All praise to God, and any blame to the sinner. Don't try to fit the Creator under the same umbrella with his creatures.
No. What it does say is God predestined "us" to adoption as sons (and daughters
). The "us" is defined at the opening of the letter as, "the saints," and those who have Jesus Christ as their Lord. The "us" is not unrepentant, unregenerate nonbelievers. That makes verse 5read as, "He predestined us saints to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will..." I think it important verse 6 be included because that finishes the statement by revealing the purpose of God's choice to predestinate the saints by His will: the glorification of His grace. This is the context Paul established for what he says later in his epistle at Eph. 2:5-10. It is by grace, through faith and not of ourselves that we've been saved. It is the gift of God, not of ourselves, that we've been saved. Paul's letter did not originally have the chapter and verse numbering. The later passage is couched in the opening of the letter. Having already answered those inquiries, I'd like to note the divide between monergists and synergists is not that God chose some. Everyone (except the universalist) looks around at the world as a whole and readily acknowledges some are saved and some are not. That's not a point in dispute. What is in dispute is why God chose some in him before the foundation of the world and predestined us for adoption. The monergist says it is God's will because that is what the text explicitly stipulates (mono = one or single; ergon = work). The monergists says it is due only God's will because that is all the text explicitly stipulates. The cause is stated, and the stated cause is singular. So too is the purpose (His self-glorification, the self-glorification of His grace). The synergist does not dispute the matter is God's will. The synergist disputes the "onlyism" of God's will. The synergist says the reason God chose the saints before the foundation of the world and predestined us to adoption is because He knew who would believe. The synergists bring (their interpretation of) other verses from other books into the Ephesians epistle and apply them to the choosing and predestining. There is, in their opinion, at least two wills working together (sun = together; ergon = work) to bring about predestination (as well as all the other aspects of salvation).
. Is monergism fairly making God unfair, or is monergism justly, correctly making God unfair? That question is a red herring. I suspect the originators of that argument knew it because the criticism is rarely worded with that accuracy and honesty and few contemporary critics articulate the view that way.I don't know about the corridors of time, but I do know that God knows what everything, including all men, would do and be, past, present and future.
Does that mean all things past, present, and future are eternally present before God, or does that mean God is presently present at every point in time past, present, and future?
But Romans 9 is not so much about the salvation or condemnation of individuals, but more about God's using whoever He pleases in bringing salvation to the world. The clay is a metaphor for people that God uses as He pleases having nothing to do with whether or not He saves them. God used Pharoah. God used Jacob. God used Esau. That God used all of them has nothing to do with whether or not He saved them. The molding of the clay is not about saving or condemning. It is about using them for whatever purpose He has.No. What it does say is God predestined "us" to adoption as sons (and daughters
Having already answered those inquiries, I'd like to note the divide between monergists and synergists is not that God chose some. Everyone (except the universalist) looks around at the world as a whole and readily acknowledges some are saved and some are not. That's not a point in dispute. What is in dispute is why God chose some in him before the foundation of the world and predestined us for adoption. The monergist says it is God's will because that is what the text explicitly stipulates (mono = one or single; ergon = work). The monergists says it is due only God's will because that is all the text explicitly stipulates. The cause is stated, and the stated cause is singular. So too is the purpose (His self-glorification, the self-glorification of His grace). The synergist does not dispute the matter is God's will. The synergist disputes the "onlyism" of God's will. The synergist says the reason God chose the saints before the foundation of the world and predestined us to adoption is because He knew who would believe. The synergists bring (their interpretation of) other verses from other books into the Ephesians epistle and apply them to the choosing and predestining. There is, in their opinion, at least two wills working together (sun = together; ergon = work) to bring about predestination (as well as all the other aspects of salvation).
Therefore, the synergist is not inclined to say God's choice is not unfair because He has predicated it on the sinner who believes versus the sinner who does not believe. For the synergist it is not God who is unfair but the monergist who is unfair. Monergism makes God unfair, not scripture and not synergism. This distinction is important because when a synergist complains about monergism making God unfair the debate usually become about whether or not God is fair instead of whether or not monergism is fair
And, of course, there is a passage that addresses the matter of fairness, but it does not specify predestination. That explanation is found in Romans 9's exposition of God's mercy. Romans was written before the epistle to the Ephesians, so the original reader of Paul's letter to the Ephesians would likely have already been familiar with Paul's views on God's fairness. Estimates of the timespan between Romans and Ephesians range from three to seven years. That's plenty of time for the information to have circulated, and it likely would have done so given the theological enormity and import of the Romans epistle. If for no other reason it is very likely the Romans information made it back to every community of Jewish converts in the Roman empire all the way to Jerusalem.
The exact same divide I cited above reoccurs when reading the Romans 9 text because the synergist says the clay is pure (or at least has not lost its ability to choose) and was fashioned one way or another based on whether the clay believed (even though clay has no sentience), and it was God's knowledge of who would believe that determined His decisions. I use the word "determined" to highlight the fact synergism is deterministic. It's God whose behavior is being determined by an outside influence, not the other way around. The monergist says the clay is not pure, it has been adulterated by sin. The clay was originally pure but through the disobedience of one man sin corrupted all the clay, and it is from sinful clay that God chose to fashion some for noble purposes. Here again, however, the text itself explicitly stipulates the reason for God's mercy is God's will. On this occasion the text also precludes both human will and human work. Human will and human work is irrelevant to God's choice.
That had been established many years prior to Paul writing to the Ephesians.
I would call it God's omniscience as applied to all timem past present and future. So that even if God is not confined by the physics of His creation, His creation is. God makes that clear when He refers to the fact that He knew all such happenings that would occur in His creation before He even created it.
No: Judas made his own choice, without being forced against his will. God ordained him to be the son of perdition, but that does not involve making his choices for him.
Amen
If the word "more" was left out of that I agree. The passage is specifically about God's mercy relative to Paul's Israelite kinsmen. The examples he gave with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not bloodline Israelites and that informs the reader Paul is not writing strictly and Jews. The clay analogy is a reference to Isaiah 29, 41, 45, and 64, a theme about the Potter and His clay that, in turn, goes all the way back to creation.
Except that salvation is how God uses some people.
....salvifically. The enslavement in Egypt is symbolic of bondage to sin.
....salvifically. Both Isaac and Jacob were sons of the covenant by promise. It was not blood that made either of them covenant participants; it was promise. Isaac is called a monogenes, just as Jesus is later called the same. Both men and not their siblings were the single avenue of the incarnation and the incarnation is all about salvation from sin.
Not salvifically. He hated Esau, even as He blessed Esau with abundant material wealth. Prophetically, soteriologically, Esau was "stripped bare." Used for ignoble purposes, not noble ones. The word used for "honor" in Rom. 9:21 is the word "timen," That word means honor or price., something of extreme cost and value. It is the same word used in Matthew 27:9, the price paid for Judas' betrayal of Jesus. Romans 9:21 could, therefore, be translated as "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for priced purposes, for costly purposes, or purchased purposes and some for common use?" The price paid for the betrayal was a matter of prophetic occurrence.
The whole of scripture says otherwise. The predicate condition of the entire passage is God bringing Paul's Israelite kinsman to Christ!
The predicate condition of the entire passage is God bringing Paul's Israelite kinsman to Christ! John 3:19 explicitly states all those not believing in Jesus' name are already condemned. That means Paul's Israelite kinsman had already been condemned for not believing in Jesus' name. Just a few paragraphs earlier Paul had stated there is no condemnation now for those in Christ. The persistent denial of the soteriological relevance of Romans 9 is misguided.
No, it is about using them for dishonorable or honorable, purchased purposes. No third, fourth, fifth options are reported. There are only two options: honorable or not honorable. It is a simple, direct, explicitly reported dichotomy and neither of them are ever predicated on the will of the creature. The creature's will and the creature's works are both explicitly excluded.
Hmmm..... I though you said it had nothing to do with salvation
.Yes, and He predicated his response on the will and purpose of God and excluded the will and work of humans.
God's omniscience applied to the purchased, those made honorable past, present, and future. I agree.
Yep. One of the physics of His creation is that His will is done. Another physics is that God's mercy does not depend on how a person wills or works. Another physics is that God's choice, His predestination, mercy, and assigning purpose are exclusively due to His will and not the will of the creature, not the will of the timem, the purchased.
Yes, and when it came to His choice, His predestination, His mercy, and His assigning purpose none of it depended on the will or the work of the creature; it is all predicated on His will and purpose alone.
You and all those who insist on inserting the worth alone after he word faith in the phrase, saved by grace through faith. It isn't there.
And in none of those cases is the molding about salvation or condemnation. The molding is in this earthly world not in the heavenly world to come.
Most think, since we never read in scripture that the man Esau actually ever served Jacob, that it is not about the men Jacob and Esau, but rather about then nations that come from Jacob and Esau.
The mercy and hardening are both in relation to His purpose here on earth, not where they eventually end up.
No, it is not. The predicate condition of the entire passage is that God has not unfaithful to His chosen nation when He doesn't save everyone in His chosen nation (Rom 9:6).
"By grace through faith, and that not of yourselves". Better?
So long as you understand it is salvation by grace through faith that is not of yourselves.
Judas had no choice to make if God had already specifically fated him to do it.
Judas certainly did have a choice to make, and he made it. The Bible also says that he was the only apostle who was lost, in order to fulfil scripture. As Bible believers, we need to believe both of these truths.
God did not force him to decide either way. Judas made up his own mind and chose.
