Free Will

[civic]

Bro, you won't believe this, but I was down in my office, and I saw this book by Martyn Lloyd-Jones on my shelf I never saw before. It is on Ephesians 2. This just reminded me of that.

It was like a gift that came out of nowhere. I'm going to see what he says on all this when I take some time.

I have these hardbound commentaries

 

[civic]

I try to put pics on here and it always tells me they are too big.

You can edit the size prior to uploading them where it gives you the option in the lower part of the screen that say actual size. Click on that and change it to medium

 

[brightfame52]

Did you read my post? What does it say? Was that wrath like it was with the lost? "Like" the rest? Is that what it says? Since it is like that of the rest of mankind, that is the answer.

Yeah I read it. You said the verse said they were under wrath as well, however thats not accurate.

 

[civic]

Through the system here?

Yes I added more to my previous post. Let me know if you can’t figure it out I can screenshot it

 

[civic]

Cool. I wanted to post some pics of our chicken coop in the hobbies forum.

I had one during the pandemic and those noisy chickens drove me nuts plus they started eating all my veggies and plants

 

[brightfame52]

That's OK, I see you're having trouble following Paul's argument. It is a wrath like that of the rest of mankind, the same for us as for them.

So what is that wrath for the rest of mankind?

You not following Paul, he said nothing about anyone being under Gods wrath. A Nature like the rest of mankind, but thats different.

The elect are reconciled to God while enemies not under Gods wrath.

 

[civic]

You not following Paul, he said nothing about anyone being under Gods wrath. A Nature like the rest of mankind, but thats different.

The elect are reconciled to God while enemies not under Gods wrath.

The nature is in each man. Are you denying original sin that every man is born with and under its condemnation ?

 

[Eleanor]

No its not just fine, it actually ignores the fact that Christ has appeased Gods wrath for the elect that He died for.

Even when Gods elect are being enemies, they have been reconciled to God by His Sons Death Rom 5:10
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

So explain how people Christ died for are reconciled to God while enemies, unbelievers, and be under Gods wrath at the same time ?

None of which necessarily excludes an application of Christ's atonement by faith.

Why would you "reconcile" those who were not "enemies" before you reconciled them?

They are born enemies of God by nature (Eph 2:3), and remain so until the atonement is applied to them by faith.

 

[David1701]

I'd say it all comes down to understanding God's wrath. We were under it like the rest of mankind by our very nature, in the same way as the rest of mankind. That's what the text says and means. But it is OK if you disagree with me.

Being the son of something does not mean that you are necessarily under that something. Judas Iscariot was always the son of perdition (i.e. his character deserved that), but he did not actually go to perdition until he died. In a similar way, we deserved God's wrath and condemnation just as much as anyone else; however, Jesus propitiated the Father for us, on the cross, so how could we have been under wrath for which the Father had been propitiated? The same goes for condemnation.

The thing is that, if you are correct, then it means that the Father is not actually propitiated (i.e. his wrath is not turned away from us), until we believe, which would also mean that the Cross did not accomplish propitiation, but only the potential to be propitiated, which is not what the Bible says.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, because this is something that I've wrestled with myself, and I know that it's tricky to piece together; and I do think that it's a worthwhile discussion.

Edited to add...

Also, the elect are not treated the same as the non-elect, even before we're saved (e.g. they are not guaranteed to hear the gospel, nor are they necessarily kept alive until they have). The Bible also says (in Jeremiah) that God has loved us with an everlasting love, which is not true of the non-elect.

 

[civic]

Well, I am trying to add more pics to that thread i just made, but can't figure it out. I click on the pic to add, then it starts uploading it and says it is too big, and I cant find the button or option "medium" anywhere.

Ok I’ll upload one and screenshot it . See the drop down below on the pics ?

 

[David1701]

We were born spiritually dead, guilty of the sin of Adam imputed to us (Ro 5:18) and under condemnation, just like everyone else.
We were outside of Christ just like everyone else until our sovereign rebirth by the will of God.

Yes, that's true "in Adam", but we were also "in Christ", having been chosen in him, before the foundation of the world.

I have a nascent idea about this, but I'm too tired just now, so I'll sleep on it.

 

[Carbon]

I have these hardbound commentaries

View attachment 143

Ill take the one on Ephesians. Ready for my address?

 

[Eleanor]

Being the son of something does not mean that you are necessarily under that something. Judas Iscariot was always the son of perdition (i.e. his character deserved that), but he did not actually go to perdition until he died. In a similar way, we deserved God's wrath and condemnation just as much as anyone else; however, Jesus propitiated the Father for us, on the cross, so how could we have been under wrath for which the Father had been propitiated?

The blood has to be applied, not just shed.
In the OT sacrificial system, it was not enough for the blood of the animal to be shed, it had to be applied for cleansing from sin.

Jesus' blood has to be applied, by faith, before the Father is propitiated for our sin.
Until then, we are under the condemnation in which we were born; i.e., by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).

 

[fastfredy0]

Wrong, the elect were under God's wrath in OT Scripture, it is no different in the NT.

I'm with @David1701. I also do not think the elect are ever under the WRATH of God.

Possible example.
Rom 9:11 and though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything either good or bad, so that God’s purpose [His choice, His election] would stand, not because of works [done by either child], but because of [the plan of] Him who calls them, 12 it was said to her, “The older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob).” 13 As it is written and forever remains written, “Jacob I loved (chose, protected, blessed), but Esau I hated (held in disregard compared to Jacob).”

Premise 1: God is immutable
Premise 2: There is nothing we can do to cause God to change his mind (Job 35:7-8; Romans 11:34-35; Isaiah 40:13)
Conclusion: God never hates (has wrath towards) the elect

 

[fastfredy0]

First, wrath isn't hate, you're wrong there.

I disagree. Possibly there is a subtle difference.

He had wrath on elect Israel in the OT. Psalms and other passages bear this out. You're wrong there too.

I was talking about the elect as in you and I.. not Israel. So, you are wrong there too.

 

[Eleanor]

I'm with @David1701. I also do not think the elect are ever under the WRATH of God.

Possible example.
Rom 9:11 and though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything either good or bad, so that God’s purpose [His choice, His election] would stand, not because of works [done by either child], but because of [the plan of] Him who calls them, 12 it was said to her, “The older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob).” 13 As it is written and forever remains written, “Jacob I loved (chose, protected, blessed), but Esau I hated (held in disregard compared to Jacob).”

Premise 1: God is immutable
Premise 2: There is nothing we can do to cause God to change his mind (Job 35:7-8; Romans 11:34-35; Isaiah 40:13)
Conclusion: God never hates (has wrath towards) the elect

"Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men " (Ro 5:18)?

 

[fastfredy0]

"Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men " (Ro 5:18)?

Sorry, I am not sure what your point is relevant to my point that God never has wrath/hatred for the elect (elect = those going heaven)
I agree that the trespass of Adam condemned ALL men. The rest of the verse says: " even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to ALL men."

 

[Eleanor]

Sorry, I am not sure what your point is relevant to my point that God never has wrath/hatred for the elect (elect = those going heaven)
I agree that the trespass of Adam condemned ALL men. The rest of the verse says: " even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to ALL men."

As all those born of the first Adam are condemned, so also all those born of the second Adam (Christ) are redeemed out of that condemnation.

 

[fastfredy0]

As all those born of the first Adam are condemned, so also all those born of the second Adam (Christ) are redeemed out of that condemnation.

The word ALL is ambiguous. It can mean without exception or without distinction. The rest of the verse shows this to be true.
The entire verse says: 18 So then as through one trespass [Adam’s sin] there resulted condemnation for all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

If you read the verse with ALL meaning without exception then the 2nd ALL would support universalism.

Again, I am not sure why you are bringing up the verse.

... ah, bedtime

 

[brightfame52]

The nature is in each man. Are you denying original sin that every man is born with and under its condemnation ?

No Im not denying original sin, Christ died for that.