• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Rom 9: Confirms free will of man

Jesus is not an example that at least one man in Adam did. Jesus was not in Adam, God is his Father, not Adam. IOW Jesus is the Son of God, of the same essence then of his Father, and not the Son of Adam, the man of the earth. Jesus came in the likeness of man. Do the math.
Please do not give me that old traducian garbage. The minute you introduce that into any argument, I will ignore it. My spirit came from God, not my parents. I got my physical features, my biological features from my parents. I did NOT get my spirit from my parents. Nuff said on that score.

The phrase "in Adam" has not one thing to do with the spirit.
 
What do you mean by "in a state of total depravity can sometimes be in agreement with what also agrees with God's perfect righteousness"? What does "in agreement" even mean if there is no free will.
You are simply treating not having free will as being the same thing as having no will. It may not be what you actually believe, but that is the way you are treating it. One does not have to have a free will in order to agree with a moral code. Even atheists are sometimes moral in their actions. Agreement and will are not the same thing.
Also, please explain what you mean by "His sins have met the justice of God in Christ on the cross". Imputed righteousness does not remove the sin, it only forgives the sin. It doesn't declare one not guilty. It declares guilty but penalty paid
That isn't even the issue. Being forgiven by God has nothing to do with whether in the natural world a person has committed a sin, or crime. Just as in a court of law a not guilty verdict removes the crime from the record, so too does the imputed righteousness of Christ do for the one in him through faith. They are made righteous in God's eyes, justified. It most certainly is a declaration of not guilty. Doesn't the Bible say our sins when God forgives them, removed, as far as the east is from the west? Does it mean we never did sin? Of course not. But in Christ they are gone. He nailed them to the cross.
So the, what difference do you see between the regenerated and the unregenerated? Does regeneration produce free will or what?
The difference is that for those who have Christ's righteousness imputed to them through faith (and that is a gift of God) there is now no condemnation for those who are in him. That is the victory Christ gained for fallen, sinful mankind on the cross. That is how he conquered sin and death. He took away its power to condemn by meeting God's justice against sin in his own body, facing death for them, in the place of his people.

Does regeneration produce free will you ask? It is as though your gospel is "free will." Time to move it off being the central issue. It isn't something you even need to be concerned with. Regeneration sets a person free for the first time in their life. Free to love God, free to know God, free to obey God, free from condemnation. We are never free until the Son sets us free. Until he sets us free, we are captives in the kingdom of darkness. "He who the Son sets free, is free indeed."
He certainly gives a hoot whether we obey His commands. If you do not understand that, then you do not really understand anything about God. To obey or not requires a choice, which in turn requires the ability to choose to obey or not, which is what free will is.
I do desire that you would absorb and comprehend what I say, instead of warping it like that and resorting to damning judgment like that. It really isn't necessary. To say that God commands perfect obedience is not saying a single thing about our will. And you have just described free will as something impossible while at the same time defending it.

The issue is not about whether or not we make choices to obey or not obey. No one denies that we do so. The issue is can we choose to obey perfectly? And the answer is no. You deny the very reason we cannot do so and instead the issue with you becomes free will. Instead of who God is, and frankly, the magnitude of what he sent Jesus to do and Jesus did. It is impossible to get anywhere in a theological discussion if someone denies the very premise of who God is, who mankind is in relation to God, and how we came to be in such desperate need of a Savior who has the essence and power to overthrow what we became, and overthrow the reason we got in that situation in the first place.
 

Romans 9:4~"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;; 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;"​

Who are Israelites~​

They were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh. Paul here recognizes and enumerates the great external privileges belonging to the Jews, which aggravated his profound sorrow, on account of their rejection of the Messiah, and their consequent deplorable condition.

“Who are Israelites” — That is, the most honorable people on earth; the descendants of him who, as a prince, had power with God. They had the name, because that of Israel was given to Jacob their father by God, when vouchsafing so striking a pre-intimation of His future manifestation in the flesh.

“Adoption” ~ That is, the nation of Israel was a nation adopted by God as a type of the adoption of His children in Christ Jesus; and in that typical sense, in which they were the children of God as no other nation ever was, they are frequently spoken of in Scripture, Exodus 4:22

“Glory” ~ This most probably refers to the manifestation of the glory of God over the mercy-seat in the sanctuary. God, too, set His tabernacle among the Israelites, and walked among them, which was their peculiar glory, by which they were distinguished from all other nations,

“Covenants” ~ The covenant with Abraham, and the covenant at Sinai, in both of which they were interested, and all the solemn engagements which God had entered into with mankind, were lodged in their hands and committed to their custody

“Giving of the law” ~ To them the law was given at Mount Sinai; and they were the only people on earth so distinguished by God.

“The service of God” ~ This refers to the tabernacle and temple service, or Mosaic institutions of worship. All other nations were left to their own superstitious inventions; the Jews alone had ordinances of worship from God.

“Promises” ~ The Jews had received the promises, both temporal and spiritual, especially those that related to the Messiah. These all were pure acts of God's sovereignty toward them as a nation. The next verse is very self explanatory, so I'll move on to verse 6.

Romans 9"6~"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"​

Not as though” ~ That is, my grief for the state of the Jewish nation, and their rejection by God, does not imply that with regard to them anything said in the word of God has failed. Actually, God's will is right on course, not that He purposed their fall, but God knew what the Jews would do if grace was withheld as it was with all other nations!

“For they are not all Israel which are of Israel” ~ Here is the explanation of the mystery that the Jews, as a nation, had rejected the Messiah: they are not all true Israelites in the spiritual sense of God's promises and oath, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were, and millions more.

The Jews might object, and say that if they were cast off and rejected, then God is unfaithful, and His promises are ineffectual. To this Paul answers by making a distinction among Israelites. Some are Israelites only in respect of their carnal descent, and others are children of the promise.

"The proposition of the Apostle, says Calvin, is that the promise was given in such a manner to Abraham and his seed, that the inheritance has no particular regard to every one of his descendants; and it hence follows, as a consequence, that the revolt of certain individuals from the Lord, who derive their birth from the father of the faithful, has no effect in preventing the stability, permanence, and steadfastness of the Divine covenant. The common election of the Israelitish nation does not prevent the Sovereign of infinite holiness from choosing for Himself, according to His secret counsel, whatever portion of that people He has determined to save."When Paul says they are not all Israel which are of Israel, and afterwards, neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, he includes all the descendants of the father of believers under one member of the sentence, and points out by the other those only who are true and genuine sons of the friend of God, and not a degenerate race.’

Through the remaining part of this chapter, the Apostle shows that the rejection of the Messiah by the great body of the Jewish nation was neither contrary to the promises nor the purpose of God, but had been predetermined and also typified in His dealings towards individuals among their progenitors, as recorded in the Scriptures, and also there predicted. This furnishes an opportunity of more fully illustrating the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in choosing some to everlasting life, which had been spoken of in Romans 8:29-30. This is without question speaking of salvation to eternal life, and has no one thing to do with service as some labor in vain to prove.

I'll come back and finish this thought looking at verses that follow up to verse 11.
 
Please do not give me that old traducian garbage. The minute you introduce that into any argument, I will ignore it. My spirit came from God, not my parents. I got my physical features, my biological features from my parents. I did NOT get my spirit from my parents. Nuff said on that score.

The phrase "in Adam" has not one thing to do with the spirit.
Wow. Traducian? A strange rant since I said nothing about the soul or the spirit. Here is what I said:
Jesus is not an example that at least one man in Adam did. Jesus was not in Adam, God is his Father, not Adam. IOW Jesus is the Son of God, of the same essence then of his Father, and not the Son of Adam, the man of the earth. Jesus came in the likeness of man. Do the math.

Jesus is not an example that man can be perfectly righteous. What he is an example of as a man, is righteousness. You are very close, unwittingly I am sure, of agreeing with those who do not believe in the deity of Christ, when you say he is an example that one man was perfectly righteous, therefore is proof that man can be perfectly righteous. (i.e. @Ghada )
Do you not believe in the Trinity. Do you not believe that he is the God man, two natures, Divine and human? This whole time I thought you did, so clarify that for me before I go farther with the post.
 

Romans 9:4~"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;; 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;"​

Who are Israelites~​

They were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh. Paul here recognizes and enumerates the great external privileges belonging to the Jews, which aggravated his profound sorrow, on account of their rejection of the Messiah, and their consequent deplorable condition.

“Who are Israelites” — That is, the most honorable people on earth; the descendants of him who, as a prince, had power with God. They had the name, because that of Israel was given to Jacob their father by God, when vouchsafing so striking a pre-intimation of His future manifestation in the flesh.

“Adoption” ~ That is, the nation of Israel was a nation adopted by God as a type of the adoption of His children in Christ Jesus; and in that typical sense, in which they were the children of God as no other nation ever was, they are frequently spoken of in Scripture, Exodus 4:22

“Glory” ~ This most probably refers to the manifestation of the glory of God over the mercy-seat in the sanctuary. God, too, set His tabernacle among the Israelites, and walked among them, which was their peculiar glory, by which they were distinguished from all other nations,

“Covenants” ~ The covenant with Abraham, and the covenant at Sinai, in both of which they were interested, and all the solemn engagements which God had entered into with mankind, were lodged in their hands and committed to their custody

“Giving of the law” ~ To them the law was given at Mount Sinai; and they were the only people on earth so distinguished by God.

“The service of God” ~ This refers to the tabernacle and temple service, or Mosaic institutions of worship. All other nations were left to their own superstitious inventions; the Jews alone had ordinances of worship from God.

“Promises” ~ The Jews had received the promises, both temporal and spiritual, especially those that related to the Messiah. These all were pure acts of God's sovereignty toward them as a nation. The next verse is very self explanatory, so I'll move on to verse 6.
The point here is that the nation of Isreal was God's chosen (elect) nation. Thus each and every Israelite was a member of that chosen nation. Many of the Jews felt very strongly that as Jews, as members of God's chosen nation, they were promised salvation. When Paul, in previous chapters has been telling them that is not the case. God used them for the purpose of bringing Christ into the world as Messiah. Ethnic Israel was chosen, elect, for service. That election was not tied in any way to individual salvation. Hence verse 6.

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
 

Romans 9"6~"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"​

Not as though” ~ That is, my grief for the state of the Jewish nation, and their rejection by God, does not imply that with regard to them anything said in the word of God has failed. Actually, God's will is right on course, not that He purposed their fall, but God knew what the Jews would do if grace was withheld as it was with all other nations!

“For they are not all Israel which are of Israel” ~ Here is the explanation of the mystery that the Jews, as a nation, had rejected the Messiah: they are not all true Israelites in the spiritual sense of God's promises and oath, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were, and millions more.

The Jews might object, and say that if they were cast off and rejected, then God is unfaithful, and His promises are ineffectual. To this Paul answers by making a distinction among Israelites. Some are Israelites only in respect of their carnal descent, and others are children of the promise.

"The proposition of the Apostle, says Calvin, is that the promise was given in such a manner to Abraham and his seed, that the inheritance has no particular regard to every one of his descendants; and it hence follows, as a consequence, that the revolt of certain individuals from the Lord, who derive their birth from the father of the faithful, has no effect in preventing the stability, permanence, and steadfastness of the Divine covenant. The common election of the Israelitish nation does not prevent the Sovereign of infinite holiness from choosing for Himself, according to His secret counsel, whatever portion of that people He has determined to save."When Paul says they are not all Israel which are of Israel, and afterwards, neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, he includes all the descendants of the father of believers under one member of the sentence, and points out by the other those only who are true and genuine sons of the friend of God, and not a degenerate race.’

Through the remaining part of this chapter, the Apostle shows that the rejection of the Messiah by the great body of the Jewish nation was neither contrary to the promises nor the purpose of God, but had been predetermined and also typified in His dealings towards individuals among their progenitors, as recorded in the Scriptures, and also there predicted. This furnishes an opportunity of more fully illustrating the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in choosing some to everlasting life, which had been spoken of in Romans 8:29-30. This is without question speaking of salvation to eternal life, and has no one thing to do with service as some labor in vain to prove.

I'll come back and finish this thought looking at verses that follow up to verse 11.
And the point here is that being a member of ethnic Israel is completely immaterial to being a member of spiritual Israel. The fact that some are is independent from their being members of ethnic Israel. They are members of spiritual Israel for the exact same reason as everyone is a member, i.e., they are saved by grace through faith. Being a Jew is no advantage.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek....

The whole point of the chapter is that being chosen (elect) for service has nothing to do with being chosen for salvation. The potter and clay metaphor has nothing to do with election for salvation. The metaphor addresses only the temporal physical life.

And that is why Paul issued this following chapter 8 which dealt with election for salvation which states that God's selection (choosing, election) is on those who love God (8:28) not on any ethnic association.
 
Last edited:
You are simply treating not having free will as being the same thing as having no will.
Are you serious? Total Depravity is the condition of having no will in any concerns related to God. Total Depravity states that the individual is totally incapable of any choice which is pleasing to God, i.e., no will.
 
The point here is that the nation of Isreal was God's chosen (elect) nation. Thus each and every Israelite was a member of that chosen nation. Many of the Jews felt very strongly that as Jews, as members of God's chosen nation, they were promised salvation. When Paul, in previous chapters has been telling them that is not the case. God used them for the purpose of bringing Christ into the world as Messiah. Ethnic Israel was chosen, elect, for service. That election was not tied in any way to individual salvation. Hence verse 6.

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Jim did you not read what I wrote above:
“Adoption” ~ That is, the nation of Israel was a nation adopted by God as a type of the adoption of His children in Christ Jesus; and in that typical sense, in which they were the children of God as no other nation ever was, they are frequently spoken of in Scripture, Exodus 4:22
Now, I agree with you that the non-elect among them did not understand this truth, as you said ~and we will add, like many do today, who teach the nation of Israel is God's only true chosen nation, when that's so far for the truth, even though they indeed have a great pedigree, as far as many of the great men of the earth's history came from them, only because God chose to use them to typify his very elect, the true seed of Jesus Christ from all nations of this world, most of which in the OT came from Israel, but that is no more the case, very few now believe from among them, and that will remain true until the appearing of Jesus, and nothing is ever promised to them again as a nation.
 
And the point here is that being a member of ethnic Israel is completely immaterial to being a member of spiritual Israel. The fact that some are is independent from their being members of ethnic Israel. They are members of spiritual Israel for the exact same reason as everyone is a member, i.e., they are saved by grace through faith. Being a Jew is no advantage.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek....

The whole point of the chapter is that being chosen (elect) for service has nothing to do with being chosen for salvation. The potter and clay metaphor has nothing to do with election for salvation. The metaphor addresses only the temporal physical life.

And that is why Paul issued this following chapter 8 which dealt with election for salvation which states that God's selection (choosing, election) is on those who love God (8:28) not on any ethnic association.
Again, Jim read and respond to my main points...I said:
Through the remaining part of this chapter, the Apostle shows that the rejection of the Messiah by the great body of the Jewish nation was neither contrary to the promises nor the purpose of God, but had been predetermined and also typified in His dealings towards individuals among their progenitors, as recorded in the Scriptures, and also there predicted. This furnishes an opportunity of more fully illustrating the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in choosing some to everlasting life, which had been spoken of in Romans 8:29-30.
He first lays the foundation that would support what follows in Romans 9. Now, I shall continue.......RB
 
Jim did you not read what I wrote above:
Yes, I did. And as usual, in such discussions, you have inserted your (pseudo) Reformed Theology into it, thus producing unbiblical results. Being one of the people of God's chosen nation Israel had no direct bearing on being one of God's chosen saints. There was the indirect effect in the sense that they were given the opportunity to receive God's special revelation through His prophets. The salvation of any pre-Jesus individuals was by grace through faith. The difference between those OT saints and us NT saints is that their faith was in the promised Messiah who was to come while our faith is in the promised Messiah who has come.
Now, I agree with you that the non-elect among them did not understand this truth, as you said ~and we will add, like many do today, who teach the nation of Israel is God's only true chosen nation, when that's so far for the truth, even though they indeed have a great pedigree, as far as many of the great men of the earth's history came from them, only because God chose to use them to typify his very elect, the true seed of Jesus Christ from all nations of this world, most of which in the OT came from Israel, but that is no more the case, very few now believe from among them, and that will remain true until the appearing of Jesus, and nothing is ever promised to them again as a nation.
Israel as a nation was chosen for service, period. That is the message of Romans 9. Isreal as a nation was used by God to bring Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation to the world. The potter and clay metaphor has nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of any individual.
 
Again, Jim read and respond to my main points...I said:

He first lays the foundation that would support what follows in Romans 9. Now, I shall continue.......RB
It has nothing whatsoever to do with God's sovereignty in choosing some to everlasting life. The two are completely separate and independent choices by God. Reformed Theology's failure to understand that is a major problem. In God's choice of the nation for service, the members of that nation played no part in the choice. In contrast, in God's choice of the members of Christ's church the members have the crucial part in the choice through receiving and believing in Him (John 1:12).
 

Romans 9:7,8 "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."​

Jim, you and I will not disagree for the most part with verses 4-8, but will some ~so, I combined these two verses to make this all important teachings concerning who are the children of God's promises, children that shall receive the blessing of God's promises and oath of inherting eternal life in the world to come, and all in that world promises to them.

This will prove that Romans nine is speaking not about being chosen to be used in God's service, but is speaking of who are the children of the promises of God beginning with Genesis 12:1-3 and like a red Scarlet thread running all through the scriptures for the heirs of God promises to see.

"but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."​

Isaac was a son promised to Abraham ~ he was born by God's promise, and oath ~ he was not a son by the energy of Abraham's flesh. For us to get a full understanding of what we desire to say, we must go the Galatians where Paul will teach us a powerful truth relating to Isaac's birth, which birth typified the spiritual birth of all of the children of God's promises.
Jim, yes, or no, ~ do you agree Isaac's natural birth is a beautiful type (allegory) of a child of God spiritual birth? How did Isaac's birth take place? Isaac's birth was by the power of the Spirit of God, since Sara's womb was dead, past child bearing! His birth also by two immutable acts of God, his promises and his oath.

Paul said:

Galatians 4:28​

“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”

Here the apostle begins his application of the allegory. As Sarah prefigured the covenant of grace, so Isaac represented the true children of God. Paul was here addressing himself to his spiritual brethren, and therefore the "we" includes all who are born from above—believing Gentiles as well as Jews. "We," the children of the new covenant, represented in the allegory by Isaac. Our standing and state is essentially different from Ishmael's, for he (like the great mass of those seeking salvation by their works) belong to the ordinary course of mere nature; whereas genuine Christians are "the children of promise"—of that made to Abraham, which, in turn, made manifest what God had "promised before the world began" (Titus1:2). The relation into which believers are brought with God originates in a miracle of grace which was the subject of divine promise and oath.

Let me say before moving on it is impossible to try to make Romans 9:1-16 about service, when Paul is addressing the truth that God's children are children of his promises of grace, not of being born of a certain race, doing certain acts of flesh, etc. His sovereignty even differentiates among twins in the womb as he sees fit. God is not under obligation to treat each equally, in any sense whatsoever.

One more thing. Who made the difference between Isaac, and Ismael? Both were sons of Abraham. Which one was a son of promise, and why? Besides, Abraham had six other sons, why only these two are set before us?
 
Last edited:

Romans 9:7,8 "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."​

Jim, you and I will not disagree for the most part with verses 4-8, but will some ~so, I combined these two verses to make this all important teachings concerning who are the children of God's promises, children that shall receive the blessing of God's promises and oath of inherting eternal life in the world to come, and all in that world promises to them.
The important teaching that Paul is doing here is not who are children of God. He just went through all of that in the previous chapter, chapter 8. Paul, here in chapter 9, is instead making the point of who are not children of God. It matters not who God used nor how God used them. Against all the teaching of the Judaizers, none of that matters in who God saves. Again, the metaphor of the potter and the clay includes all the children of the flesh and deals with them as Israelites, for whom Paul describes them in verses 4 and 5.
 
The important teaching that Paul is doing here is not who are children of God.
Jim, you are resisting the Spirit of God, just as the Jews did before Stephen...why?

Romans 9:8​

“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.”

Of course He's dealing with who are the true seed promised to Jesus Christ. Those that are, are so by two immutable acts of God, his promises and oath.

Hebrews 6:17,18​

“Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:”

Not only are not the children of Abraham's natural seed not the children of God, just because they are Jews; neither are those who put their trust in their own flesh, by trusting in certain deeds they have done ~ neither are these children of God's promises and oath. Only those who are putting their faith solely in Jesus' faith and obedience as their surety and their right to inherit eternal life, these alone are giving true biblical evidence that they are the true promised seed of Jesus Christ. This is the testimony of the Spirit of God from Genesis 12 to Revelation.
He just went through all of that in the previous chapter, chapter 8. Paul, here in chapter 9, is instead making the point of who are not children of God.
Jim, you are confused. Romans 8 tells us that who ever has the Spirit of God, they do not walk after flesh, but after the Spirit, etc., not only do not, but have the power to not do so.... whereas, Romans 9:1-16 tells us why we are children of God. I wrote above:

"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.
Again, the metaphor of the potter and the clay includes all the children of the flesh and deals with them as Israelites, for whom Paul describes them in verses 4 and 5.
Jim, you lost me.....the metaphor of the potter and the clay includes all men of the same lump, both Jews and Gentiles.
Maybe you can explain yourself better.
 
Jim, you are resisting the Spirit of God, just as the Jews did before Stephen...why?
And I will say the very same thing to you -- Red, you are resisting the Spirit of God, just as the Jews did before Stephen...why?

Except in your case, I know why. Because it rejects your false soteriology. The potter and clay is not about saving anyone. We know that because according to verse 22 the purpose is "to show his wrath and to make known his power". But salvation can't do that. Salvation is not outwardly visible. But, just as in the case with the Pharaoh, God's work, His clay molding, was very visible. The potter and clay is about God's actions in this world, not the next.
 
Are you serious? Total Depravity is the condition of having no will in any concerns related to God. Total Depravity states that the individual is totally incapable of any choice which is pleasing to God, i.e., no will.
Uhh JIM--no it doesn't. That is what I meant when I said a number of posts back that you argue against total depravity (and the other doctrines of grace) by stating your opinion of what it is and says as though that were the reality. And even if it were true that it is saying that equals no will would be invalid. You often make the argument against TD by quoting scriptures that show man making choices to prove they do have free will, so stick to one argument or the other.

TD does not state that it is the condition of having no will in any concerns related to God. It says man's will, will never incline itself to choosing Christ. And Jesus is the only way to God. His will is not free to choose Christ because it is in bondage to sin. It will never desire on its own to give up every sin, nor can it give up every sin.

TD does not state the individual is totally incapable of any choice which is pleasing to God. TD echoes God's own words that even the righteous acts of man in his natural state are as filthy rags to him. Which has nothing to do with will, but with the acts themselves.
 
His will is not free to choose Christ because it is in bondage to sin. It will never desire on its own to give up every sin, nor can it give up every sin.
Jim, as you have said a few times over in the past few years that I have known you, I will now say to you through Arial's post.

Hear ye hear ye!
 
One more thing. Who made the difference between Isaac, and Ismael? Both were sons of Abraham. Which one was a son of promise, and why? Besides, Abraham had six other sons, why only these two are set before us?
Jim, you never answered these questions.
 
Uhh JIM--no it doesn't.
What is man's will apart from free will?
TD does not state the individual is totally incapable of any choice which is pleasing to God. TD echoes God's own words that even the righteous acts of man in his natural state are as filthy rags to him. Which has nothing to do with will, but with the acts themselves.
Acts committed have nothing to do with will? Is that what you are proposing here?

Amd if you are taking that from Isaiah 64, you might want to start reading a couple of chapters before and after that to see what is being talked about.
.
 
Last edited:
Rather than Romans 9 confirming predeterminism, the Scripture rebukes it and confirms the free will of man created in God's image.
Jesus denies it: "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin." (Jn 8:34)

Slaves are not free.
The error is by people plucking certain Scriptures out of context, which changes the truth into a lie. Many do so as a novice mistake, and some do so willfully to confirm their own lies.

The context of Romans 9 is twofold: God has the right to choose and elect His people. And that right is exercised only after being created, not before. And, God also has right to judge all men, which is only by our works, not by our birth.

Rom 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (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 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

The election is made after being created and conceived in the womb, not before.

Gen 25:22And 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.

And the election was not made until after Rebecca's prayer of intercession, due to the struggling of her twins in the womb.

By context of all Scripture together, we see that the election of God is not made before creation and conception, but only afterward, as well as only after prayer of intercession is made to God.

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

This is quoted from Mal 1:

Mal 1:2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Nothing is said about when and how God loved Jacob and hated Esau, especially not before creation. God's election was made while in the womb. Scripture does not delcare His love for Jacob and hate for Esau at that time.

We see in Mal 1, that God's hating of Esau is His judgment of Esau's nation, which can only be by the works of Esau and his descendents. For God judges every man only by his work, not by his birth.

Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

The rejection of Esau from God Himself was by his works, not by his creation. The same for the LORD casting down Lucifer, and driving out Adam by unrepented transgression.

And so, election is after creation, and judgment is by works.

The only 'pre' election and choosing of God, is from the womb before any works are done in life. And even in that case, there is still a struggling between the twins, followed by the mother's intercession made for them to God.
 
Back
Top