Freedom to Choose God (page 46)

ellderwho

EW: Its going to interesting to see your comments on Pharoahs purpose in Pauls message.

Your response is:

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).

Romans 9:16
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

17
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

18
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

To say that the mention of Pharoah is to highlight Gods name is a bit small in the scope of context.

Indeed we can look at Exodus

Exodus 9:16
"But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth.

The thrust of the verses, well most of Chapter nine reveals nothing about proclaiming Gods name, except specifically stated in v17.

But that thought of proclaiming Gods name does not fit with the verses prior or after v17.

My exact point of v17 with the election notion in mind allows Pharoah no other option in life.

Look at the verses leading up to 17. 14,God has mercy on whom HE will, 16, does not depend on mans desire, And you feel we should examine how 17 highlights Gods name? But the the following verse states " So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Why isnt there a flow of thought about Gods name in the following verses?

Yes Pharoah was raised for that very purpose(name glorified) but in context, the issue is Gods will and Pharoahs inability to alter it!

I believe your definition of what v17 means has little to do with context.

E.

LittleToe

EW:
I'm arguing that God can cause what he wills, as does Paul.

I don't see how your contextualisation leads to ultimate destiny. He doesn't mention the Red Sea, nor Esau's final end. His comments are totally in connection with God's glorification, mercy and compassion.

The comments leading up to the verse (as you rightly point out) are concerned with mercy not reprobation.
Hence, you appear to be focussing on a single verse, out of context with the flow.

LittleToe

EW:I should also add that you are entirely entitled to your opinion, on this. Both opinions have a valid basis (I just prefer mine ) and I don't think that either position detracts from Cavlinistic doctrine.
But, while I remember, perhaps I could adress you with the same questions I had for DDog:

Reprobation / Sin / The Fall / God as author of SinRegarding 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?

Deputy Dog

LT

It looks to me, as if we agree that God actively caused somebody to sin in Acts 4:28.

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.

As for "Reprobation / Sin / The Fall / God as author of Sin" I have commented on some of these issues in this thread beginning on or about page 3. The only line I draw is calling God or his actions unrighteous.

Gen 50:20

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Can there be any doubt that God actively used sin, to " bring to pass" H is will.

Rom 8:28

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

I noticed this verse is not included with your comments. Is there a reason? I think that God actively causes sin, and causes it to workout for the good of the elect.

I'll comment more soon. It's been a long day.

D Dog

LittleToe

DDog:

It looks to me, as if we agree that God actively caused somebody to sin in Acts 4:28.

No, I don't think He's the author of sin in any shape or form.
I would agree that He "gives people up to their desires", "permits them to do things", "hardens their hearts", and "lines up courses of action", however I wouldn't be able to cross the line that states He was the cause or Author of sin, nor that He decreed that sin should take place (though I accept that He decreed to permit the sin and "the Fall" to occur).
I would submit to you the question "What is sin?", also "What did Jesus mean when he stated 'forgive them Father, for they know not what they do?'".

Re:Rom.8:28 - I noticed this verse is not included with your comments. Is there a reason? I think that God actively causes sin, and causes it to workout for the good of the elect.

I LOVE that verse, but didn't want my predisposition towards it to affect the argument I was making.
IMHO it means that whatever circumstances befall, whatever providence is our lot, God works it for our good (by way of Progressive Sanctification, or in the use of situations that lead us to Him). Bear in mind that it is again speaking of the Elect.

I'll comment more soon. It's been a long day.

No worries. You certainly had to wait long enough for my commentary. It's the least I can do, to be patient in waiting for your comments, especially given that I was unusually verbose

ellderwho

I don't see how your contextualisation leads to ultimate destiny. He doesn't mention the Red Sea, nor Esau's final end. His comments are totally in connection with God's glorification, mercy and compassion.

All of Chapter 9 excluding v17 say nothing about glorifying Gods name. We're talking about Gods sovereign choice.

Even v18 begins with the word "therefore", or better said "for that reason; accordingly; consequently

The above wording of v18 begins with the adverb, "therefore" which does not indicate the reason of, it means by reason of. OR accordingly or conseqently.

Ultimate destiny is explained in Pharoahs case nothing more nothing less. The same with Esau.

LT: Hence, you appear to be focussing on a single verse, out of context with the flow.

I'm focussing on a single verse?

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).

You put v18 out of context. Not me.

It seems to me you cannot except that Pharoah was "predestined" foreordained, whatever, to do a specific thing for God.

He doesn't mention the Red Sea, nor Esau's final end.

He doesnt have to.

E.

LittleToe

EW:

It seems to me you cannot except that Pharoah was "predestined" foreordained, whatever, to do a specific thing for God.

Oh, I can do that alright (predestinate and/or foreordain), as per my comments on Acts, to DDog.
My ONLY issue is concerning God's predestining people to reprobation.

ellderwho

No, I don't think He's the author of sin in any shape or form.

Then who is?

Can we handle another rabbit hole?

And good morning LT.

E.

LittleToe

Morning pal
Thanks for continuing to engage in this. I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

Biblically speaking God "permitted" it and "the serpent" contributed to the process, but it was man who sinned, and hence was the author of his own downfall (IMHO).

Deputy Dog

LT

Did mankind (or at least God's elect part of it) gain anything after the fall (through Christ) that they did not have in the garden (before the fall)?

D Dog

Freedom to Choose God

Share this