Rom 9: Confirms free will of man

[JIM]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

OK

 

[Arial]

It is true that foreknowledge means that future events are in some sense certain. But the question is, what makes them certain? The foreknowledge itself? No, foreknowledge does not make things happen or make them certain; it only means that they are certain. What makes them certain is the acts themselves as freely chosen by their subjects, as viewed by God from his perspective of eternity. Certainty is not the same as necessity.

That actually makes no sense at all. But let's reign the conversation in, back to the subject at hand, instead of defining foreknowledge to everything under the sun. The definition of foreknowledge is not omniscience. The place foreknow is used relevant to the OP, and why you have spread the "foreknows" net so far and wide in defining that word. topic is Romans 8:29-30 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

There is nothing in verse 29 that even suggests that "foreknew" means that God saw that they would choose him and so he predestined them to be conformed to the image of Christ. The "foreknew" are those in verse 28. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

And these who were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, and those who were predestined to be conformed to that image, he called-----and those he called, he justified.

 

[Arial]

His omniscience is perfect. Foreknowledge absolutely does mean knowledge of the future. That is what it is. What in the world did you think foreknowledge is?

Try finding what God means by it, instead of man. The word used that you are battling against is foreknew. Not foreknowledge. You are arguing against it in a specific place. "Those he foreknew."

The reason God has knowledge of things before they happen, if you insist on corrupting scripture, and God's omniscience, applying your view of foreknowledge to "those he foreknew"; the reason he knows everything all at once can only be because he knew it before he before he planned and purposed it---with was before he ever created it. And that does not violation to the human will. The reason humans foreknow something is because we were told something will happen before it happens. Or because we have seen it before and it follows the same pattern.

That is so, so wrong. He knew that man would sin and prepared His plan of salvation before creation. Does that mean he ordained the sin of man? Obviously not. He is not the author of sin.

If he did not ordain it, then why did he make it possible, or why did he not stop it? The fact that he ordained that man would sin does not make him the author of sin. Now that is a silly argument. He ordained it for his purposes and if you knew what that ultimate purpose was, you would not be judging God as you are. He does tell us what that purpose is. If you would stop looking at redemption as man up to God and instead what it is, God down to man, you might be able to find that purpose. If you stop thinking of man as the center of the universe and instead recognize God for who he is, you might see his purpose and rejoice.

A few synonyms for the word Declare: acknowledge, advocate, affirm, announce,, argue, assert, claim, confirm, disclose, inform, insist, maintain, proclaim, reaffirm, repeat, reveal, stress, tell.....

Why go to a dictionary?

2319 [e]	וַֽחֲדָשׁוֹת֙ wa-ḥă-ḏā-šō-wṯ	and new things	Conj-w | Adj-fp
589 [e]	אֲנִ֣י ’ă-nî	I	Pro-1cs
5046 [e]	מַגִּ֔יד mag-gîḏ,	declare

Definition: To tell, declare, make known, report, announce
Meaning: to front, stand boldly out opposite, to manifest, to announce, to expose, predict, explain, praise

Word Origin: A primitive root

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: - G518: apangellō (to announce, report)

 

[Arial]

44:7 says "....have I not told you from of old and declared it?, I

Interesting you would bring up that verse to prove that God is simply knowing what will happen. If you don't isolate 11 words from the context it says the opposite.

6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.
7 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it.[a]
Let him declare and set it before me,
since I appointed an ancient people.
Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.

Two separate actions entirely.

Not the point.

 

[JIM]

I would have to study the teaching of determinism to know if determinism is what I believe. But no Reformed teaching makes God the author and perfecter of evil. You see it that way but it is you who are wrong in your understanding of (well, a lot of things) and are here teaching a fallacy (falshood). That is a whole other subject so I will leave it at that.

The Reformed teaching does indeed make God the author and perfecter of evil. It is God and only God who can cause the spirit He forms in man to be dead at (or before) birth. The doctrine of Total Depravity derives from the very concept that flesh is inherently evil.

How can anyone know future contingent choices?

Of course, no one can, except God. He knows what choices are before you and he knows which of those choices you will make. That is what foreknowledge is at its core. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows your final choice from the beginning of all choices confronting you. He knows what is in your heart. He knows how you think. He knows what influences you. That is omniscience.

1Jn 3:20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

If man's will is so free some contingent (from thousands of possibilities)event or feeling or emotion, could cause him to change his mind at the last moment. Or when the going got rough. (The parable of the sower.)

None of the final results in the parable of the sower are unknown to God.

You have the will of man in control of the creation and God just a bystander!

Nonsense. Man is indeed in control over some things but certainly not over all creation.

And do you not see that you have God learning things by looking at everything from his transcendency and calling that his attribute of omniscience? It is oxymoronic.

Nothing about God's foreknowledge is about God learning anything. God knows everything. His knowledge is perfect. It is complete.

You have completely misstated the teaching of openess theology, including by calling those involved "conservative theologians".

Some were conservative theologians, unfortunately.

The basic position of Openness Theology is that God can only know the future what He decrees. There is a lot that follows from that fundamental falsehood, but that is the critical line of departure of Openness Theology from biblical theology. And you are positing that very fundamental falsehood.

 

[JIM]

Try finding what God means by it, instead of man. The word used that you are battling against is foreknew. Not foreknowledge. You are arguing against it in a specific place. "Those he foreknew."

God's foreknowledge is what he foreknew and foreknows. I am not arguing against any of that. You are. Those whom he foreknew in Romans 8:29 are, from Romans 8:28, those who love God. It is they who are called according to His purpose. Verses 29 and 30 explain that process.

Those whom he foreknew, i.e., those who love God, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. And those are the ones he called, justified and glorified.

 

[Arial]

God's foreknowledge is what he foreknew and foreknows. I am not arguing against any of that. You are. Those whom he foreknew in Romans 8:29 are, from Romans 8:28, those who love God. It is they who are called according to His purpose. Verses 29 and 30 explain that process.

You are arguing against my interpretation of "foreknew" in that passage, and I am arguing against yours. If the following Bible statements are true, then those who are called are the ones who love God. Not those who love God first are called.

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

John 10:24-30 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand, My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Eph 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Considering who God is, does it seem a valid conclusion that he only loves and chooses those who first love him? There is no grace in that. You are painting a much darker picture of God than the one you think Reformed theology paints.

 

[JIM]

You are arguing against my interpretation of "foreknew" in that passage, and I am arguing against yours. If the following Bible statements are true, then those who are called are the ones who love God. Not those who love God first are called.

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

That was spoken to and about the twelve. It was not about you.

1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

John 10:24-30 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand, My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Eph 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Considering who God is, does it seem a valid conclusion that he only loves and chooses those who first love him? There is no grace in that. You are painting a much darker picture of God than the one you think Reformed theology paints.

I said nothing about loving Him first. And I am not the one who says that God loved only a few. That is classic Reformed Theology and it is wrong. (John 3:16). He chose us in accordance with his foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:1-2). Same as in Romans 8.

 

[Arial]

That was spoken to and about the twelve. It was not about you.

Put it together with the full counsel of God on the same subject and then say that. Put it together with the Eph 1 passage I gave you and you ignored completely in your response, and then say that.

I said nothing about loving Him first.

Those whom he foreknew, i.e., those who love God, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. And those are the ones he called, justified and glorified.

The statement that we love God first is not made there, but from past posts you have made it is apparent that is how you are using the passage and your explanation. That is evident when you say we choose Christ and then God regenerates us. One does not choose to love. If God fore knew who would love him and then chose them because they would, and then predestined them to be conformed to Christ's image, the reason he chose them was because they were going to choose to love him. Those he foreknew simply means before the foundation of the world they were in Him because he chose them to be, and these he predestined to come to Christ, therefore he called them, and they heard his voice and followed him. John 10 which you quoted and also did not address. You simply followed your MO and quoted a different verse, using it in a way that contradicts what Jesus said before verse 16. That is not how to mine the meaning from Scripture.

Fore knowledge when referring to God is not what God knows people will do (though he does know that also) but it is what he is going to do.

And I am not the one who says that God loved only a few. That is classic Reformed Theology and it is wrong.

It is Reformed theology but the fact that you disagree with it does not make it wrong. But it is also your theology. You too say God only loved (a covenant love is in mind here as we are talking about a covenant---the new covenant---which is redemptive love and covenant relationship)a few and only those who by their own "free will" choose him first. After they choose him, then he elects them. That is not grace, even though scripture says we are only ever saved by grace, and only through faith; it is quid quo pro with man taking the first step.

 

[JIM]

The statement that we love God first is not made there, but from past posts you have made it is apparent that is how you are using the passage and your explanation.

I didn't say that. I didn't mean that. It is apparent that you do not read and comprehend most of what I post.

 

[Ghada]

The OP for this topic is Rom 9: Confirms free will of man. Since if true, it absolutely trashes the entire concept of TULIP. So why don't your start with that and prove it wrong? Show why you think Romans 9 doesn't confirm free will of man. @Ghada produced four entries to establish that thesis. Show why it is wrong. Then perhaps you could move on to show why you think nothing in the Bible confirms the free will of man. How about that?

I enjoy your manner of argument. You are stating a simple rule of debate, that very few people adhere to. Most people see something they disagree with, and just go on to teach what they believe instead. It does nothing to disprove the opposing argument, because there is no attempt to address it, much less show any error in it.

I always address the specifics of another's argument. If we can't show there is any misinterpretation of the Scriptures given, then we must agree with it.

 

[Ghada]

{edit}
“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

So then.​

These inspired words, so then, create a summarizing phrase drawing a conclusion (Ro 8:8; 14:12). The conclusion being drawn regards the purpose of God according to election found in 9:6-15. What we would expect the conclusion to be from God’s absolute dominion is the conclusion. There is no leap of logic here at all; Paul had stated and illustrated election, and now he proved it. Based on the fact of Israel (9:6b), illustration in two families (9:7-13), inspired narrative (9:11), and scriptural defense of the truth (9:14-15), the conclusion is obvious, profound, and final.

It is not of him that willeth.​

What is “it”? What conclusion does the context lead to? The mercy of God in the election of men.

The main lesson in the preceding context was God’s purpose in election, choosing Jacob (9:11). The contextual lesson that follows is God’s purpose to reject and harden Pharaoh (9:17-18). This verse (9:16) ascribes the issue to God’s mercy – His mercy to elect one over another.

God’s mercy in salvation, as in regeneration for example, excludes man’s will (John 1:13; 3:8).

Therefore, we conclude that the gift of eternal life is according to God’s will and not man’s will.

Nor of him that runneth.​

As in the previous clause, the issue at stake is God’s purpose to show mercy in the election of men. God’s mercy in salvation, as in regeneration for example, excludes man’s works for it (Titus 3:5). When illustrating God’s electing mercy, Paul denied any good or evil actions by the twins (9:11). Therefore, we conclude that the gift of eternal life is according to God’s will and not man’s actions.

But of God that sheweth mercy.​

As seen earlier in the chapter, the context dictates that salvation, not national favors, is by mercy. The personal aspect of God’s choices among men is further confirmed by example of Pharaoh next. Therefore, we conclude eternal life is an unconditional gift by the will of God through Jesus Christ, man's will does not have any part in salvation from sin and condemnation.

A nice teaching on God's determined will being accomplished on earth, whether man opposes Him or not. The same for His determined will accomplished in heaven, whether angels oppose Him or not.

On earth we all have freewill to serve or oppose God's purposes, but He will accomplish them. Whether His good will is accomplished in our own lives, depends on us choosing to believe Him and do so by His grace.

The determinant will of God shall be accomplished in heaven, on this earth, and in the new earth. God does not determine who will serve or oppose Him. He only judges us as good servants or wicked enemies by our works.

Therefore, we conclude that the gift of eternal life is according to God’s will and not man’s will.

​

Unless I have missed something, this appears to be the only effort to address any of my arguments for freewill. If so, then the obvious response is that having freewill by creation, is not having the power of will to choose to save ourselves from our own lust and sin.

Jhn 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

If you want to address any specifics of my argument, I'd be glad to see it. Perhaps you can address the argument that Rom 9:19 confirms our freewill to resist God, rather than confirming no man can resist Him. Which of course has been manifestly false since Adam first resisted God in the garden to disobey Him. Which act of rebellion was preceeded in heaven by the first creature to ever resist God's will:

Isa 14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Otherwise, your teaching on God's determined will and election being done in heaven and on earth, whether any creature resists Him or not, is good.

 

[Ghada]

Like you are doing with Romans 9?

Show any Scripture that plainly opposes any part of my arguments, and I'll be glad to correct it.

Otherwise, no, not at all like I am doing with Rom 9.

Just the opposite of God's testimony as to the doctrine of election of grace.

Once again. Your reproofs are meaningless, without showing how any part of the argument does so.

Romans 9:11​

“(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth”

For the children being not yet born.​

Parenthetical insertions like this one may be left out initially to follow the main line of reasoning; but now we may deal with this wonderful explanation given by Paul of the nature of God’s choice. Rather than short quotations from the O.T., Paul gave an inspired explanation of personal election. Paul did not deal with nations or peoples, regardless of what Moses (Gen 25:19-23) or Malachi (Mal 1:1-5) were dealing with, for he specifically and clearly identified two definite children here. He argued for an election within Israel of children of God and vessels of mercy (Ro 9:6b,8,22-24).

Neither having done any good or evil.​

God’s elective choice was before good or bad works – thus it is clearly unconditional election.

Both boys were guilty of Adam’s sin and inheriting his fallen nature, but that is ignored here for their own sins: Paul’s argument is to prove that God’s elective purpose is unconditionally based on His own will (Rom 9:15-16) ~ and that before birth, before they had a chance to do good, or evil.

That the purpose of God.​

Election is according to God’s purpose, as are all His acts (Ac 15:18; Ro 8:28; Ep 1:11; 2nd Tim 1:9). The LORD made all things for Himself, and get this, even the wicked for the day of evil (Pr 16:4).

According to election.​

Election is a choice, the meaning of the word ~ God’s purpose included the election of one twin and rejection of the other.

What election? To be a vessel of mercy.

Might stand.​

There is no way around this text in its plain and extreme description of God’s sovereign will. There is no person or power in heaven, earth, or hell that can hinder God’s sovereign choices. It is the zeal of the Lord of hosts that will perform all His purposes for every individual person. The basis of everything that happens – those events that stand – are by God’s choice and purpose.

Not of works.​

God’s election, or choice, is not because of man’s works, but by His grace (Rom 11:6; 2nd Tim 1:9). God’s elective choice was before good or bad works – thus it is clearly unconditional election. God does not elect those who choose Him and obedience, or they elect God rather than He them!

But of him that calleth.​

The whole matter of individual and personal salvation as the children of God depends and turns on the sovereign will of the one and only sovereign God – the Potter with full power over the clay. There is no other will or effort involved in His compassion and mercy, as stated (Romans 9:15-16).

Once again. A good proof that God's will be done on earth, as it is in heaven, whether any creature in heaven or on earth resists and opposes His good will and election by grace.

God's determinant will be done by Him in the end, is not by God determining who will conform or oppose Him at the beginning.

The predetermined will of God is that all men be conformed to His Son's image, it is not God predetermining by creation who will conform or refuses to.

 

[Ghada]

"By context of all Scripture together"~will show your corruption of them to support your own doctrine. You show you biased spirit against God's word, by saying what you did which is just the opposite of what they (scriptures) are saying. And, we will add, you vainly try to bring in Rebecca's prayer as to seemly support your teaching, when in fact it exposes your lies. God's election was not after, or certain not because of Rebecca's prayer, but Rebecca's inquiring was due to the struggle going on in her womb~she desired God to tell her why was it thus happening.

The argument against predeterminism, is that no election is made by God before or at creation and conception, but the earliest record of election is of a babe in the womb.

Debating whether God made the election before or after Rebecca's prayer, only proves the point the election is was made post-conception.

But, nonetheless, in since God's election is made known in Scripture after her prayer, then saying it was before, is to change the Scriptural timeline for one's own doctrinal purposes.

Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

The LORD told her why it was happening in no uncertain words. Listen to Paul:

Romans 9:12~“It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.”​

Which Paul intrepreted to mean:

Romans 9:13​

“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

As it is written.​

Paul identified the basis, origin, or source of God’s choice of Jacob over his older twin brother. This quotation is taken from Malachi 1:1-5, where nations are considered, but the cause is the key. No doubt the issue of Malachi’s words are a rebuke for Israel not appreciating national favor. However, the basis or source of this national preference was God’s personal election of men. We do not interpret O.T. quotations in the N.T. by their O.T. context, but rather by their N.T. application, where the inspired writer gives us the more spiritual and relevant interpretation.

Jacob have I loved.​

God spoke in Malachi 1:1-5, and this is a very personal statement, like God to Pharaoh (Rom 9:17). This fact is far more staggering and astonishing than hatred of Esau, for how could He love Jacob?

But Esau have I hated.​

Here we introduce the hatred of God, which is even less known and less popular than reprobation. Most reject God’s hatred for Esau or for human rebels due to their perverse, self-loving hearts. Most reject God’s hatred for Esau or for human rebels due to their gross ignorance of scripture. While many are shocked and angered by God hating anyone, we are amazed He loved anyone.

God’s hatred of sinners is an expressly declared and revealed fact about God found in the Bible.

The feminine concept that God hates the sin but loves the sinner is not found in the Bible at all. The Bible declares that God hates sinners (Psalm 5:4-6; 11:4-7; Prov 6:16-19), but these verses are ignored, glossed over, or rejected by those who think John 3:16 is the extent of revelation. God is holy, and He must hate sin and sinners, no matter how good and loving – this is an easy concept (Hab 1:13; Ps 22:1-3; 34:16; Prov 3:32; 11:20; 16:5; 17:15; Isaiah 6:1-5; Rev 21:27); the only way He can love sinners is to choose them in Christ Jesus, which exalts our salvation.

God can and does love only holy objects, so sinners must be in Christ Jesus to be holy and without blame, where He chose them before the foundation of the world (Hab 1:13; Eph 1:4).

​

Once again, this is only teaching on other matters. If you want to do so, that's fine, but it has nothing to do the original arguments of Rom 9 confirming man's freewill to resist God by rebellion, or to conform to His image by grace.

 

[brightfame52]

No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !​

Jn 6:44

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No man can come here means no man has the ability to come to Christ. That cancels out the myth that man has a freewill,

It also means that no man has the ability to believe on Christ for Salvation. Because Christ equates believing on Him with coming to Him. Jn 6:64-65

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


What about those Jesus says to them Jn 5:40

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Thats answered in Jn 6:44 they simply will not come because they cannot come unless the Power of God draws them and makes them willing

Ps 110:3

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

If and when one comes to believe on Christ willingly, the credit goes to Gods Power !

 

[Eleanor]

A nice teaching on God's determined will being accomplished on earth, whether man opposes Him or not. The same for His determined will accomplished in heaven, whether angels oppose Him or not.

On earth we all have freewill to serve or oppose God's purposes,

I'm not free to choose to be sinless.

but He will accomplish them. Whether His good will is accomplished in our own lives, depends on us choosing to believe Him and do so by His grace.

The determinant will of God shall be accomplished in heaven, on this earth, and in the new earth. God does not determine who will serve or oppose Him. He only judges us as good servants or wicked enemies by our works.




Unless I have missed something, this appears to be the only effort to address any of my arguments for freewill. If so, then the obvious response is that having freewill by creation, is not having the power of will to choose to save ourselves from our own lust and sin.

Jhn 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

If you want to address any specifics of my argument, I'd be glad to see it. Perhaps you can address the argument that Rom 9:19 confirms our freewill to resist God, rather than confirming no man can resist Him. Which of course has been manifestly false since Adam first resisted God in the garden to disobey Him. Which act of rebellion was preceeded in heaven by the first creature to ever resist God's will:

Isa 14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Otherwise, your teaching on God's determined will and election being done in heaven and on earth, whether any creature resists Him or not, is good.

 

[Ghada]

Consider Romans 9:23~"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

Since the examples of election in Rom 9, as in all Scriptures, is only after creation in the womb, whether in the womb or later in life, then they determine the reading to be: God in the womb afore prepares for vessels, that become fit for destruction or mercy.

God does not prepare anything before creating it, else creatures are created before their own creation.

God prepares for every new babe He creates in the womb, to lighten them and to call them to His glory in Christ Jesus. Some choose to resist His calling and election from a hardened heart, others choose to repent and conform with a whole heart.

And of course, we see this reading is confirmed in context of Scripture:

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Only after becoming vessels of wrath, does God longsuffer them. He does not begin suffering anyone by creating them that way. God does not suffer by creating, but always takes pleasure in creating the same yesterday, today, and forever:

Rev 4:11Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

​

This is an eternal purpose that God had ~ afore prepared ~ not a result of man’s actions in time. Salvation, like reprobation in 9:22, is based on God’s determinate counsel before time.

A false rejection of God's judgment by our works, as well as a false accusation against God, that He does not create all things with pleasure.

Jer 7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

The Scripture proves that God never purposes nor creates anything for the evil, nor with knowledge of evil. Such evil things done after creating all things good, never came into His mind, until the evil is done.

1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

The God that is Creator and love never precontemplates, nor predetermines any evil for, nor by His creatures. Only an evil father thinks of evil with his newborn babe. Only the jealous newlywed contemplates adultery to come in the marriage.

God pre-believing, determining, and planning for evil of His creatures, is accusing God of not having only the good in mind, but has evil surmising in His own heart in creation. Just like King Saul unjustly thinking evil of David.

1 Tim 6:3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

The record of Scripture is clear: All things were created good and were good in the beginning. And it never entered into God's mind that Lucifer nor Adam would betray Him, unto the evil deed was done:

Eze 28:15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Gen 3:9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

The plan and promise of salvation were before the world began (Eph 1:4; II Tim 1:9; Titus 1:2).

Traditional false reading of Scripture.

God had nothing in His own mind about saving man from sin at creation, because God never had it in His mind, that man would sin.

As Jim excellently points out, God creates all things by His pleasure and grace, not with any vengeance in mind.

Rev 13:8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The determined will and purpose of the Word to come in the flesh and die for our sins, was not until after the foundation of the world, not before nor during.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Once again, the timeline in Scripture where God's purpose of redcemption is first revealed, is only after the transgression and unrepentance of the man and woman.

One of the sloppy elements of false tradition is not taking God's timeline of Scripture at face value, and instead imputes Him with an intent before He first speaks of His own determined will.

Some men, from the one lump of humanity, are fitted for damnation or prepared for glory!

Exactly. All men and women are equally created good in the image of God, and all men and women have made ourselves sinners, by sinning against the glory we are created with. But while some repent to be fitted by grace for glory, others repent not and fit themselves with their own hands for destruction.

1Ki 6:35 And he carved thereon cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered them with gold fitted upon the carved work.

Pro 22:18For it is a pleasant thing if thou keep them within thee; they shall withal be fitted in thy lips.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

In Scripture, something fitted for something, is when already in the world. As when election is when already created in the womb.

Only the predeterminist accusing God of seeing fit to create evil creatures, would misread the word out of context with the rest of Scripture.

And then by predetermist error, many accuse God of fault by judging us by works, because as the predeterminist would demand of God, Who hath resisted His will?

Well, Lucifer first of all in heaven, along with many other angels that sinned likewise. And then Adam on earth, along with all other men and women created in good in His image, but then resisted His good will to our own hurt by our own hands.

Isa 17:8 And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves, or the images.

1Th 4:4That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

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.

We fit our own vessels to honor or dishonor by conforming to God's good will, or resiting Him to our own destruction.

 

[Arial]

Exactly. Scripture is corrupted when read with unclean eyes of false tradition, doctrine, and prophecy.


Well done! Context is everything, and therefore the election according to God's will is not necessarily about when, but who.

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 9 includes the election of one babe in the womb, not so much to emphasize when God can elect, but that His election is not bound by fleshly matters such as circumision toward a national people.

It's the same manner of imputed righteousness by the faith of Abraham, before being circumcised. Even as a babe was chosen without being born into the children of Israel, so were Gentiles such as Rahab and Ruth chosen without being born an Israelite.


Well done again. In the flesh they were chosen to bring forth Christ. What we see is the choosing of Jacob's natural seed of Christ to come, which was for all the children of Israel. However, the election of faith was only for them that walked in the steps of Abraham.

Rom 9:6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

After Christ is come in the flesh, their election by flesh was fulfilled. And with His death, burial, and resurrection there is no more election on earth by flesh, but only by faith.

Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Rom 2:25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Jesus prophesied this change to come, where election is now only by faith, for which cause many Jews trusting in their flesh departed from Him, and eventually had Him killed.

Jhn 6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Jhn 11:48If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.



Perfect. It once again shows the main purpose of Romans 9 is not about when God elects, but how He does so without respect to the flesh.



True, and not true. Abraham was not just chosen to bring forth Christ by his natural seed. He was also chosen as the father of faith, that is accomplished for all people and nations believing on Jesus Christ raised from the dead.

What we have in Scripture is a time when the elect of God were twofold: All the children of the flesh elected to recieve the covenant of circumcision and the law, and the fewer children of Abraham elect by faith.

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

With their rejection of Christ, the old covenant election by flesh was abolished with His body on the cross, so that by His resurrection only the election of faith remains.

2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.



True again. In fact, by rejecting Him, many new gentile converts believed they could not be saved, but Romans 11 rebukes it. Afterall, all the apostles were Jews after the flesh, and any Jew repenting of His death can be grafted again by faith into the Israel of God on earth.


Exactly again. God can use any creature for His purpose, whether the creature conforms or opposes. He can even use a dumb ass if necessary to stop a mad prophet seeking to oppose His people.


While I agree with your distinction between chosen for bodily use, and spiritual chosen by faith. I disagree Rom 9 does not apply to both in usefulness bodily and justification of the soul.

1Th 4:4That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

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.

Once again, we have two manners of election, or usefulness, as you put it. Not between Jew and Gentile, but still between usefulness to God as a physical service to His purposes, and justification by God as a faithful servant.

Your distinction is a great one, because it clears up other places of Scripture, that appear to justify the hearthn as servants of God.

Cyrus was chosen and called a servant, but he was not the elect of God by faith of Abraham. This makes perfect sense with rulers today, where Paul says they are ordained by God, without necessarily being faithful ministers of Jesus Christ.



Excellent. I'll have to quote you on this one to in future.

No one is chosen to be faithful, and only the faithful are chosen to be ministers of the faith.

Any man can be chosen by God for a physical service, but only by faith toward God is any man a chosen servant of God.

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Usefulness of the flesh does not necessitate usefulness of the spirit. Pharoah proved he was most useful to God's glory, with no use at all spiritually.

It is expected that those teaching complementary heresies would agree with one another, and say they are the ones that correctly interpret the Bible. Not unlike the Pope taking that position also.

 

[Red Baker]

Exactly. Scripture is corrupted when read with unclean eyes of false tradition, doctrine, and prophecy.

When anyone rejects God's testimony in favor of their own personal agenda that they have come to accept, and embraced, as truth, mostly through a lack of a commitment to the the truth as taught in the scriptures. Generally, it is a lack of truly believing that every word in the bible is truly the very words God given to holy men of God, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost~and from there God preserving his word to us by his power just as it was given to those men chosen of God.

Well done! Context is everything, and therefore the election according to God's will is not necessarily about when, but who.

I for one, do believe in context, for it will always drive the interpretation for any serious student of the scriptures. We do not even attempt to change the context in anyway, by any means, to make it fit our theology, we change our understanding to agree with the context of what is being said to us by the voices of the prophets of old.

Well done! Context is everything, and therefore the election according to God's will is not necessarily about when, but who.

Why do you not heed to your own words, it is you who over and over again labors to make unconditional election about when, not who.

And that right is exercised only after being created, not before.

Actually, unconditional election by grace addresses both when and who ~ 2nd Timothy 1:9; Romans 9:24, etc.

Well done again. In the flesh they were chosen to bring forth Christ. What we see is the choosing of Jacob's natural seed of Christ to come, which was for all the children of Israel. However, the election of faith was only for them that walked in the steps of Abraham.

There is no such doctrine as what you call....."the election of faith"~of course, you must create such doctrine as the election of faith, to support your work gospel. Faith is a work performed by a regenerate child of God, thereby a work on their part, and fruit/work that can be increased and grow, yet never perfect as long as we live in the flesh. Faith is the fruit of the indwelling Spirit of God performed by the new man, not the old man/flesh.

Romans 11:5​

“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”

Salvation from sin and condemnation is solely by grace and according to its definition given by the Holy Ghost which we just read. Why even question this truth? Only because men who do so, are not God's sheep, they cannot hear the voices of the prophets/apostles and the Holy Spirit speaking through them.

After Christ is come in the flesh, their election by flesh was fulfilled. And with His death, burial, and resurrection there is no more election on earth by flesh, but only by faith.

Our faith, which is so imperfect is not the means of one's election legally speaking, impossible for it to be so~for one to preach that doctrine, that person is basically saying Christ died in vain.

Galatians 2:21​

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, (or any work on our part, including faith...RB) then Christ is dead in vain.”

God's righteousness is freely given to the elect by Jesus being their surety (a doctrine we truly need to enlarge on) living in the flesh in perfect obedience to God's law as the head of the elect members of his body chosen and sent into the world by God to be that spotless lamb of God for them.

Jesus prophesied this change to come, where election is now only by faith,

So wrong! That within itself is not election if it is by a work on man's part, then the choosing would be by man and not by God. This is going against Jesus' doctrine that he taught.

John 15:16~“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”​

The first part of this verse has reference to election of grace. Christ removed the thoughts that all men have by nature thinking they were the ones who chose to follow Christ, when the truth is he chose them and without him choosing us, we would have never chose him, which is so plain from many scriptures. Then he also told them that ordained them go forth and bring forth fruits and that their fruits should remain. "And" shows two different thoughts altogether, not one contiguously thought as some labor to make it to be.

No one is chosen to be faithful, and only the faithful are chosen to be ministers of the faith.

So wrong. What does scriptures like this one mean to you?

Ephesians 1:4​

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:”

The “in Christ” relationship on which all spiritual blessings depend is our election in Him, as can be clearly seen by the connection of this verse to the preceding verse. All spiritual blessings of the previous verse are in Christ. How do sinners get into Christ? The Roman Catholic Church would say we must be baptized into it in order to be in Him. Jim and Alexander Campbell’s so-called Church of Christ would say the same thing (Gal 3:27).

But the true gospel of Jesus Christ declares right here that it is based on election in Christ. Salvation is by God’s purpose and grace given in Christ before the world (II Tim 1:9). God chose Paul and the Ephesian saints and us in Jesus Christ – this is election defined.

The great determining factor in salvation and the spiritual riches of Christ is God’s choice.

"According as": Consistently as, exactly or just as, in a manner corresponding to the way in which …” If you choose God or not has only practical benefits or consequences, not eternal life. It is the sovereign will of the great God that determines salvation (Romans 9:10-24). He did not choose by foreknowledge (in the sense in which many understand foreknowledge) those who had chosen to be in Christ, for (a) this contradicts Psalm 14:1-3 and Romans 3:9-18 and (b) it would make your choice supreme. God’s eternal choice was to place and view the elect in Jesus Christ legally and covenantly.

The choice was made before the foundation of the world – before the act of creation. Here are cross-references for this ancient decree in the mind of God (Matt 25:34; Acts 15:18; Eph 3:11; 2nd Tim 1:9; Titus 1:2; Ist Pet 1:20; Rev 13:8; 17:8). In this eternal sense, they were already viewed as adopted, justified, reconciled, etc., etc.

Chosen in Jesus Christ, God views His elect as holy, without blame, and objects of His love. By grace and election, we are seen as sanctified and spotless children that He fully loves. This is not election so that we should live practical lives of holiness and love to God (though this is true), but He rather chose us in order to view us as holy objects of love. The issue here is our legal position and standing in Jesus Christ – clothed in His holiness! God cannot love sin or sinners, so He chose us in Christ where He could love us (1:6)! Romans 5:8 exalts God’s love for us by Christ dying for sinners: but He did not love us as sinners: He loved us as chosen in Christ, Who died for us when still sinners!