Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  EW:

  If we were to go by personalities we'd ignore all of Paul's writings entirely.

  Not sure of your point.

  Some would say that Paul occasionally comes across as judgemental, condemnatory, even bigoted.
  Do we examine the man, or his concepts?

  with the wording being precise to allow comfort for both camps. Charity in everything.

  Can we keep this document as opinion? Due to its origins?

  Of course we can. That was exactly the context with whith I introduced it. It's sub-ordinate to the Bible, anyhow. Be aware that some might make the same suggestion about the Bible, though, due to IT'S origins

  Was it not Gods fore-knowledge to raise him for a purpose?

  I already conceded that it was "to show his power". This can be seen in Romans and Exodus.

  I think Im making a point with Pharoah, in that his future was set! Dare I say foreordainded?

  I agree. My ONLY contention is that it's incorrect to state that Pharoah (or anyone not of the "Elect") was "Predestined". I think we can agree that the Bible makes it clear that everyone is foreordained, be it of the Elect or otherwise.

  The "Pharoah bit" fits nicely in said verses, determining Gods will and decrees.

  I dont see how you slice Pharoahs outcome, out of context. With the following:

  It fuzzies some clear distinctions and nuances of Paul's argument.

  ???

  I was talking about the timing of YOUR using it in YOUR arguement, not Paul's

  I'm working on those comments on Romans, this weekend. I hope to have something for you soon.
  By way of explanation; not only has my new job been demanding, I also have visitors arriving on Monday, for a week.
  
• 

  ellderwho

  I like the timing,

  I was talking about the timing of YOUR using it in YOUR arguement, not Paul's

  You'll have to explain what Paul really means. Its going to interesting to see your comments on Pharoahs purpose in Pauls message.

  I'm working on those comments on Romans, this weekend. I hope to have something for you soon.
  By way of explanation; not only has my new job been demanding, I also have visitors arriving on Monday, for a week

  No hurry, I wouldnt want you to exceed the post limit enjoy the house guests'

  E
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT I've been thinking about your comments and the "lapsarian controversy". Would you have a problem using the words " determined before" or "predetermined" in regard to the destiny of " vessels of wrath" as in:

  Acts 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

  I also believe that all the "lapsarian" positions have a flaw, and that is, that they have God thinking in a linier way, like man, limited or influenced by time. You give an order of a plan, as if God, would need to reason out a plan in time, so He can react or respond to man. I think this is a little backward, don't you?

  D Dog
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  D Dog asked

  Would "anti-grace" be better know as condemnation or God's wrath?

  LT said
  

  D Dog:
  I don't think so, as that's poured out AFTER death. I'm specifically talking about while alive, and the sun still shines

  Here is condemnation promised.

  Gen 2:17

  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

  Here is some condemnation delivered:

  Gen 3:16

  Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

  D Dog
• 

  outbutnotdown

  I just read PART of the first post on this topic and the last few, but I think it might be of help to all who are posting on this topic to read Ballistic's recent post entitled, "My ponderings on religion, etc."

  Honest.... everyone who is giving their opinions on this topic... check it out. It MIGHT help put things into perspective...... I think Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. all had open minds like Ballistic, etc. ...... I just think it may have been the ever evolving, ever searching human tendency to find deeper answers to their simplistic yet profound thoughts that has caused such dissention in the "religious world".

  Just my two cents and we all know what that's worth....... teehee.

  Brad
• 

  LittleToe

  OBND:
  Agreed, but sometimes it's good to blow off some steam on theological threads. This isn't a "spiritual" discussion, nor even one about religion per se. It's a discussion about the nitty gritty points that the bible throws up.

  DDog:
  I can agree that "He has foreordained all that comes to pass"(Quote - Shorter Catechism 7, Larger Catechism 12 - 14). But I can't use your terminology, sorry.
  Here's why:

  If God has predestined both the Elect and nonElect then you are onto a slippery road, in my mind. Once you make that statement (albeit of human logic) you have to follow through. If you don't then you are exhibiting personal choice in the matter of where you stop. I prefer to stop before it starts (that's my personal choice).

  If God chooses some for this and some for that, on what basis is their reprobation, divine choice or sin?
  It opens a whole can of worms. Did God predestinate Sin and the Fall?

  The answer could easily be that, as God predestinated it all (if you blur the definitions between predestination and foreordination), but then you make God the author of sin, which I suspect neither of you are happy with. Why aren't you happy with it, in line with your interpretation of Romans 9, and God being righteous regardless of what he causes to come to pass?

  I prefer to state that "the Bible says that God Predestined the Elect", and leave it at that. To go beyond that is to make the Bible say something which it does not. It's wordplay, as EW reminds us.

  Here is how I see "God's Will". It works on two levels. Those things that he [actively] "wills" and does. Then there are those things that He permits as a sort of [passive] will, since nothing comes to pass that is outwith His will (see quote, above).
  Therein God permits the fall, as it is in his [passive] will and hence foreordained. But I would NEVER say that he [actively] predestinated it.

  I agree with your comments about the significant flaw in the lapsarian debate. We don't know the "mind of God", and are just dallying at the edges of it, trying to make logical and linear sense of something that dwells in "eternity", before time and creation began -> concluded. I could be wrong about the whole thing, but these are my thoughts on the matter.

  I got to re-reading Romans 9 over the weekend, and made some paper notes. I'll try to write them up this evening, for ya.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  Here, in Acts 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done . Was God's counsel "passive" or "active"?

  D Dog
• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:
  I'll give you points for attempting to take scripture out of context and implying it's use in a design of your own choosing

  That scripture is in the specific context of God's [active] will concerning Christ, with the nations (including Herod and Pontius Pilate) acting against him. Here, indeed, Peter uses the word translated "Predestined". The meta-context is that Peter is declaring that since God's will caused (not permitted) the nation to rise against His Christ, what of it if they rise against them? It is in God's providence however they are dealt with, which should cause them to preach with boldness.

  I don't believe you can apply this instance to any kind of general (nor specific) reprobation, as it includes the Jews and the nations. Paul makes it clear that the nation wasn't cut off, but that some would be brought forth from it. Further the gospel was shortly to be preached to the nations. Hence "predestined" has a direct bearing on God's actively causing the events leading to Christ's sacrifice - which was for the Elect, and the glorification of His name.

  Maybe I can help you out here and list every place the Greek word is used:

  Citation / Context

  • Acts 4:28 / People raised against Christ (Meta context - preaching of Gospel with boldness)
  • Rom. 8:29-30 / Elect
  • 1Cor. 2:7 / Preaching of Gospel of Glory
  • Eph. 1:5, 11 / Elect

  Reprobation / Sin / The Fall / God as author of Sin
  Regarding predestination, where do you draw the line in the above list, that I believe your points take you to?
  And could you explain WHY you stop at that point?
  Perhaps you could even support that decision with scripture, just for me?
  

  Linear progression of thoughtI had a further thought on "linear thought", and feel the need to add that it is scripture itself that displays an order. Be it creation or conversion, there is a logical progression about it, even when certain things appear to happen all at the same time in our experience (1Cor.14:33; Heb.11:3)
• 

  LittleToe

  Commentary of Romans 9

  I could barely start commenting on Roman's 9 without giving a few of the surrounding verses, as well.

  • 8:29 Foreordained to be after image of Son
  • 8:30 Foreordained are called; declared righteous
  • 8:38, 39 Elect cannot be separated from love of God - I personally love that one!!!
  • 9:6 Not all Israelites (as a nation) are Israelites (Christians), not that it's of no effect since not all are Elect
  • 9:7 Seed of Abraham are not all those born of him
  • 9:9 Sarah has son
  • 9:10 Rebekah has twins, one is, one likely isn't
  • 9:11 God's choosing is not upon works, but upon His call
  • 9:12, 13 Supported (Gen.25:23) in his calling and loving one over another, even among physical brothers
  • 9:14 Is this injust? No!
  • 9:15, 16 supports v14 by God's mercy, compassion and graciousness (Ex.33:19)
  • 9:17 Pharoah an example of one who was specifically willed to show God's power
  • 9:18 supports v14 by again highlighting mercy (though also mentioning "hardening" in passing)
  • 9:19, 20, 21, 22-24 Five leading questions - leading to "God making known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy"
  • 9:25 Supported by Hosea (2:23) - .People, which were not my people, shall be my people and beloved
  • 9:27 Supported by Isaiah (10:20-23) - Though Israel be many, only a remainder shall be saved
  • 9:29 Supported by Isaiah (1:9) - Israel would have been like Sodom, had He not left a seed
  • 9:31-10:3 They tried to establish their own righteousness, but failed having not submitted themselves to God's
  • 10:4 Christ is righteousness of those who believe - grace
  • 10:13 Call on name of Lord to be saved
  • 10:20 Supported by Isaiah (55:5) - Those who hadn't sought Him found Him, made manifest to them
  • 11 Shows how Israelites hadn't been cast off, as some of nation were still to be Elect

  So, I ask, what is the metacontext for this chapter?
  Is it not the grace and mercy of God upon His Elect?
  Isn't THIS his whole argument? He isn't even attempting to establish the predestination of the reprobate.

  The mention of Pharoah is to highlight God's name being glorified through Pharoah. By His express will in this specific instance, God's people were released and saved (Exodus).

  9:22-24 is one question in it's entirety, demonstrating again God's power (and thereafter supported by scripture to make his point manifest).
  Through God's choosing of the Elect, and demonstrating his power and mercy, He is glorified.

  Isn't it ultimately all about glorifying His name?
• 

  LittleToe

  In fairness there's a macrocontext, that can be threaded together with some defty needlework, as follows:

  • 9:6 Not all are Israel who are of Israel
  • 9:8 Those merely of flesh are not Israel
  • 9:11 Before birth / works of Esau and Jacob the die was cast
  • 9:12, 13 Elder serve younger, hated (loved less?)
  • 9:14 Not unrighteous of God (positive / negative determination)
  • 9:17, 18 Pharoah hardened (but don't miss purpose was that of glorifying God)
  • 9:18 Can the faultfinder declare that he was unable to resist God's will?
  • 9:19, 20 Answer is "no", but reason is given that he has no right to question his Maker
  • 9:21 Supported by argument that God has the right to do as He wishes with His creatures
  • 9:22-24 What of it, if God endured vessels of wrath, only to make known those of glory?
  • 9:31 Israel nation has not attained righteousness by law
  • 9:31 Because they sought it of works (being good) rather than of faith, and so they stumbled

  But the position regarding 9:22-24 is IMHO weakened because Paul doesn't make any direct statements in this context. He only asks leading questions that make the point that God may do as He wills. Paul doesn't actually state that this is what He does for all, but he does bring out some precise examples of those potentially so afflicted.

  Paul's statements regarding Esau and Pharoah (and even the nation of Israel, generally) have a direct bearing on the glorification of His name, not because He reprobates, but because he calls, elects and glorifies, due to His mercy and good pleasure.