Rom 9: Confirms free will of man

[Red Baker]

A problem in any discussion about Romans 9 is that Calvinists infuse into the discussion of God's choices in chapter 9 their own concept of election and reprobation which is essentially all about God's assignment to heaven or hell. But most of Romans 9 is really not about that at all. The theme of the whole chapter is that Paul's brothers, his kinsmen according to the flesh, were God's chosen people. But they were chosen for a purpose here on earth completely independent of their salvatory status. The point here is that God is not obligated to save any of Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh because they were a chosen people. They were chosen for a purpose, not for salvation. That purpose is highlighted in verses 4 and 5. And even though they served that purpose, that does not mean that God is obligation to save them. Paul is declaring that God's using anyone for any purpose whatever, has nothing do to with whether or not they end up being saved. They were elected, chosen, to serve, not to be saved. They were elected for service not for salvation.

Election and reprobation is not a concept developed by Calvinism, for men taught these truths before Calvin was ever born into this world. His work teaching the Christian rellgion in his writings of ~The Institutes of the Christian Religion, put many truth in a written systematic manner easily to be understood by the average believer. A work written when he was only 26 years old, which is to be marvel at.

Jim, the language used by Paul in Romans 9 reveals that your position that you have come to accept is false~please consider:

Romans 9:14~" What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."​

What shall we say then.​

The Apostle anticipated the objection of the carnal mind to his doctrine. Does not loving Jacob and hating Esau before they had done any good or evil, imply that there is injustice in God? This objection clearly proves that the view taken of the preceding passage is correct. For it is this view which suggests the objection. Is it just in God to love one who has done no good, and to hate one who has done no evil? If the assertion respecting loving Jacob and hating Esau admitted of being explained away in the manner that so many do, as you have above, there could be no place for such an objection. And what is the Apostle’s reply? Nothing but a decided rejection of the supposition that God’s treatment of Jacob and Esau implied injustice. By asking the question if there be unrighteousness with God, he strongly denies that in God there is here any injustice; and this denial is sufficient. According to the doctrine which he everywhere inculcates, consistently with that of the whole of Scripture, God is represented as infinitely just, as well as wise, holy, good, and faithful. In the exercise of His sovereignty, therefore, all that God wills to do must be in strict conformity with the perfection of His character. He cannot deny Himself; He cannot act inconsistently with any of His Divine attributes~and he never has!

Is there unrighteousness with God.​

The first and common objection against election is that it makes God unrighteous, bad, evil, hateful, or wicked.

This opinion arises from man’s basic love of himself, fear of punishment, and hatred of God. Furthermore, man's his ideas of fairness, justice, and righteousness are all corrupted by his sin nature.

Men presume what God must be like, but their deceitful hearts are desperately wicked; He warns them to forget their ideas of Him, or He will tear them in pieces (Ps 50:21-23; Job 11:7).

The only intelligent reason this question is posed is due to man’s natural perspective on election. Election does not seem fair at all to a race presuming they are important, valuable, and loved. They can only see themselves with the right to choose, for they demand the right to elect God.

Rather than look at election as unfair, look at election as far better than fair, even great mercy. If God had not an election by grace, then no man, or angels, would have ever secured their own salvation of themselves~impossible.

 

[Red Baker]

You have interjected, erroneously, that the election here is election to salvation. It is simply election to service.

Simply Jim? Then you (or Ghada) prove what you are saying with the context of Romans 9 ~ concerning God's sovereignty in showing mercy to whomsoever he will, and harden others, by leaving them to themselves without any mercy for them, as far as salvation from sin and condemnation. In the meantime, consider:

"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”? Jim, not service! What conclusion does the context lead to? The mercy of God in the election of men to glory.

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, or service as you call it, is by mercy. Again, we conclude eternal life is an unconditional gift by the will of God through Jesus Christ.

 

[JIM]

Election and reprobation is not a concept developed by Calvinism, for men taught these truths before Calvin was ever born into this world. His work teaching the Christian rellgion in his writings of ~The Institutes of the Christian Religion, put many truth in a written systematic manner easily to be understood by the average believer. A work written when he was only 26 years old, which is to be marvel at.

Yeah, a lot of that same false teaching came out of Augustine's Manichaeism. Once the false concept of Total Depravity is accepted then all the other false doctrines such as Calvin's concept of election is mandated.

Jim, the language used by Paul in Romans 9 reveals that your position that you have come to accept is false~please consider:

Actually, the language used by Paul in Romans 9, if properly understood, reveals that my position is spot on.

Romans 9:14~" What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."

What shall we say then.​

The Apostle anticipated the objection of the carnal mind to his doctrine. Does not loving Jacob and hating Esau before they had done any good or evil, imply that there is injustice in God? This objection clearly proves that the view taken of the preceding passage is correct. For it is this view which suggests the objection. Is it just in God to love one who has done no good, and to hate one who has done no evil? If the assertion respecting loving Jacob and hating Esau admitted of being explained away in the manner that so many do, as you have above, there could be no place for such an objection. And what is the Apostle’s reply? Nothing but a decided rejection of the supposition that God’s treatment of Jacob and Esau implied injustice. By asking the question if there be unrighteousness with God, he strongly denies that in God there is here any injustice; and this denial is sufficient. According to the doctrine which he everywhere inculcates, consistently with that of the whole of Scripture, God is represented as infinitely just, as well as wise, holy, good, and faithful. In the exercise of His sovereignty, therefore, all that God wills to do must be in strict conformity with the perfection of His character. He cannot deny Himself; He cannot act inconsistently with any of His Divine attributes~and he never has!

The justice being questioned is by the Jew who thought because he was a Jew and Jews were God's chosen people how could God not save him. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the Calvin concept of election.

Is there unrighteousness with God.​

The first and common objection against election is that it makes God unrighteous, bad, evil, hateful, or wicked.

No, first of all there is really no objection against election. The objection is that the Calvin version of election is wrong.

This opinion arises from man’s basic love of himself, fear of punishment, and hatred of God. Furthermore, man's his ideas of fairness, justice, and righteousness are all corrupted by his sin nature.

No, the opinion regarding the Calvin version of election is that it is unbiblical and wrong.

Men presume what God must be like, but their deceitful hearts are desperately wicked; He warns them to forget their ideas of Him, or He will tear them in pieces (Ps 50:21-23; Job 11:7).

That is more appropriately assigned to the Calvinist.

The only intelligent reason this question is posed is due to man’s natural perspective on election. Election does not seem fair at all to a race presuming they are important, valuable, and loved. They can only see themselves with the right to choose, for they demand the right to elect God.

The only intelligent reason the Calvin version of election is questioned is that it is biblically not true.

Rather than look at election as unfair, look at election as far better than fair, even great mercy. If God had not an election by grace, then no man, or angels, would have ever secured their own salvation of themselves~impossible.

It is not a matter of whether election is unfair; rather it is a matter of the falsehood of the Calvin version of election.

You see, Red, that your entire rebuttal here has made the false assumption that election is as Calvin defines it to be and you believe it to be, and that Romans 9 has anything to do with that when it doesn't. Romans 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Calvin version of election to salvation.

The message in Romans 9 is that God is not obligated to save anyone just because He used them to bring about His intended purpose presenting the gospel message of the messiah, the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.

 

[Red Baker]

Actually, the language used by Paul in Romans 9, if properly understood, reveals that my position is spot on.

Jim, then you take Romans 9 and give us your spot on position. Lay it on me in your own understanding. Let's see if you are following Paul, or not. Forget about Calvin, deal with what Paul wrote as I have so far for the the most part~actually, I very seldom quote Calvin, even though I agree with most of what he has to say on this subject, along with so many others who have written on this subject.

 

[JIM]

Simply Jim? Then you (or Ghada) prove what you are saying with the context of Romans 9 ~ concerning God's sovereignty in showing mercy to whomsoever he will, and harden others, by leaving them to themselves without any mercy for them, as far as salvation from sin and condemnation. In the meantime, consider:

"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”? Jim, not service! What conclusion does the context lead to? The mercy of God in the election of men to glory.

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, or service as you call it, is by mercy. Again, we conclude eternal life is an unconditional gift by the will of God through Jesus Christ.

None of the specific examples that Paul gives in Romans 9 has anything to do with whether any of them were saved or lost; it has only to do with how God used them to bring about his plan to the world. I would point out here that the mention of Abraham is not in the context of using him as was the case of Rebekah, Jacob, Esau, or Pharaoh. Please note that the hardening of Pharaoh was not about saving or condemning Pharoah, it was about the evidence of God's actual being. The same is true with Rebekah, Jacob and Esau, though perhaps not quite so obvious.

 

[JIM]

Jim, then you take Romans 9 and give us your spot on position. Lay it on me in your own understanding. Let's see if you are following Paul, or not. Forget about Calvin, deal with what Paul wrote as I have so far for the the most part~actually, I very seldom quote Calvin, even though I agree with most of what he has to say on this subject, along with so many others who have written on this subject.

Yes, you seldom quote Calvin, but your entire soteriology is chained to him and his false doctrines. And that chain is always front and center in these discussions as it is here.

 

[Arial]

Yeah, a lot of that same false teaching came out of Augustine's Manichaeism. Once the false concept of Total Depravity is accepted then all the other false doctrines such as Calvin's concept of election is mandated.

How do you know it is false teaching? That is an easy thing to say when all you mean is you don't like it and therefore don't believe it. Show us exactly, precisely, what is false about it and why. Not with opinions stated as though your opinions of the doctrine are the doctrine. But with careful exegesis that follows correct bible hermeneutics, just as those you despise did. You have to begin at the foundation. The doctrine of God and Christ and follow with the doctrine of mankind that naturally will flow from the other two.

Actually, the language used by Paul in Romans 9, if properly understood, reveals that my position is spot on.

Another easy thing to say when all you mean is you are always spot on. It does not reveal that you are spot on. It reveals that you fail to take into account what scripture reveals elsewhere about God and mankind in relationship to him, grace, and a whole host of other things. In addition, Orthodox Christianity disagrees with you heartily and that has been done by those who actually do the intense work necessary to ground the position solidly in agreement with the whole of Scripture. In addition to that, very few Christians agree with your position that Christ's crucifixion changed the nature of man and made everyone who is born to be born righteous.

The justice being questioned is by the Jew who thought because he was a Jew and Jews were God's chosen people how could God not save him. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the Calvin concept of election.

Except that God is immutable so when he says I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, that Jacob have I loved and Esau I hated before either had done anything good or bad, it does not only apply to Israel but always and everywhere. If you take note it is always God choosing, whatever and whoever is chosen. There is one King, one Governor, one sovereign, and that is God. He made that abundantly clear to both Egypt and the Hebrews he was bringing out of Egypt.

No, first of all there is really no objection against election. The objection is that the Calvin version of election is wrong.

Do you consider yourself to be wiser, smarter, more diligent in seeking the whole truth of the Bible, more capable, than Calvin? Who, by the way did not do this work alone. There were many. It is just the name that is given to the doctrines.

No, the opinion regarding the Calvin version of election is that it is unbiblical and wrong.

That means nothing until and unless you demonstrate using the proper tools of interpretation and the whole counsel of God rather than personal interpretations of specific scriptures set apart from the full counsel.

That is more appropriately assigned to the Calvinist.

How so? Do you know that or is it just that you prefer a different God than the one you picture Calvinism as presenting? One who is so loving and unjust and out of control he violates his own character in order to not violate the sinners most valued "possession", that cry, "I want to be FREE to do as I please!" Adam was the first to give in to desire, and look, here we all are. A whole church full of "his people" insisting on the same thing.

The only intelligent reason the Calvin version of election is questioned is that it is biblically not true.

Again, easy to say when no attempt is made to show how and why and what is not true. But that is a useless teaching tool.It might work as a manipulative tactic to sway the uninformed and complacent.

It is not a matter of whether election is unfair; rather it is a matter of the falsehood of the Calvin version of election.

You see, Red, that your entire rebuttal here has made the false assumption that election is as Calvin defines it to be and you believe it to be, and that Romans 9 has anything to do with that when it doesn't. Romans 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Calvin version of election to salvation.

The message in Romans 9 is that God is not obligated to save anyone just because He used them to bring about His intended purpose presenting the gospel message of the messiah, the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.

Neither Calvin nor any other arrived at the doctrine of election from Rom 9 alone.

 

[JIM]

How do you know it is false teaching?

How do you know it is not?

 

[Arial]

How do you know it is not?

Because I have done the work that I asked you to do to show that it is false, and that you did not do. You have not even identified what is false about it. Here it is again.

How do you know it is false teaching? That is an easy thing to say when all you mean is you don't like it and therefore don't believe it. Show us exactly, precisely, what is false about it and why. Not with opinions stated as though your opinions of the doctrine are the doctrine. But with careful exegesis that follows correct bible hermeneutics, just as those you despise did. You have to begin at the foundation. The doctrine of God and Christ and follow with the doctrine of mankind that naturally will flow from the other two.

And why do you not deal with the above and the rest of my post?

 

[JIM]

Because I have done the work that I asked you to do to show that it is false, and that you did not do. You have not even identified what is false about it. Here it is again.

Well then, nothing that I say can possibly affect what you think you have from the work you have done. And given that simple fact, why should I bother?

 

[Arial]

Well then, nothing that I say can possibly affect what you think you have from the work you have done. And given that simple fact, why should I bother?

Maybe if you bothered, you could convince me. If you think the teachings are false, you should be able to do that work. You should have already done it before you married yourself to one belief over another. And don't just tell me that you did. Show that you did.

It is a big subject with many specifics, so let's just start with one, using TULIP as our template.

What have you found the Bible teaching that denies that? Remember, one or two scriptures isolated from the whole of scripture is not the way to do it. You have to start with the foundation on which to build. And that will always be God, who he is, what he says, and man's position in relation to him. If you are correct in what you believe, that should be a simple thing to do.

Now, if I find in what you say, things in the scriptures on this same point----God and man's position in relation to him, or any other point---and present a valid, scriptural, case, you must absorb what I say, check what I say, show any verifiable scriptural evidence you have to correct whatever you may think is false.

That could be an interesting and productive exchange. It is what all Christians should be able to do, or at least learn to do, and are instructed to do so by the Apostles themselves. See Timothy and Jude in particular. And it is exactly what the writers of the NT were doing, never slacking or getting complacent in doing so.

 

[JIM]

It is a big subject with many specifics, so let's just start with one, using TULIP as our template.

Why in the world would I start with something so terribly wrong for a template?

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?

 

[Red Baker]

Why in the world would I start with something so terribly wrong for a template?

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?

Jim I have in his OP, and I will now move on to his second post, no problem ~ in the meantime, you can labor to show others your understanding of Romans nine with two or three post, so why not at least attempt to do so? Do you believe your fortress of faith has too many holes in it to defend? You are gifted enough to at least attempt your own thesis. I would not trust Ghada's, he has too many holes in his thesis, the word of God's sharp two edged sword has already exposed many of them.

Btw, I do not defend the Calvinist's TULIP~though I would agree perfectly with the first three, the last two, I cannot.

The Truth​

The truth distinguishes between unconditional and conditional aspects of God’s salvation, dividing between God’s work and our duty.

1. Arminianism in its five points is totally rejected as unscriptural and blasphemous against the intentions and accomplishments of Christ.
   1. Man is neither free nor able to cooperate with God for salvation (John 3:3; 8:43,47; 10:26; Rom 8:7-8 I Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1-3).
   2. God’s foreknowledge in election did not find any conditions met; it was of persons, not actions (Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Rom 8:29).
   3. Jesus Christ’s death accomplished salvation for His elect; it did not merely make it possible (Matt 1:21 Rom 5:10; Hebrews 9:15).
   4. The Holy Spirit’s work in applying salvation through regeneration is effectual and sure (John 3:8; Eph 1:19; Titus 3:5; I Pet 1:2).
   5. The elect cannot be lost nor separated from the purpose of God in salvation (John 6:38-39; Rom 8:28-39; II Timothy 2:16-19).
2. Calvinism may be accepted in its first three points as scriptural and according to the truth of the gospel as preached by Paul.
   1. Man’s nature is totally corrupt since Eden, rendering him without desire or ability to know or please God in any way for salvation.
   2. God’s election of some men to eternal life is based purely on the good pleasure of His will in spite of their foreseen evil rebellion.
   3. Jesus Christ died only for the elect, and He will not lose a single one of those that the Father gave Him to fully and finally redeem.
3. However, Calvinism errs with its point of Irresistable Grace, for they apply it to the gospel and conversion,which is farther than truth.
   1. They apply irresistible grace, or what they name the “effectual call,” to the preaching of the gospel in the case of all the elect.
   2. They believe that all the elect will hear and believe the gospel sometime during their lives and cannot be saved without these things. This is not so.
   3. This is sacramental salvation, for unless the “priest” carries the grace of God’s gospel to the elect, they cannot be saved without it.
   4. They must therefore invent all sorts of alternative theories to cover the salvation of infants, idiots, heathen, the deaf and blind, etc.
   5. Of course, they rarely define what they mean by “saving faith,” or they would make it to loose, or limit the elect to just a very few.
   6. The typical Calvinist, even John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, seldom differentiate clearly between regeneration and conversion.
   7. God’s grace is definitely irresistible when it comes to regeneration, but conversion by the gospel depends on preacher and hearer.
   8. The first of the acts is God’s work in salvation, and the second is the information and news concerning it for the comfort of the elect.
4. However, Calvinism errs with its point of Final Perseverance, for they end up with a fatalist doctrine of men incapable of backsliding.
   1. Persevering is man’s action. If God guarantees man’s perseverance, then he will continue in faith and good works without fail.
   2. This fatalistic doctrine, if logically followed, would render the New Testament epistles and the work of the ministry unnecessary.
   3. If by final perseverance the Calvinist means God will not lose any of His elect, then why not call it preservation like the Bible?
   4. God will preserve His saints so that not one will be lost and all make it safely to heaven, but He has not guaranteed their faithfulness. Consider Lot, and others throughout the scriptures.

Jim: Why in the world would I start with something so terribly wrong for a template?

Jim, you saying this and proving the same are two different animals altogether....prove what you are saying. Yes, it is a lot of work and we both are getting very tired, at least I 'am in this old house I'm living in. Ecclesiastes 12:1-7!

 

[JIM]

Jim I have in his OP, and I will now move on to his second post, no problem ~ in the meantime, you can labor to show others your understanding of Romans nine with two or three post, so why not at least attempt to do so? Do you believe your fortress of faith has too many holes in it to defend? You are gifted enough to at least attempt your own thesis. I would not trust Ghada's, he has too many holes in his thesis, the word of God's sharp two edged sword has already exposed many of them.

Btw, I do not defend the Calvinist's TULIP~though I would agree perfectly with the first three, the last two, I cannot.

The Truth​

The truth distinguishes between unconditional and conditional aspects of God’s salvation, dividing between God’s work and our duty.

1. Arminianism in its five points is totally rejected as unscriptural and blasphemous against the intentions and accomplishments of Christ.
   1. Man is neither free nor able to cooperate with God for salvation (John 3:3; 8:43,47; 10:26; Rom 8:7-8 I Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1-3).
   2. God’s foreknowledge in election did not find any conditions met; it was of persons, not actions (Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Rom 8:29).
   3. Jesus Christ’s death accomplished salvation for His elect; it did not merely make it possible (Matt 1:21 Rom 5:10; Hebrews 9:15).
   4. The Holy Spirit’s work in applying salvation through regeneration is effectual and sure (John 3:8; Eph 1:19; Titus 3:5; I Pet 1:2).
   5. The elect cannot be lost nor separated from the purpose of God in salvation (John 6:38-39; Rom 8:28-39; II Timothy 2:16-19).
2. Calvinism may be accepted in its first three points as scriptural and according to the truth of the gospel as preached by Paul.
   1. Man’s nature is totally corrupt since Eden, rendering him without desire or ability to know or please God in any way for salvation.
   2. God’s election of some men to eternal life is based purely on the good pleasure of His will in spite of their foreseen evil rebellion.
   3. Jesus Christ died only for the elect, and He will not lose a single one of those that the Father gave Him to fully and finally redeem.
3. However, Calvinism errs with its point of Irresistable Grace, for they apply it to the gospel and conversion,which is farther than truth.
   1. They apply irresistible grace, or what they name the “effectual call,” to the preaching of the gospel in the case of all the elect.
   2. They believe that all the elect will hear and believe the gospel sometime during their lives and cannot be saved without these things. This is not so.
   3. This is sacramental salvation, for unless the “priest” carries the grace of God’s gospel to the elect, they cannot be saved without it.
   4. They must therefore invent all sorts of alternative theories to cover the salvation of infants, idiots, heathen, the deaf and blind, etc.
   5. Of course, they rarely define what they mean by “saving faith,” or they would make it to loose, or limit the elect to just a very few.
   6. The typical Calvinist, even John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, seldom differentiate clearly between regeneration and conversion.
   7. God’s grace is definitely irresistible when it comes to regeneration, but conversion by the gospel depends on preacher and hearer.
   8. The first of the acts is God’s work in salvation, and the second is the information and news concerning it for the comfort of the elect.
4. However, Calvinism errs with its point of Final Perseverance, for they end up with a fatalist doctrine of men incapable of backsliding.
   1. Persevering is man’s action. If God guarantees man’s perseverance, then he will continue in faith and good works without fail.
   2. This fatalistic doctrine, if logically followed, would render the New Testament epistles and the work of the ministry unnecessary.
   3. If by final perseverance the Calvinist means God will not lose any of His elect, then why not call it preservation like the Bible?
   4. God will preserve His saints so that not one will be lost and all make it safely to heaven, but He has not guaranteed their faithfulness. Consider Lot, and others throughout the scriptures.

Jim, you saying this and proving the same are two different animals altogether....prove what you are saying. Yes, it is a lot of work and we both are getting very tired, at least I 'am in this old house I'm living in. Ecclesiastes 12:1-7!

Yes, saying something and proving it are indeed two differnet animals alogether. That, of course, is true of virtually everything that you believe and tout as truth as well. I gave you my interpretation, however brief, of the key points in Romans 9. But any of the Calvinist persuasion will simply dismiss it. That is okay. I dismiss the Calvinist view of it. It is not so much that I dismiss it; rather I reject it. It is not as if, and as @Arial seems to believe, I have not spent a good bit of time and thought in arriving at my conclusions.

I might add here, with respect to free will, I am convinced that God's first recorded conversations with men following Adam and Eve's ejection from the Garden provides all that is necessary to support free will. God's interchange with Cain pretty well established that. We could move on from there, but probably not worth the effort and probably not consistent with the topic OP.

 

[Arial]

Why in the world would I start with something so terribly wrong for a template?

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?

Let me explain what is meant when I say to begin with the template of TULIP. Follow along.

I was outlinig a format for discussion in which you, who say TULIP is all wrong, must show using proper Bible hermeneutics and careful exegesis WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT! Begin with the "T". Can you do that or are you just going to give more excuses for not being able to?

Maybe when I have time I will show you why neither Romans 9 or anything else confirms the free will position that insists a sinner's will is willing and free to put himself under the headship of God. That is what Total Depravity is dealing with. It is not about whether man freely goes about choosing this and that. So give what you mean by free will.

But right now, I have to go make the glaze for my cranberry bread for tomorrows feast.

 

[JIM]

Let me explain what is meant when I say to begin with the template of TULIP. Follow along.

I was outlinig a format for discussion in which you, who say TULIP is all wrong, must show using proper Bible hermeneutics and careful exegesis WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT! Begin with the "T". Can you do that or are you just going to give more excuses for not being able to?

No I do not have to show what is wrong with it. You must show using proper Bible hermeneutics and careful exegesis WHAT IS RIGHT WITH IT. If you cannot do that, and you can't, then I have every right to simply reject it as false.

Maybe when I have time I will show you why neither Romans 9 or anything else confirms the free will position that insists a sinner's will is willing and free to put himself under the headship of God. That is what Total Depravity is dealing with.

No, that is not free will. That is not what Total Depravity is dealing with. No one that I know of thinks that he can put himself under the headship of God, whatever that might mean.

It is not about whether man freely goes about choosing this and that. So give what you mean by free will.

Free will, theologically, is the ability to choose to either obey or disobey God and God's law. Without that ability, without free will, there is no such thing as sin.

 

[Red Baker]

But right now, I have to go make the glaze for my cranberry bread for tomorrows feast

Sound good! Loved just about anything that has cranberry in it. Sister, enjoy your family tomorrow, one of the few good things that comes out of Christmas, it does have some bonded time together for loved ones.

 

[JIM]

Jim I have in his OP, and I will now move on to his second post, no problem ~ in the meantime, you can labor to show others your understanding of Romans nine with two or three post, so why not at least attempt to do so? Do you believe your fortress of faith has too many holes in it to defend? You are gifted enough to at least attempt your own thesis. I would not trust Ghada's, he has too many holes in his thesis, the word of God's sharp two edged sword has already exposed many of them.

Btw, I do not defend the Calvinist's TULIP~though I would agree perfectly with the first three, the last two, I cannot.

The Truth​

The truth distinguishes between unconditional and conditional aspects of God’s salvation, dividing between God’s work and our duty.

1. Arminianism in its five points is totally rejected as unscriptural and blasphemous against the intentions and accomplishments of Christ.
   1. Man is neither free nor able to cooperate with God for salvation (John 3:3; 8:43,47; 10:26; Rom 8:7-8 I Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1-3).
   2. God’s foreknowledge in election did not find any conditions met; it was of persons, not actions (Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Rom 8:29).
   3. Jesus Christ’s death accomplished salvation for His elect; it did not merely make it possible (Matt 1:21 Rom 5:10; Hebrews 9:15).
   4. The Holy Spirit’s work in applying salvation through regeneration is effectual and sure (John 3:8; Eph 1:19; Titus 3:5; I Pet 1:2).
   5. The elect cannot be lost nor separated from the purpose of God in salvation (John 6:38-39; Rom 8:28-39; II Timothy 2:16-19).
2. Calvinism may be accepted in its first three points as scriptural and according to the truth of the gospel as preached by Paul.
   1. Man’s nature is totally corrupt since Eden, rendering him without desire or ability to know or please God in any way for salvation.
   2. God’s election of some men to eternal life is based purely on the good pleasure of His will in spite of their foreseen evil rebellion.
   3. Jesus Christ died only for the elect, and He will not lose a single one of those that the Father gave Him to fully and finally redeem.
3. However, Calvinism errs with its point of Irresistable Grace, for they apply it to the gospel and conversion,which is farther than truth.
   1. They apply irresistible grace, or what they name the “effectual call,” to the preaching of the gospel in the case of all the elect.
   2. They believe that all the elect will hear and believe the gospel sometime during their lives and cannot be saved without these things. This is not so.
   3. This is sacramental salvation, for unless the “priest” carries the grace of God’s gospel to the elect, they cannot be saved without it.
   4. They must therefore invent all sorts of alternative theories to cover the salvation of infants, idiots, heathen, the deaf and blind, etc.
   5. Of course, they rarely define what they mean by “saving faith,” or they would make it to loose, or limit the elect to just a very few.
   6. The typical Calvinist, even John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, seldom differentiate clearly between regeneration and conversion.
   7. God’s grace is definitely irresistible when it comes to regeneration, but conversion by the gospel depends on preacher and hearer.
   8. The first of the acts is God’s work in salvation, and the second is the information and news concerning it for the comfort of the elect.
4. However, Calvinism errs with its point of Final Perseverance, for they end up with a fatalist doctrine of men incapable of backsliding.
   1. Persevering is man’s action. If God guarantees man’s perseverance, then he will continue in faith and good works without fail.
   2. This fatalistic doctrine, if logically followed, would render the New Testament epistles and the work of the ministry unnecessary.
   3. If by final perseverance the Calvinist means God will not lose any of His elect, then why not call it preservation like the Bible?
   4. God will preserve His saints so that not one will be lost and all make it safely to heaven, but He has not guaranteed their faithfulness. Consider Lot, and others throughout the scriptures.

Jim, you saying this and proving the same are two different animals altogether....prove what you are saying. Yes, it is a lot of work and we both are getting very tired, at least I 'am in this old house I'm living in. Ecclesiastes 12:1-7!

Red, first let me extend to you and your family my desire for you that you have a very Merry Christmas.

Now, with respect to your post here, I would offer that it is generally held within the community of Reformed Theology that if any one of the five doctrines of TULIP are wrong then the whole of TULIP is false. Now I would agree with you that neither Irresistible Grace nor Perseverance of TULIP are true. But that means to me, that neither of the first three elements of TULIP are true. But of course, I reject each element of TULIP in its own.

 

[Red Baker]

Free will, theologically, is the ability to choose to either obey or disobey God and God's law. Without that ability, without free will, there is no such thing as sin.

Jim, Adam in his unfallen fleshly state had a will free of the sin nature. He could obey, or disobey, but chose to disobey with his eyes opened knowing what he did~Adam was not deceived, Eve was, yet, to maintained fellowship with Eve, he willfully sinned against God knowing full well what he was doing and its consequences of doing so, which took place AS SOON AS God left them to themselves to excise their fleshly free will, which was neutral toward obedience and disobedience, the state in which they were created.....they sinned ~ At that very moment, their will toward sin and obedience changed forever, not only for them, but for those coming through the posterity of Adam's seed.

Jesus' Father was God, not Adam, he was virgin born conceived of the Holy Ghost. Adam was of the earth, thereby earthly; Jesus was the Lord from heaven, thereby heavenly origin~he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemned sin in the flesh, that his people given to him to redeemed from God, would be made the righteousness of God through him by being created in his image, with a will that has power to obey and submit unto the voice of God.

Jim, that's the only will that has power to love and fear God, a fleshly sinful will cannot, per the testimony of God's word.

Romans 8:4-9​

“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

Jim, very clearly writtten~one must be in the Spirit, or having a new nature where the Spirit of God dwells, before he /she can please God, and this is true since the very day that Adam's sinned, for at that very second, his fleshly will became in bondage to sin and his new master, Satan!

Why do you (or Ghada) not take Roams 8:4-9 and give a exposition of those few verses to prove or disprove others like me who teach that man's fleshly will is a servant to sin and the devil himself? Or, take Romans 9:16, and do so.

Romans 9:16​

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

 

[Red Baker]

Red, first let me extend to you and your family my desire for you that you have a very Merry Christmas.

Jim, thank you very much~are you home by yourself, or is one of your sons there with you? I trust your health is good, or as best as it can be for someone pushing ninety.