"Free will" and Romans chapter 9 (prayer, disciple, Isaac)

[SeekerSA]

I want to address this first.

Originally Posted by Preterist

Yes, Kratos, we should all know Him better by now. And we should see that Romans 9 IS about some whom God hates and others whom He loves! He is the Potter; we are the clay. In His ultimate righteousness, justice, holiness, goodness, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and immutable SOVEREIGNTY He makes of some vessels of dishonor and of others vessels of honor. This simple teaching in this text is only misunderstood and redefined by those who will not accept such sovereignty.

Furthermore, does this text deal only with God's children? Nowhere does Romans 9 state that God hates His children--but He hated Esau because Esau was and never would be one of His own. Likewise, Pharaoh was not His child. He drowned in the Red Sea in total rebellion against God.

A contradiction of terms. Raised as a vessel of dishonor to serve a purpose then you say he was drowned as a result of his rebellion. You cannot have it both ways. That kinda make God punish pharaoh for what God did in the first place to pharaoh. Calvin's doctrine is always circular in reasoning. It denies choice in favor of Sovereignty aka predetermination yet still apportions blame on man

But I would submit that God does show "favoritism" among His children. He raised up Mary specifically to be the "mother" of our Lord. He chose Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees, to be the great leader of the infant church. He chose the other Apostles as well. Not because they were greater than anyone else. As a matter of fact, they were not in any way special as the world would view such things. God often chooses the "foolish" things of the world to confound the wise! He raised up Judas to be the one who would betray Christ. He chose John as the one to whom He would reveal the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Throughout the ages of the church, various ones in various places have been ordained for special tasks designed by God to accomplish His will.

He has no favorites but you did put it in quotes, later you say ordained. On what authority do you say John the beloved wrote any of the texts attributed to John? In John, the epistles and revelation there are 3 distinct different writing styles. It is alleged, Revelation was written before the Gospel of John and the epistles ±68AD so from a full preterist standpoint, the fulfilment of Revelation 70AD was not a significant prophesy.

Yes, we should know God better by now. God questioned Job: "Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it . . . . Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified . . . " (Job 40:2, 8)?

Job answered God: "I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You . . . . I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know . . . . therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:2ff).

Romans 9:18 clearly states: "He has mercy on whom HE WILLS, and whom HE WILLS He hardens." When we make this to mean something else, are we not contending with the Almighty to correct Him? Are we not somehow seeking to annul His judgment? Are we not replying against God?

"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?' Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

It is your privilege to believe in free will but you cannot believe in free will AND the sovereignty of God. Either God is in total control or He is not in control at all.
Preterist

Why is can free will not coexist with Sovereignty? I am not talking Open Theism Free-will. They believe you must use your free will to find salvation and then use the same to keep it while the Calvinists say it is predestined who shall be saved. Both IMO are wrong

If both sects can find Salvation aka the born again experience aka an epiphany of sorts, then either both are correct or both are wrong.

Would you deny that one subscribing to Open Theism having discovered his/her salvation is not saved or does not know God? Likewise would they deny you who discovered your salvation under the notion of pre-election is not saved? Likely no to both as how does either really know the experience the other had.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Salvation is a done deal and both sect will not deny:

Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

This text is far more key to the salvation experience than the born again texts. It is the Father that wills our salvation and not us. He has to reveal this to us by drawing/dragging us.

Post salvation, the asking, seeking, knocking is something we do using our will. The Father reciprocates in revealing, answering and showing. In a nut shell:

Salvation finds us, we do not find salvation.

I adhere to neither Calvin nor Arminianism. Will you say then I am not saved?

Blessings

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Preterist

Are you saying that the truths of Scripture evolve as the writers matured? Are you saying that we cannot trust eveything the apostles wrote because some of what they wrote might of been written while they were still immature in their faith?

In a way yes. Do you not change as you mature? The bible is a road-map to the truth. If you take everything literal and accept that taughtology says the bible is inerrant et al. then what is literal and what is not? I keep sharing that our upbringing in whatever church form a bias as to how scripture is interpreted. It starts with kiddies bibles. Folk regurgitate what the were taught w/o really understanding the deeper meanings, not saying I have all the answers but the whole life experience is a journey of revelation. Much like an onion. Multiple layers, peel a layer away, it remains and onion but one layer closer to the core.

In reality, what Paul wrote in Romans 9 is not something someone would even think to write while he was in a state of spiritual immaturity. While in a state of spiritual immaturity one would generally tend to write things favorable to the desires of the flesh--things that would conform to the immature reasoning of one still greatly influenced by a human sense of right and wrong. He would write things that appealed to man's totally inadequate sense of fairness. In other words, if Paul were still in a state of immaturity, would he not have written that God would be unfair to destine some to be vessels of wrath and destruction and others to be vessels of glory!

Folk forget too soon, Paul was a Pharisee first. He did not get an instant download of truth. The gospels actually came after Paul's writings. It is fair to assume that there was an OT bias in Paul's teachings more so than other writings. There are many truths Paul shared and the approach of Calvin, is centric around Romans 9 and Job. I actually find Calvin more reprehensible than the RCC doctrines.

What man without the direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit would write such things as found in Romans 9? These are truths directly revealed to Paul--truths he anticipated would be hard to swallow and would be resisted. "Why does He yet find fault?" "Oh, man, who are you to talk back to God?" "Does not the Potter have power over the clay?"

Inspiration I do not deny, yet Paul had a bias. Another thing that is often ignored, who was he talking to, what was the backdrop? What may he have orated that we do not know about? None of the NT texts have thus sayeth the Lord. Paul gets a vision/revelation and then needs to articulate it into words that his intended audience can understand in light of their circumstances.

I too can take one chapter from the bible and formulate a philosophy around it, dang easy and I will have followers that will hang on my every word. Calvin is dead. Paul is dead. What we have at best is a record of testimonies of how they saw things. I have heard the folk say that Paul's writings are only for the very mature but that is collywob. Just like the gospels, they were not first hand accounts, minutes of meeting, Matthew was not there when Mary conceived.

Again, the people mentioned in this chapter are real people--they are not metaphors. "Jacob I loved; Esau I hated." The mention of Pharaoh can be nothing else than a reference to the Pharaoh of Moses' day who, in the hardness of his heart, refused to let the people go! For His divine purposes, God further hardened Pharaoh's heart which ultimately led to his destruction and to a clear revelation of God's glory.

He is the Potter; we are the clay. If in His perfect wisdom and righteousness, He chooses to make of some vessels of dishonor and others vessels of honor, who are we to resist His will?

Preterist

I mentioned earlier, our wills coexist. All you have done (I suspect) is taken Romans 9 and Job and maybe a few verses from Colossians and upon that based your entire faith while ignoring all texts that show the part we have to play.

Like a Frying Pan said:

Christians have told me I have "free will" and later in the same conversation they will tell me "God has a plan for my life."

Ironic isn't it.

One question:

If the Calvin doctrine of predetermination is true, why bother teaching?

The pat answer is, "we do not know who the other predestined folk are" hence shooting predestination in the foot and again making your Absolute Sovereign God rely on what you may or may not do.

I have had these discussions many times and all they do is go around in circles. The free-will I speak of has nothing to do with salvation or circumstances outside my control like who my parents were where and when I was born. Those are all strawmen arguments. Yes I had no say in those things and neither when or how I will die. Speaking of death, some folk have even suggested suicide and murder are predestined/predetermined aka sent of God and that is ironic as that make God schizophrenic as He can thus break His own commandment "thou shalt not kill." Guess we need to add "Except Me"

Blessings

[Kratos]

I have been around this mountain so many times and I am sure others can say the same thing. Usually, if the discussion lasts long enough to get there, both sides find they are saying the same thing with different words.

I believe that man has free will and I define that as having choices with consequences. I acknowledge freely that God and circumstances influence my choices, yet I still call this free will.

God is the only one who has free will by some people's definition because He is the only One who makes choices free of other influences. But I call this Omnipotence and not free will.

An example of something without free will would be a plant or a man in a coma. Neither of these has the ability to make choices so they have no free will.

I can pull different definitions of free will from different dictionaries that will uphold either view, but language has to be taken according to the venacular of common speach and I do believe that most people define free will as having the power to make choices regardless of whether those choices are influenced by others or by circumstances.

[SeekerSA]

Shana

Our post are getting long

Originally Posted by ShanaBrown

Hi, I believe that there are many scriptures which speak to God's sovereign choice of individuals and nations and I believe that some are elected to salvation in this age, but that all will be reconciled to God eventually. I believe that God gives us self wills to exercise but that He ultimately works all according to His will. I don't understand what you are saying in the second quote. Please clarify.

Ok we are at least on the same page on one thing.

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

With Predestination, in effect, it is "by chance" you are saved as you need to have been one of the elect. This in essence nullifies all choice wrt "getting saved"

OK, initially I thought you were just a plain Calvinist - sorry Rephrase

My POV is somewhere in the middle of Calvinism and Arminianism. Yes there are those ordained to be certain special folk - set apart - called - etc.

Your predestination extends beyond this age we are in and in that I can agree. However in this age, some get a John 6:44 experience and others not irrespective of their doctrines. As simple as it stands, when the hand is offered out to us aka we see salvation, we still need to accept it even though that part is infinitely less significant than the drawing process.

I believe that the passage in Romans 9 is speaking of predestination but I do believe that all is out of God including illness, misfortune, and good fortune I believe that prayer brings our wills into line with God's will and that although God sees beginning to end, we don't. God exercises our wills to teach us to depend on Him and I believe that prayer is part of our development in learning to trust in God in all things.

Well I do not see misfortune or illness coming from God. Maybe because I am healthy or more likely I refuse to accept illness and rebuke it when it tries to come upon me. I have had my misfortunes too, but I do not blame God for them, all of them have traceable cause. I get over it and move on. Too many folk give up or refuse to take responsibility for their actions. The extreme POV of predetermination infers all sin we commit is of God or alternatively God wields satan in His left hand to do evil and His right hand Jesus to do good. Well then we may as well go through life with a little devil on our left shoulder and an angel on the right, amazing how cartoons affect the way some folk think, not implying you of course.

I believe that it may or may not be God's will to heal a person. We pray, if it is your will, Father.

Well, you are not extreme. I find it ironic the extreme folk are the ones that post the most prayer requests. Faith of the recipient is important for healing as much as the prayer of a righteous man that avails much. The source of healing IMO is often misplaced. The Father is the Great Physician, no one else. Everything Jesus did in healing, He acknowledged the Father doing the work though Him.

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Then we can look at another extreme. You are a faithful Christian and do all the best you can, meet all said requirements of church laws, IOW a squeaky clean and righteous Christian. One day your 5 year old daughter is kidnapped, raped and her murdered mutilated corpse found a few days later.

If that is willed of God, what message is He trying to convey to you? Predetermination says all comes from God.

Well would you using that example accept it was God that did it? (This question is usually avoided btw)

See when we say all is of God then the most horrendous crimes against humanity by other humans was ordained by God. The problem is further complicated when folk try and merge the God of the Jews to the God of Jesus. It is the same God but I say the Jews misrepresented Him with their laws. Briefly:

Exo 20:19 And they said to Moses, You speak with us, and we will hear. But let not God speak with us, lest we die.

That is where it all went pear shaped. Moses had the stage set for God to talk direct to the folk, they refused and chose and intermediary. See that and you will clearly see throughout the OT where the Jews inferred God told them mostly via Moses was not of God. The genocides commanded broke God's Law of "Thou Shalt not kill." The Jews wanted an earthly king, God was their King. Some folk say the OT is man trying to get to God and the NT God trying to get to man. God has always been trying to get to man, it is man that invents religion and laws and doctrines and......

I believe that all is out of God (Romans 11) and that He is the giver of life and that He also takes life away. He gives us the ability to make choices, to disobey but I believe that it is all a part of our development of being made into His image. We experience the horrible results of sin to teach us about the destructiveness of sin and to contrast that with the holiness and righteousness of God, I believe.

Well He gives life. Want death? Dwell in the shadows and confusion of the OT. Want Life? Follow the teachings of Jesus. He came to give us abundant, easy yoke, burden light life. Have not got that yet? Look inside. Introspection reveals much.

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change

I believe that God works all things according to the counsel of His will, although I do believe that God gives us choices, I don't believe that we have absolute free will.

Neither do I. This is the problem when folk cannot see that our wills work in unison with God's will. The extreme of predetermination is like a VCR tape (us) put in the VCR machine (world) and God hits the play button and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Kinda weird and that again puts God-in-a-box, we reduce His Sovereignty to fit our paradigms of thinking. Yet whatever we do to upset the cosmic apple cart, I am sure He has the ability to correct the upset. He is not a micromanager, yes I know the sparrow falling and the hairs on the head verses. He gave us dominion and never once retracted that. Even Adam named the animals. (And I do not believe Genesis literally either)

See on another thread discussing homosexuality, the predestined folk will temporarily drop it and condemn the gay. They will drop it when you look at the Spanish Inquisition. "Godly" men killing godly men.

I agree that all are ultimately reconciled to God also, and I believe in the unconditional love. The belief that God predestines individual for example for certain roles, does not mean that His love is conditional. I believe that some are elected to salvation in this age to be a blessing to others, according to what God has purposed.

No problems here. The key is Love. In Unconditional Love, even blood atonement/sacrifice is not necessary.

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Many will say yes He is Unconditional but.... No buts. Unconditional means just that, Unconditional. As soon as we make His Love conditional, then His love is no more significant than ours is. He loved us first. He chose us, we did not choose Him.

Again neither do I.

I also believe that Jesus will draw all men to Himself, but I don't believe that He draws all at the same time. God's choice and predetermined plan is to draw all to Himself and reconcile all to Himself. No one will be able to resist His unconditional love and power.

Amen

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I hope that you realize that we may not agree on certain things, meaning that as I respect your right to believe and express your perspective on this subject, I hope that you will respect my right to believe and express my perspective on this subject Although we agree on some things, we have a different perspective on others. I also hope that you can see where I am coming from. God bless and thanks for sharing.

Nope, I am not offended if you believe different, likewise I hope the same applies to me.

Blessings

[Kratos]

Shana,

I do think that Gal. 4 reveals the spiritual interpretation of God using two sons throughout scripture as an allegory and Romans 9 stating that the "elder must serve the younger" ties this portion to this allegory. In each case, there are two sons (Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob) and the elder always was a type of the flesh born and the second born was a type of the spirit born. But let me show the "vessels of dishonor" from another place.

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

I have heard some use this scripture like Romans 9 is used to say that in every church there are vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor. But, what is the house or dwelling place of the Lord really? Aren’t we all the church and the house of God? The point of this portion of scripture is that every one of us depart from iniquity.

1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

In every one of us as a house of God, there are things that are of gold and silver and precious stones. There are also vessels of dishonor in every one of us that are wood and hay and stubble. The Word says that if we purge ourselves of these, we will be vessels of honor and not dishonor.

Our God is a consuming fire and He does come to all of us to purge us of those things that are of the flesh or the first born so that that which is of God or the second born will remain. We will suffer loss by this process, but we shall be saved so as by fire.

It is good that you can see this interpretation, also, but if this internal view is only one way of seeing it, we still have a problem with God being a respecter of persons which the scriptures explicitly state that He is not. For God to have created people as vessels of dishonor that He knew He would hate and cause to suffer eternally as Calvinists teach makes Him out to be anything but a loving Father to His creation,

Blessings to you,
John

[spm62]

Originally Posted by Frying Pan

Christians have told me I have "free will" and later in the same conversation they will tell me "God has a plan for my life."

So what is that telling you about their doctrine? Learn to discern!

[spm62]

Originally Posted by Kratos

I believe that man has free will and I define that as having choices with consequences. I acknowledge freely that God and circumstances influence my choices, yet I still call this free will.

God is the only one who has free will by some people's definition because He is the only One who makes choices free of other influences. But I call this Omnipotence and not free will.

[CENTER]"Free Will" DEFINED[/CENTER]

The American Heritage College Dictionary:

"free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."

My Meriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary/Eleventh Edition has an even more precise definition:

"free will n. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention."

An example of something without free will would be a plant or a man in a coma. Neither of these has the ability to make choices so they have no free will.

I can pull different definitions of free will from different dictionaries that will uphold either view, but language has to be taken according to the venacular of common speach and I do believe that most people define free will as having the power to make choices regardless of whether those choices are influenced by others or by circumstances.

So you consider computers to have free will? Computers make choices all the time. They are fed certain data or information and make choices.
God brings circumstances in our life that CAUSES us to make the choice he wants us to make. You can say Jonah made the choice to go to Nineveh or you can say God`s actions CAUSED him to go. When my children were young I would do things that would CAUSE them to do what I wanted them to do or not want them to do. They are the ones acting it out or making the choice but it was me causing it to happen. My children might say they made the choice do something but I might say I made them do it.

[Kratos]

Originally Posted by spm62

[CENTER]"Free Will" DEFINED[/CENTER]


The American Heritage College Dictionary:

"free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."

My Meriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary/Eleventh Edition has an even more precise definition:

"free will n. freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention."

So you consider computers to have free will? Computers make choices all the time. They are fed certain data or information and make choices.
God brings circumstances in our life that CAUSES us to make the choice he wants us to make. You can say Jonah made the choice to go to Nineveh or you can say God`s actions CAUSED him to go. When my children were young I would do things that would CAUSE them to do what I wanted them to do or not want them to do. They are the ones acting it out or making the choice but it was me causing it to happen. My children might say they made the choice do something but I might say I made them do it.

Thank you for proving my point so well. You saved me the trouble. Notice your #1 and #2 definitions of free will. #1 is what I call free will and #2 is what you call free will. Your dictionary proves that the English language supports both definitions. I assume that you can see that this is semantics only. We both agree that we have choices and that God influences these choices. I just call it free will in accordance with the first definition and you do not call this free will in accordance to the second definition.

These discussions always end here if people let them come to an end before their emothions get the best of them.

[spm62]

Originally Posted by Kratos

Thank you for proving my point so well. You saved me the trouble. Notice your #1 and #2 definitions of free will. #1 is what I call free will and #2 is what you call free will. Your dictionary proves that the English language supports both definitions. I assume that you can see that this is semantics only. We both agree that we have choices and that God influences these choices. I just call it free will in accordance with the first definition and you do not call this free will in accordance to the second definition.

These discussions always end here if people let them come to an end before their emothions get the best of them.

Just wondering if you think computers have free will?

[Frying Pan]

Originally Posted by spm62

So what is that telling you about their doctrine? Learn to discern!

You tell me.