is trying to get across in Romans 9-11. Their works and prior covenant to God and being descended from Abraham won't cut it. Rather, it faith that God looks for.


Rom 9:30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;
Rom 9:31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.
Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

The difference between the two is what they pursued. Some pursued by works and some pursued by faith.

And how does that logically follow the topic still being carried over from the last few verses of chapter 8 (the elect being predestined).

Again, what are the elect predestined for? And weren't they the ones he first foreknew? Did He not predestine those He foreknew to be conformed to the image of His Son? It does not say they were predestined to believe, but the ones He foreknew would ultimately be glorified.

[Guest]

Mark,

Quote:
As far as the assertion that it is not helpful to quote one passage, make a bold statement about it and then stop, well, only a person who knows the future would be able to say that with any seriousness. I have no intention of just stopping!



So, it sounds like you are backing off your "death nail" statement. Am I right?

With all due respect, absolutely not!

Now Mark, I think there is a good reason why you chose not to show verse 20 after quoting 19. Lets look at both verses together and see what we come up with.

No problem here.

9:19
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

9:20
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

It seems that you think Paul's question "For who has resisted His will?" is rhetorical. However, if you look at the very next verse we read " But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" indicating that Paul is talking to people who have done just that.

I fail to grasp your point!
And I did not isolate any of these passages in order to confuse anyone, especially you.

1/ What is the fault that these people are claiming God is finding?

I was going to post a heap more stuff, but I will simply stop here for now.
What is this fault that God is supposed to be finding, that Paul says people may object to?

Mark

[Guest]

Of course God predestines those he foreknew. The word "foreknew/foreknown/foreknowledge" appears roughly only 4 times in the entire NT (it does not appear in the OT). Every single time the word appears, it refers to God foreknowing PEOPLE, personally, not events, ideas, concepts, etc. God in His foreknowledge is knowing His people. 2 times it is the church, 1 time it is Israel, and one time it is Christ. Never in any of the verses is God foreknowing the lost, satan, angels, Judas, etc.
The word "foreknow" in this sense, from the Greek, refers to a personal, loving relationship from God to the person. He is not looking down through a corridor of time at choices they make. He is loving them individually and personally before eternity past. God is not knowing historical events, He is knowing people, like Adam "knew" his wife. Words can mean different things, and you get the core limited meaning from the Greek origin, and then you narrow down the specific meaning as it is used in the context of the verses themselves. We have 4 verses to draw this from.

"You were chosen based on foreknowledge". Exactly. I was chosen based on God knowing me personally before I was born. God did not choose me based on Him looking down through time and seeing that I would "have faith on Wed the 22nd of March". None of the verses where "foreknow" "foreknew" "foreknown" and "foreknowledge" occur even begin to hint or imply that. Remember, foreknowledge and omniscience are not the same thing. The foreknow in these verses is a verb, not a noun. In salvation, God is always the Alpha. He is the source, the initiater. God is proactive, we are reactive. Not the other way around.

You know the old adage the people try to pass off as an actual verse "God helps those who help themselves"? Most of us have a problem with that philosophy, but I hope we should all still have just as much a problem with the adage "God elects those who elect themselves". It's the same philosophy. Or "elected because I selected". That's salvation by works. That's performing a deed meritorious to gain God's favor and have Him choose you over your neighbor, because your neighbor did not perform the deed pleasing to God. It's also saying that apart from God's work, we are able to please Him, on our own.

Getting back to Romans 8-9, everyone who is glorified is also justified and called. This is the golden chain of redemption, unbroken, for all christians. Everyone that is called WILL be justified and glorified. The same group of people that are glorified at the end of the chain are the exact same group who were predestined, called, and justified.

It seems you want to make different categories of christians. Some could be predestined, but not reach glorification? Or... some could be glorified, but were not predestined.
You mentioned in your post that "the predestination is to conformity to Christ's image" Of course it is.
All believers are conformed to Christ's image. That is sanctification, guaranteed for all believers. Some will be more sanctified than others. But all will be glorified (completition of sanctification). There is no further work after glorification; we will all be in heaven. We won't be 'improving' or being further set-apart, since sin will be gone. There won't be a worldliness to be set apart from.

Getting back to the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30, an opponent of "calvinistic" predestination has to prove that the group being glorified is somehow a different group than the one being predestined or justified. I guess in your specific case you'd also have to show how one can be a christian and not be in the process of being "conformed to Christ's image".
BTW, this type of reasoning from the text is exactly what catholics do to get around justification by faith alone. Their salvation is a man-centered, man-glorifying, and man-controlled system which does not guarantee sanctification or glorification. So they argue that one can be glorified without being justified/predestined, and vice versa. They say there is a break in the chain, but never really manage to prove how or why there is a break. They just assume there is, otherwise they would have to admit that God is in control of salvation, and not them and their good works.

One last thing, are you telling me Paul in Romans 9 is answering some imaginary objector in his audience over the charge of God being unjust and unfair over who gets to be "conformed to Christ's image"? Are you also saying there's 2 classes of believers, those who are in the process of sanctification, and those who aren't?

Please, from chapter 8 and 9, show how the context and topic is "sanctification", and no election unto salvation. (the two aren't mutually exclusive, of course, but one is much wider in scope than the other).

Also, if salvation is up to man's self-exercised faith, then why is there a cry of injustice/unfairness in chapter 9? Do arminians who believe that faith is not a gift of God, and that salvation is up to each person to will, also believe that God is unjust/unfair? It doesn't fit.

I've said enough, thanks for listening.