Romans 9 from a free will prespective

[DialecticSkeptic]

... Here is where compatibilism makes the distinction between man having a free will and being a “free agent.” Man is “free” to choose that which is determined by his nature or by the laws of nature.

Properly speaking, freedom ought to be predicated of persons, not faculties. In other words, the agent is free, not his will.

Free agency refers to the fact that man's choices are a product of his own intellect, motivated by his own desires, influenced by his own character and heart. But it is for those precise same reasons that there is no such thing as free will. How so? Man's character, intellect, and desires—which in concert form the basis of his will—are altogether corrupted under the bondage of sin. Man's choices are not made contrary to his desire but are rather a product of his desires. Choice is a function of man's will; his will is a function of his mind and heart; his mind and heart are corrupted in sin. Consequently, the degree to which man's will is free is proportionate to the degree that man is free from his sinful nature. And for the unregenerate sinner, he is not free from his sinful nature at all. Such freedom is found in Christ only.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

His purpose is to assemble that group of human beings who love him by their own choice once they are presented with his truth. If he just wanted to produce a group of people whom he permits to love him, he could have done that without all the folderal of creation.

Jim was asked, "Given that no purpose of God's can be thwarted, is it his purpose to save the whole world?" And he replied that God's purpose is to assemble believers together—which shows that the question sailed right over his head. Perhaps the question should be reframed to correspond with Jim's reply:

"Given that no purpose of God's can be thwarted, is it his purpose that everyone believes unto salvation?"

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

There is a stream of commonality with your Calvinistic argument and the Open Theist! Both agree that God can know nothing that hasn’t happened!

No, they do not both agree. Calvinism repudiates process theology. For us, there is no such thing as "hasn't happened" for God, who is not locked into a linear temporal experience. That is why he can make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come. He is eternal, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega. Aiden W. Tozer put it this way: "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. In him, history and prophecy are one and the same."

 

[JIM]

Jim was asked, "Given that no purpose of God's can be thwarted, is it his purpose to save the whole world?" And he replied that God's purpose is to assemble believers together—which shows that the question sailed right over his head. Perhaps the question should be reframed to correspond with Jim's reply:

"Given that no purpose of God's can be thwarted, is it his purpose that everyone believes unto salvation?"

No. God wishes that none should perish and that all would come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

 

[TibiasDad]

No, they do not both agree. Calvinism repudiates process theology. For us, there is no such thing as "hasn't happened" for God, who is not locked into a linear temporal experience. That is why he can make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come. He is eternal, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega. Aiden W. Tozer put it this way: "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. In him, history and prophecy are one and the same."

Calvinism says that God only knows because he has decreed it. Open Theism says he only knows when he experiences it. So for both, there is a commonality in that there is a logical point that God doesn’t and can’t know something. Their paths dramatically diverge from this point, but there is a point of equal standing.

Doug

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

No. God wishes that none should perish and that all would come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

All right, let's try again: "Given that no purpose of God's can be thwarted, is it his purpose that (a) none should perish and that (b) all would come to repentance?"

 

[TibiasDad]

All right, let's try again: "Given that no purpose of God's can be thwarted, is it his purpose that (a) none should perish and that (b) all would come to repentance?"

God’s desire and purpose are not necessarily the same thing. His purpose is to make his desire fulfilled.

His desire that all men might be saved is only possible because he purposely sent his Son into the world so that whoever believes in him would have eternal life.

He desires that all men would believe, and he has made it possible through Christ, but that doesn’t mean it will or must actually happen.

Doug

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[T]here is a logical point that God doesn't, and can't, know something.

Here an error occurs with respect to Reformed theology. (1) If God knows only that which he has decreed, and (2) if God freely and unchangeably ordained from eternity whatsoever comes to pass, (3) then nothing exists that God doesn't or can't know. Putting this in other words, if "something" ever exists to be known, then, by virtue of coming to pass, it was ordained by God and thus known to him.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[God's] desire that all men might be saved is only possible because he purposely sent his Son into the world so that whoever believes in him would have eternal life. He desires that all men would believe, and he has made it possible through Christ, but that doesn’t mean it will or must actually happen.

If God's desire is for all men to be saved (your claim), and if, as Jesus said, "everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me" (John 6:37), then why doesn't he give all men to the Son? On this picture, his purpose is contrary to making his desire fulfilled.

 

[Reformedguy]

Oh, so now grace is absent! All things granted are gracious! A reformed gut that doesn’t see Grace in everything: That’s an oxymoron!

Doug

What I don't see is granted grace you tried to insert into the text. And now your going to blame me??

 

[Carbon]

No. God wishes that none should perish and that all would come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

This passage is teaching God is patient towards His elect. It’s to believers about believers. It has nothing to do with “all” as in every individual person.

 

[Carbon]

God’s desire and purpose are not necessarily the same thing. His purpose is to make his desire fulfilled.

His desire that all men might be saved is only possible because he purposely sent his Son into the world so that whoever believes in him would have eternal life.

He desires that all men would believe, and he has made it possible through Christ, but that doesn’t mean it will or must actually happen.

Doug

Tell me. Which God do you serve and worship?

The god that desires what he cannot have? Sounds like he has the same issues we humans have. Huh

 

[Carbon]

If God's desire is for all men to be saved (your claim), and if, as Jesus said, "everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me" (John 6:37), then why doesn't he give all men to the Son? On this picture, his purpose is contrary to making his desire fulfilled.

Hey stop making so much sense. You know many people can’t handle that.

What is wrong with you?

 

[JIM]

This passage is teaching God is patient towards His elect. It’s to believers about believers. It has nothing to do with “all” as in every individual person.

In the Reformed philosophy, is it possible that an elect will not be saved?

 

[Carbon]

In the Reformed philosophy, is it possible that an elect will not be saved?

Reformed philosophy?

In the free will philosophy, how does one become an elect? By self electing himself?

 

[JIM]

All right, let's try again: "Given that no purpose of God's can be thwarted, is it his purpose that (a) none should perish and that (b) all would come to repentance?"

I didn't say anything about God's purpose.

 

[Carbon]

@JIM

Since God chose an elect, Christ came to suffer the wrath of God in their place having their sins imputed unto him, and Christ’s righteousness imputed unto the elect. How can the elect not be saved?

 

[JIM]

Reformed philosophy?

In the free will philosophy, how does one become an elect? By self electing himself?

So you can't or won't answer my question. I thought it should be easy.

 

[Carbon]

I didn't say anything about God's purpose.

The man is trying to explain something to you, give him the Courtesy of doing so.

 

[Carbon]

So you can't or won't answer my question. I thought it should be easy.

Indeed it is an easy question. And it’s answered.