Rom 9: Confirms free will of man

[Mr GLee]

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

God has no needs . God is not served by the hands as a will of dying mankind.

 

[JIM]

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.

I just sent you an email. My health seems very good right now. Of course, at my age things can change quickly, but I tend to ignore that possibility. My maternal grandmother, lived to be 104 years old and was reasonably healthy right up until she died. So, I proceed as if I might live to at least as long as she did. If not, then so be it. But I do look forward to meeting up with my loved ones and friends and of course, especially Jesus, Himself.

 

[JIM]

God has no needs . God is not served by the hands as a will of dying mankind.

But God does seem to have some wants. Creation would clearly show that to be true. I think free will obedience from men is one of them.

 

[Mr GLee]

But God does seem to have some wants. Creation would clearly show that to be true. I think free will obedience from men is one of them.

What God desires "let there be" that he does.

It can be seen using a unclean animal a Ass that must be redeemed with a Lamb . Christ using a Ass to bring prohecy rebuking the madness of the false apostle false prophet Balaam ,

No needs satisfies all of his own. Law of faith ."Let there be" . . .

 

[JIM]

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.

Nothing about their will toward sin and obedience changed. The free will to disobey was there from the very outset. Otherwise they would not have disobeyed. They were changed by having sinned. But God did not abandon them totally. Nor has he abandoned any of mankind totally. Nor did God condemn all of mankind for the sin of Adam.

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.

Red, that is just plain wrong. The fleshly sinful has the power not to sin, but sins anyway. There is nothing about the fleshly sinful that prevents loving and fearing God. Most just don't, by choice.

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.”

You are conflating being a sinner with never doing anything but sin. That is simply not true.

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?

I will try to remember this and come back and deal more completely with your confusion about Romans 8:4-9.

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.”

Romans 9:16 is dealing with the things in this world not the next. God is free to use anyone in whatever way He chooses and that does not obligate Him in any way concerning their salvation.

 

[JIM]

What God desires "let there be" that he does.

It can be seen using a unclean animal a Ass that must be redeemed with a Lamb . Christ using a Ass to bring prohecy rebuking the madness of the false apostle false prophet Balaam ,

No needs satisfies all of his own. Law of faith ."Let there be" . . .

Again, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[brightfame52]

@Mr GLee

What God desires "let there be" that he does.

I agree with that, so does scripture Job 23:13

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

 

[Red Baker]

I just sent you an email. My health seems very good right now. Of course, at my age things can change quickly, but I tend to ignore that possibility. My maternal grandmother, lived to be 104 years old and was reasonably healthy right up until she died. So, I proceed as if I might live to at least as long as she did. If not, then so be it. But I do look forward to meeting up with my loved ones and friends and of course, especially Jesus, Himself.

The Lord bless you my friend to lived that long with a sound mind.

 

[Arial]

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.

You are the one who said it is wrong by attacking a dead man, Calvin, who is not here to defend himself. Therefore it is on you to do the hermeneutics and exegesis to show what is wrong with it and why. But I know you won't because you can't, since you prefer your view of God and man over the biblical view and will stick to it no matter what. It seems that it is more important to view interpretations through a personal idea of God rather than God's view of himself.

Not that I haven't done that work and showed it countless times on the forum to you. As have others. I have at least one OP devoted to just the "T". Your approach to disputing it is always first to utterly misrepresent the doctrine and then proceed as though that were the doctrine.

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.

Interesting that you would say no one that you know does something and in the same sentence say you don't even know what that something is.
So, you agree with me when I said "T" is not dealing specifically with free will in the sense of man making choices? Total depravity is dealing with the condition and position of man in relation to God.
What do you think "t" is about?

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.

There is no theological free will. There are many views of free will but the Bible never discusses free will. What you describe above is simply "a will". And no where in the doctrines of grace is even the suggestion that man does not have a will, and having a will, obviously means making choices.

 

[JIM]

There is no theological free will.

Well then, it is on you to do the hermeneutics and exegesis to show what is wrong with it and why.

 

[Arial]

Well then, it is on you to do the hermeneutics and exegesis to show what is wrong with it and why.

There isn't anything wrong with it. There is no such thing as theological free will. God never has a discussion about it.

 

[Arial]

But God does seem to have some wants. Creation would clearly show that to be true. I think free will obedience from men is one of them.

Obedience to God is not a "need" for God. It is a command, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Now answer me this: Is man's will free to never ever sin and to never have sinned?

 

[Arial]

You are conflating being a sinner with never doing anything but sin. That is simply not true.

That is not what he is doing at all and neither is the scripture quoted. How many sins does it take to become a sinner?

 

[JIM]

There isn't anything wrong with it. There is no such thing as theological free will. God never has a discussion about it.

So you can't do what you are telling me to do. Interesting. But certainly not unexpected.

 

[JIM]

Obedience to God is not a "need" for God. It is a command, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Now answer me this: Is man's will free to never ever sin and to never have sinned?

Who said anything about God needing anything? I certainly didn't.

 

[JIM]

That is not what he is doing at all and neither is the scripture quoted.'

Yeah, it is. And it is not uncommon.

How many sins does it take to become a sinner?

One.

 

[Red Baker]

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

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,

These are the two bookends on either side of the Scriptures v19-21, that predeterminists say confirms God's preplanned creation of some to do good unto life, and others to do evil unto destruction, without any freewill of choice in doing good or evil.

And these bookends say nothing of God creating men a certain way, but only of God's dealings with men and judgment by their works.

Moving on to your second post, after I addressed each of your main points in your OP, let us now consider your other points trying to prove your thesis concerning:

Rom 9: Confirms free will of man.....​

So far Ghada, you have not even come close of proving man's free will in his salvation from sin and condemnation, which truly is what the battle is over based upon this one verse:

Romans 9:16​

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

"So then" proves this is the conclusion from the whole from Romans 9:1-15. Salvation from sin and condemnation is not by the will of man, nor from his efforts in striving for it, but is entirely of God’s mercy vouchsafed to whom He pleases. What foundation, then, can be discovered in the word of God for those schemes of self-righteousness, which, in a greater or less degree, make salvation depend on man’s own exertions? None!

There may be here an allusion to Jacob’s desiring the blessing of the birthright, and his running to provide the venison by which he deceived his father; but his obtaining the blessing was solely the consequence of God’s good pleasure, for the means he employed for the purpose merited punishment rather than success. In like manner, the salvation of any man is not to be ascribed to his own good will and diligent endeavors to arrive at it, but solely to the purpose of God according to election, which is ‘not of works, but of Him that calleth.’ It is true, indeed, that believers both will and run, but this is the effect, not the cause, of the grace of God being vouchsafed to them.

I'm coming back to look at your so-called bookends, to show that you are badly deceived.

 

[JIM]

"So then" proves this is the conclusion from the whole from Romans 9:1-15. Salvation from sin and condemnation is not by the will of man, nor from his efforts in striving for it, but is entirely of God’s mercy vouchsafed to whom He pleases. What foundation, then, can be discovered in the word of God for those schemes of self-righteousness, which, in a greater or less degree, make salvation depend on man’s own exertions? None!

No, no one is claiming any schemes of self-righteousness. That is the lie that the monergist always hangs his hat on in any of these discussions.

 

[Red Baker]

No, no one is claiming any schemes of self-righteousness. That is the lie that the monergist always hangs his hat on in any of these discussions.

Jim, anyone who believes they have an active part in their salvation of having their sins forgiven, in any sense whatsoever, are claiming a scheme of their works having a part therein. Be it a preacher must preach, the person must hear, have faith, repentance, water baptism, joining a church, etc.

The new birth is without all of these on man's part. Remember what I wrote above, concerning even Calvinism:

Calvinism errs with its point of Irresistable Grace, for they apply it to the gospel and conversion, which is farther than the 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.

The new birth is a birth whereby God is the only active person working ~man is totally passive, unware of the working of the Spirit of God within them! From that point (being born again) forward, man has the power/desire to hear, believe, repent, and to seek God in prayer, but "not" until then.

 

[Arial]

Who said anything about God needing anything? I certainly didn't.

But God does seem to have some wants. Creation would clearly show that to be true. I think free will obedience from men is one of them.

He has no wants either. That he wants free will obedience is something you made up. Scripture shows that once sin entered our world through Adam there is no free will that can or desires to be PERFECTLY obedient.