What if God, willing to. . . .

[JIM]

I see you know little about Calvin also.

I probably know as much or more than you about Calvin.

 

[Alive]

I probably know as much or more than you about Calvin.

What book did Calvin not comment on? Don’t Google.

 

[Ritajanice]

I have been accused of being a Calvinist, yet have never ever read any of his books.

I wonder how they came to that conclusion,

 

[Ritajanice]

I probably know as much or more than you about Calvin.

I know nothing about him...yet I’m supposed to be a Calvinist...or have been accused of being a Calvinist,

 

[JIM]

I have been accused of being a Calvinist, yet have never ever read any of his books.

I wonder how they came to that conclusion,

Most Calvinists today probably have never read any of his books or anything else that he might have written. Calvinists are not Calvinists because they have read what he wrote. They are Calvinists because they believe in the same errors in soteriology that he believed in, no matter how they came to that belief.

 

[Arial]

What do you think is the election of purpose in verse 11? The election Paul is speaking of there is the election of the nation Israel. What was the purpose of that election? That purpose was the bringing of Christ to the world. That was why God chose Israel. That is what Paul is talking about. That should be obvious given the first six verses of the chapter that I posted.

Then why would he make a point of saying "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."

And a few verses later (16-18) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." For the Scripture says to Pharoah, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

And what is it that Paul continues to discuss in chapter 10? And why in 10:11-13 does he say ""For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on Him. For 'eveyrhone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

Paul is lamenting over his unbelieving fellow Jews ( point I made and you ignored in your rebuttal) but he is not writing about only them.

I suspect you are interpreting scriptures from a pre-mil Dispensational view and can't get outside of that box. But it presents two redemptions, One for Israel and one for Gentiles.

And the first five and a half verses (all you actually give) does not establish the full interpretive context. You can't just stop there and then interpret everything else the same way you have interpreted that. And there is no legit reason why you should have interpreted those verses the way you did. Paul begins by telling us that portion (the letter preface) is a deep lament over his lost unbelieving brothers. He has not even gotten into the doctrine yet.

 

[Ritajanice]

Most Calvinists today probably have never read any of his books or anything else that he might have written. Calvinists are not Calvinists because they have read what he wrote. They are Calvinists because they believe in the same errors in soteriology that he believed in, no matter how they came to that belief.

I can only believe in what was testified to my heart/ spirit by divine revelation.

Not understanding errors ....in how one becomes Born Again....

Oh right, I understand what you mean when you say we believe in the same errors that he believed in.....that’s just your opinion, quite a few here voice their opinion about my errors, yet can never back it up by using scripture.

Are you a free willer?

 

[Carbon]

I probably know as much or more than you about Calvin.

Okay.

 

[Papa Smurf]

2 Peter 3:9 stands as a complete rejection of the Calvinist view of unconditional predestination of individuals to their final destinies.

Hello JIM, even if you take v9 out of the context that it's written in (including not only 2 Peter, but the whole of the Bible itself) it still says too much on its own for the "us", the "any" and/or the "all" in that verse to be understood to mean ALL of us w/o exception/both saints ~and~ reprobates.

2 Peter 3​

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

That thinking is the disaster that comes from the false doctrine of Original Sin. The only reason anyone stands condemned is because he, not Adam, has sinned. And the disaster of the heretical doctrine of Total Depravity is even worse.

God makes it clear that the reprobate will be judged on the basis of what he/she did or did not do in this life, not on the basis of their fallen nature .. e.g. Romans 2:12-16.

Of course, this (the basis for the judgment/condemnation of the reprobate) has little, if anything to do with the doctrine of Original Sin. Rather, this Biblical doctrine (named "Original Sin" by Augustine, if memory serves) tells us how the lot of us ended up as sinners.

If you were working at the Mattel factory and you came back from a coffee break and found 10,000 Malibu Barbies w/o right arms, you wouldn't go doll to doll to doll scratching your head trying to figure out what happened, rather, you'd immediately go to the source to find the problem, of course. THIS is what the doctrine of Original Sin seeks to do, to establish the source of the most common trait that every human being throughout history shares.

So, the only "disaster" that I can see here is the one that would come from not knowing the truth, that God didn't make/create us this way, WE did (or, more specifically, our progenitors did .. in whose fallen/tarnished image we have all been begotten).

Finally, what is your definition of Total Depravity, or perhaps even better, what do you believe that it is seeking to teach us

Thanks

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

Ephesians 2​

1 You were dead in your trespasses and sins, ​

2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. ​

3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were ~by nature~ children of wrath, even as the rest. ​

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, ​

5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).​

​

Romans 3​

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are ~all~ under sin; ​

10 as it is written, ​

“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, ~NOT EVEN ONE~; ​

11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, ​

THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ​

12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; ​

THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, ​

THERE IS ~NOT EVEN ONE.~” ​

 

[JIM]

Then why would he make a point of saying "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."

Paul Is making the point that there are two Israels. There is ethnic Israel and there is Spiritual Israel. Ethnic Israel includes all those who bear Abrahams's genes through physical descent from Isaac and Jacob, i.e., the Jews. Spiritual Israel includes only those Jews who also share Abraham's faith in the God of salvation. These two Israels are not totally distinct groups with some Jews belonging to one group and some to the other. All Jews belong to the first group, ethnic Israel. Only some of those who are ethnic Israel belong to the second group, spiritual Israel. That is, The Jews belonging to spiritual Israel are a subgroup of the Jews of ethnic Israel.

Here Paul has in view Jewish People only; thus here the reference to spiritual Israel includes only Jewish believers. Later in verse 23- 30 and Romans 11:17-24 we see that Paul expands the concept of spiritual Israel to include the entire church as a whole, including believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Together they are called "the Israel of God" in Gal 6:16. This is not the point of verse 6b however. In 6b the "for" or "because" indicates that 6a is explained by 6b, i.e., the latter is the reason why the former is true. God's promises concerning Israel have not failed because there are really two Israels.

There is so much more to be said here, but I will leave it for now.

And a few verses later (16-18) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." For the Scripture says to Pharoah, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whoever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

First we must ask why Paul brings in Moses here. The statement cited by Paul is a quote from Exodus 33:19. The complete discussion of the occasion of God's statement to Moses is more than I can give here. However, it is important to go back to the original occasion to see what God intended both in speaking to Moses and the statement here in Romans 9. I believe that it is clear that salvation was not in view in the instance of the statement to Moses in Exodus 33. The case can be made that the statement in Exodus 33:19 refers to God's sovereignty in which prayers to answer (according to which He granted Moses' request) and to Hies sovereignty in His choice of those who will serve him in the accomplishment of His plan of redemption. That God answered Moses' prayer and showed Himself to Moses in a unique way was symbolic of His intention to relent and once more to grace the nation with His presence. His answer to Moses was in "His sparing the people and continuing to guide and protect them"

This is supported also by Paul's discussion of God's choice of Jacob over Esau. It is not about whether God would save Jacob and not save Esau. The references to Jacob and Esau is less about the two men and more about the two nations that would come from Jacob and Esau. It has been noted that there is no mention in the scriptures anywhere of the man Esau actually serving the man Jacob. The nation from Jacob was ethnic Israel.

This is supported also by the reference in verse 17 concerning Pharoah. Here again, the point is not whether He saved or condemned Pharoah. The point is that He used Pharoah to serve His purpose.

I would add here that in verse 22, God's wrath is not demonstrated and His power is not shown by His condemning anyone. That is simply not viewable; it cannot be witnessed. What can be witnessed is how He used ethnic Israel throughout the OT to bring Jesus into the world.

I suspect you are interpreting scriptures from a pre-mil Dispensational view and can't get outside of that box. But it presents two redemptions, One for Israel and one for Gentiles.

I am amillennial, not pre-millennial. But that is another whole topic for discussion. I noted Paul's later inclusion of Gentiles as accepted people of spiritual Israel.

And the first five and a half verses (all you actually give) does not establish the full interpretive context. You can't just stop there and then interpret everything else the same way you have interpreted that. And there is no legit reason why you should have interpreted those verses the way you did. Paul begins by telling us that portion (the letter preface) is a deep lament over his lost unbelieving brothers. He has not even gotten into the doctrine yet.

The reason that Paul introduced this entire discussion was to dispute the belief that being a member of the chosen, the elect, nation of Israel, meant being also one of the chosen, the elect, for salvation. They believed that being a physical descendent of Abraham was both necessary and sufficient to be a child of the promise. Paul said no. And he went on to show that being chosen by God to serve did not obligate God to save.

 

[Alive]

Hello JIM, even if you take v9 out of the context that it's written in (including not only 2 Peter, but the whole of the Bible itself) it still says too much on its own for the "us", the "any" and/or the "all" in that verse to be understood to mean ALL of us w/o exception/both saints ~and~ reprobates.

2 Peter 3​

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

God makes it clear that the reprobate will be judged on the basis of what he/she did or did not do in this life, not on the basis of their fallen nature .. e.g. Romans 2:12-16.

Of course, this (the basis for the judgment/condemnation of the reprobate) has little, if anything to do with the doctrine of Original Sin. Rather, this Biblical doctrine (named "Original Sin" by Augustine, if memory serves) tells us how the lot of us ended up as sinners.

If you were working at the Mattel factory and you came back from a coffee break and found 10,000 Malibu Barbies w/o right arms, you wouldn't go doll to doll to doll scratching your head trying to figure out what happened, rather, you'd immediately go to the source to find the problem, of course. THIS is what the doctrine of Original Sin seeks to do, to establish the source of the most common trait that every human being throughout history shares.

So, the only "disaster" that I can see here is the one that would come from not knowing the truth, that God didn't make/create us this way, WE did (or, more specifically, our progenitors did .. in whose fallen/tarnished image we have all been begotten).

Finally, what is your definition of Total Depravity, or perhaps even better, what do you believe that it is seeking to teach us

Thanks

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

Ephesians 2​

1 You were dead in your trespasses and sins, ​

2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. ​

3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were ~by nature~ children of wrath, even as the rest. ​

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, ​

5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).​

​

Romans 3​

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are ~all~ under sin; ​

10 as it is written, ​

“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, ~NOT EVEN ONE~; ​

11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, ​

THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ​

12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; ​

THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, ​

THERE IS ~NOT EVEN ONE.~” ​

Nice clear job.

 

[JIM]

Hello JIM, even if you take v9 out of the context that it's written in (including not only 2 Peter, but the whole of the Bible itself) it still says too much on its own for the "us", the "any" and/or the "all" in that verse to be understood to mean ALL of us w/o exception/both saints ~and~ reprobates.

2 Peter 3​

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

God makes it clear that the reprobate will be judged on the basis of what he/she did or did not do in this life, not on the basis of their fallen nature .. e.g. Romans 2:12-16.

Papa Smurf, 2 Peter 3:9 (and the whole of the Bible) makes it clear that everyone, both the saved and the lost, will be judged on the basis of what he/she did or did not do in the life. In a nutshell, whoever believes in God will be saved; whoever does not believe in God will be condemned. I know that there are many who think that believing is not something that WE do, but they are wrong.

Of course, this (the basis for the judgment/condemnation of the reprobate) has little, if anything to do with the doctrine of Original Sin. Rather, this Biblical doctrine (named "Original Sin" by Augustine, if memory serves) tells us how the lot of us ended up as sinners.

And that is a fundamental problem. We do not become sinners because of anything Adam did. It is too often stated that we sin because we are sinners. That is not the case. That is wrong. We, just like Adam, become sinners because we sin.

If you were working at the Mattel factory and you came back from a coffee break and found 10,000 Malibu Barbies w/o right arms, you wouldn't go doll to doll to doll scratching your head trying to figure out what happened, rather, you'd immediately go to the source to find the problem, of course. THIS is what the doctrine of Original Sin seeks to do, to establish the source of the most common trait that every human being throughout history shares.

So, the only "disaster" that I can see here is the one that would come from not knowing the truth, that God didn't make/create us this way, WE did (or, more specifically, our progenitors did .. in whose fallen/tarnished image we have all been begotten).

Correct, God didn't make/create us this way. We did. And not what our progenitors did. It is solely and completely what we did. Sinning produces that fallen/tarnished image in each of us individually. Our fallen/tarnished image is the result only of what we have done, not the result of what our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, all the way back to Adam, have done. The fallen/tarnished image is a degrade condition of the spirit, not a condition of the body, Even though it is the body that is the source for nearly all sins, nevertheless it is the spirit that becomes damaged. That damage is due to our sins, not anyone else's. That spirit came to each of us by God undamaged. As Jesus proclaimed to Nicodemus, "flesh begets flesh, Spirit begets spirit" (John 3:6).

Finally, what is your definition of Total Depravity, or perhaps even better, what do you believe that it is seeking to teach us

Total Depravity, or Total Inability, is fundamentally the rejection of God's creation of mankind with free will. It is wrong. It makes God the one who tarnishes the image in each of us, or better, gives us a tarnished image in the first place and no ability to do anything about it. That I believe is an affront to God; it is heresy.

 

[Mr GLee]

Papa Smurf, 2 Peter 3:9 (and the whole of the Bible) makes it clear that everyone, both the saved and the lost, will be judged on the basis of what he/she did or did not do in the life. In a nutshell, whoever believes in God will be saved; whoever does not believe in God will be condemned. I know that there are many who think that believing is not something that WE do, but they are wrong.

I would offer.

I would suggest we should becareful how we hear who we say we do as lovingly commanded .

Amen its the kind of food the apostles knew not of at first the power to hear the Father and finish it to his glory. not the glory of the dying flesh of mankind

Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have

Believing trusting in the unseen things of God is not something we do its the kind of food the apostles knew not of at first .Both the power to hear the Father and finish it to his glory. not the glory of the dying flesh of mankind

John 4:33-35King James Version33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

The both to will and to do daily bread or called hidden manna. Taste like gospel honey hid from the apostles at first then thy lrerned how to walk by faith the invisible things of Christ .

Same kind of to both "will and to do" power food spoken of below Jesus the son of man did the will of the Father with delight. . unlike Jonah the murmurer who desired to die after preaching the gospel .

Philippian's 2:13-14 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

 

[Arial]

In a nutshell, whoever believes in God will be saved; whoever does not believe in God will be condemned. I

I realize this is not posted to me but I am jumping in for a sec to get clarification on this.

A person can believe in God, that is, be convinced of His existence and even cry out to Him for help in time of trouble, and not have the faintest idea who He is or anything about Him, or any love for Him. It is through faith in Christ and Christ alone---His person, and His work---that we are not condemned.

Total Depravity, or Total Inability, is fundamentally the rejection of God's creation of mankind with free will. It is wrong.

No, it is not. It really has nothing to do with whether or not man's will is free. That expression is the bane of all conversations on the subject. It completely bypasses the teaching of total depravity and becomes a place where the ugly head of man's desire for autonomy or independence from God that showed up in the Garden of Eden, to flail fists at God. And that is all the free will argument is about when you get down to the core. That is how fallen we are. It is wanting God to be who WE want Him to be---the one who serves us. It is the very demonstration of our total inability.

Total inability is the doctrine that states that not just pieces of man fell, but all of him. And of course it agrees with 1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 45-49 Thus it is written "The first man Adam became a living being", the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned----

I agree that if all anyone is going to do to gain actual knowledge of Reformed/Calvinist teaching by the acronym, your view of total depravity would be the assumption of the doctrine. And even total inability in my opinion does not do it justice. We have the natural ability of choice, given to us by God, and this did not go away in the fall. We have also become enemies of God---a two way street---we are His enemy and He is ours. We want to sin, we enjoy our sins, we do not want God taking away our sins, in our natural condition. We want to do as we please without judgment. For that reason, the natural man, the one dead in his trespasses and sins and unable to bring himself to spiritual life in Christ, does not even know he is dead. Only God can raise the dead. (Eph 2)

 

[atpollard]

I know that there are many who think that believing is not something that WE do, but they are wrong.

I would suggest a clarification that the 'many' more accurately ... "think that believing is not something that WE do unaided". It is a distinction that makes ALL the difference.

[Very few claim that the saints do not "believe", which is what your sentence appears to accuse your "opponents" of claiming.]

 

[JIM]

I realize this is not posted to me but I am jumping in for a sec to get clarification on this.

A person can believe in God, that is, be convinced of His existence and even cry out to Him for help in time of trouble, and not have the faintest idea who He is or anything about Him, or any love for Him. It is through faith in Christ and Christ alone---His person, and His work---that we are not condemned.

Oh, come on. What I said has nothing to do with any god except God of the Bible. To believe in God is to have faith in God. It is the same exact Greek word. And faith in God is faith in Christ.

 

[JIM]

INo, it is not. It really has nothing to do with whether or not man's will is free. That expression is the bane of all conversations on the subject. It completely bypasses the teaching of total depravity and becomes a place where the ugly head of man's desire for autonomy or independence from God that showed up in the Garden of Eden, to flail fists at God. And that is all the free will argument is about when you get down to the core. That is how fallen we are. It is wanting God to be who WE want Him to be---the one who serves us. It is the very demonstration of our total inability.

Say what you will, but the fact of the free will of mankind as created by God at the very beginning and unchanged by Him at any step along the way clearly rules out any and all concept of total depravity.

Total inability is the doctrine that states that not just pieces of man fell, but all of him. And of course it agrees with 1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 45-49

1 Corinthians 15:22 has to do with the fact that all, saved and condemned alike, will die physically and then be resurrected at the second coming of Jesus. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the one dying and then resurrected will be among the saved or among the condemned.

And physical death was not the result of Adam's sin. Physical death is an integral part of physical creation. And Adam's physical death was only indirectly due to his sinning. It was directly the result of being ejected from the Garden and in the process being denied access to the fruit of the tree of life which had the ability to stave off physical death.

Thus it is written "The first man Adam became a living being", the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

And that is the description of all in the resurrection. In the resurrection all will be raised to a spiritual body. Where that spiritual body ends up is not stated there.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned----

First, the death in Romans 5:12 is spiritual not physical death. Second, the spiritual death. which entered the world through Adam, spread to all men, not because of anything Adam did, but because all men sinned.

I agree that if all anyone is going to do to gain actual knowledge of Reformed/Calvinist teaching by the acronym, your view of total depravity would be the assumption of the doctrine. And even total inability in my opinion does not do it justice. We have the natural ability of choice, given to us by God, and this did not go away in the fall. We have also become enemies of God---a two way street---we are His enemy and He is ours. We want to sin, we enjoy our sins, we do not want God taking away our sins, in our natural condition. We want to do as we please without judgment. For that reason, the natural man, the one dead in his trespasses and sins and unable to bring himself to spiritual life in Christ, does not even know he is dead. Only God can raise the dead. (Eph 2)

Even the unbeliever, who you say wants to sin and enjoys sinning very often regrets some of those sins and recognizes that there is something amiss. Virtually every religion in the world comes to that point. The point where all those other religions fail is what is to be done about it. They all, almost universally, posit some system whereby the remedy is within reach of the individual himself. Only through faith in God of the Bible can a remedy be found.

And yes, only God can raise the dead (Eph 2). And even there it says that it comes through faith. Faith doesn't come through being saved. Being saved comes through faith. And that is the message of the Bible from beginning to end. First comes belief, i.e., faith, in God; then comes salvation by the grace of God.

 

[Arial]

Paul Is making the point that there are two Israels. There is ethnic Israel and there is Spiritual Israel. Ethnic Israel includes all those who bear Abrahams's genes through physical descent from Isaac and Jacob, i.e., the Jews. Spiritual Israel includes only those Jews who also share Abraham's faith in the God of salvation. These two Israels are not totally distinct groups with some Jews belonging to one group and some to the other. All Jews belong to the first group, ethnic Israel. Only some of those who are ethnic Israel belong to the second group, spiritual Israel. That is, The Jews belonging to spiritual Israel are a subgroup of the Jews of ethnic Israel.

That is true in the sense of election. Although I disagree with your reductive view of spiritual Israel. And the reductive statement "Jews who share Abraham's faith in the God of salvation." Yes that was true in the OT, before the advent of Christ, but Paul is writing to believers (and not only Jewish believers) after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Therefore central to his message is that the only way to God and to be reconciled to Him, is through faith in the person and work of Christ. All the Jews believed in God, the one true God. It was their actions that showed their lack of faith---they were disobedient.

Back to subject: The chapter is about election. That is clear. So even if you were correct, Paul is saying that those who believe, believe because God has elected them for mercy through faith. Why would that be any different for the Gentiles. It is God's election of persons that is demonstrated in the chapter. Mercy of whoever he shows mercy on. Not mercy on whatever he shows mercy on. It is about those who believe and those who do not believe.

First we must ask why Paul brings in Moses here. The statement cited by Paul is a quote from Exodus 33:19.

Because that is where God said it.

First we must ask why Paul brings in Moses here. The statement cited by Paul is a quote from Exodus 33:19. The complete discussion of the occasion of God's statement to Moses is more than I can give here. However, it is important to go back to the original occasion to see what God intended both in speaking to Moses and the statement here in Romans 9. I believe that it is clear that salvation was not in view in the instance of the statement to Moses in Exodus 33. The case can be made that the statement in Exodus 33:19 refers to God's sovereignty in which prayers to answer (according to which He granted Moses' request) and to Hies sovereignty in His choice of those who will serve him in the accomplishment of His plan of redemption. That God answered Moses' prayer and showed Himself to Moses in a unique way was symbolic of His intention to relent and once more to grace the nation with His presence. His answer to Moses was in "His sparing the people and continuing to guide and protect them"

You can interpret it that way if you want to but I see no reason to. It simply fits what you already believe. The verse quoted by Paul is a statement God made that is always true everywhere and on every occasion. Paul was applying it directly to what he said in verse 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Paul is not discussing God's sovereign election in some things some times, but in everything all the time. That is what sovereign means with God as our Sovereign over all creation.

This is supported also by Paul's discussion of God's choice of Jacob over Esau. It is not about whether God would save Jacob and not save Esau. The references to Jacob and Esau is less about the two men and more about the two nations that would come from Jacob and Esau. It has been noted that there is no mention in the scriptures anywhere of the man Esau actually serving the man Jacob. The nation from Jacob was ethnic Israel.

The Paul is making is not about nations, he is using something they are familiar with as a demonstration of God's sovereign election. He is not isolating that to Israel alone. Nothing we find in the NT about salvation will support that. It is those things you do not seem to be considering. The number of times the NT uses the word "elect" and words of the same or similar meaning (called, chosen, election) in reference to individual persons, are too numerous to post. God elects, chooses, calls, those who He shows mercy on. And when those words (and others) are used, the mercy is always saving mercy.

This is supported also by the reference in verse 17 concerning Pharoah. Here again, the point is not whether He saved or condemned Pharoah. The point is that He used Pharoah to serve His purpose.

That is beside the point. It is not what Paul is writing about.

I would add here that in verse 22, God's wrath is not demonstrated and His power is not shown by His condemning anyone. That is simply not viewable; it cannot be witnessed. What can be witnessed is how He used ethnic Israel throughout the OT to bring Jesus into the world.

Did someone say it was? What is in view is His power and His sovereignty. And the subject it not ethnic Israel when God brings Jesus from among the Jews----the subject is Christ and the power and grace of God. It does not begin or end with ethnic Israel. It begins in Gen 3. "The seed of the woman shall crush your head, and you will bruise His heel."

Proper perspective is the key to understanding.

 

[Arial]

Say what you will, but the fact of the free will of mankind as created by God at the very beginning and unchanged by Him at any step along the way clearly rules out any and all concept of total depravity.

Not of the actual doctrine it does not. There is a difference between a will that is free of all constraints, and freely making choices. Adam freely made a choice, but it was no an unmotivated choice. And the consequences of that choice were severe and affected everyone after him and the whole creation as well. The question is not whether or not we have the ability of choice---as stated---but the motivation of our choices. We are now motivated by our sinful desires.

And no one----not Adam or Eve or anyone born afterwards can reconcile themselves to God.They can't do it by choosing reconciliation, by deciding to be reconciled, by only wanting to get rid of some of their sins. They cannot change what they are. No one has ever done so or ever will do so.

Where is your support for what you said above?

1 Corinthians 15:22 has to do with the fact that all, saved and condemned alike, will die physically and then be resurrected at the second coming of Jesus. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the one dying and then resurrected will be among the saved or among the condemned.

I don't even know why you said that or when what we are talking about became about salvation and condemnation. Yes Paul is speaking of the resurrection, but that does not change his statement that all in Adam die. It does not remove it from the rest of the Bible. The subject we are discussing is total depravity.

And physical death was not the result of Adam's sin. Physical death is an integral part of physical creation. And Adam's physical death was only indirectly due to his sinning. It was directly the result of being ejected from the Garden and in the process being denied access to the fruit of the tree of life which had the ability to stave off physical death.

Wow.

"If you eat of the forbidden tree, you will die." Disobeying God is sin.

Physical death is a part of the fall. Can you show me anywhere in Gen 1 or 2 (before the fall) where it states that death is an integral part of physical creation? God created earth as our home. He is restoring it as out home. And a physical one at that! See Rev 20 and Romans 8:18-25.

Being cast out of the garden with access to the tree of life was a direct result of sin. You assume to much when you read that death is an integral part of the physical creation simply because of the tree of life. Man was created mortal---able to die----and corruptible---able to be corrupted. WIth Adam's sin he became corrupted and certain to die. The entire creation became a victim of man's corruption,by God's subjection of it. (Romans 8:18-25)

First, the death in Romans 5:12 is spiritual not physical death. Second, the spiritual death. which entered the world through Adam, spread to all men, not because of anything Adam did, but because all men sinned.

All men sinned because Adam sinned. We are like our father, Adam.

Even the unbeliever, who you say wants to sin and enjoys sinning very often regrets some of those sins and recognizes that there is something amiss. Virtually every religion in the world comes to that point. The point where all those other religions fail is what is to be done about it. They all, almost universally, posit some system whereby the remedy is within reach of the individual himself. Only through faith in God of the Bible can a remedy be found.

When the unbeliever regrets a specific sin it is not because he has offended God. It is because it is detrimental to himself in some way. And he does not regret many of his other sins, does not likely even consider much of what is sin against God to be sin. God does not enter into the equation with him at all. What all religions do is irrelevant. Mankind did not lose the image and likeness with God he was created in. We are still a moral being. We still recognize some things are better than other things. We still have a conscience. But for the unbeliever, the natural man, none of it has anything to do with desiring God or having faith in Him.

And yes, only God can raise the dead (Eph 2). And even there it says that it comes through faith. Faith doesn't come through being saved. Being saved comes through faith. And that is the message of the Bible from beginning to end. First comes belief, i.e., faith, in God; then comes salvation by the grace of God.

Eph 2 says it is God who brings these dead in sin people to life. Something has to happen before they can or do have faith. They have to be raised from the dead first. They can contribute nothing, not even faith to that. Hence we see in John 3, "No one can see ( which can only be in the sense of understand and believe) the kingdom of God unless he is born again. And John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born , not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Arial]

Oh, come on. What I said has nothing to do with any god except God of the Bible. To believe in God is to have faith in God. It is the same exact Greek word. And faith in God is faith in Christ.

I did not say that it had to do with any other god. Believe and faith may be the exact same word in Greek---I don't know---but it is completely beside the point of what I said. Which was ignored. We come to God through Christ and Christ alone. All the Israelites believed in God, but not all had faith in Him. If there was faith attached to their belief in Him, they would not have been also worshiping other gods. Some of their trust went over there to the idols. Faith in God in the Bible denotes trust in Him alone.

There are millions of people who believe in God---that is that He truly does exists---but do not believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion and resurrection and ascension. Do not believe that it is Jesus who saves them but their own moral goodness that will, they hope. Ask most strangers if the believe in God and the majority are going to say yes. Is that what saves them? Belief and faith in the real world are not the same thing and they were not always the same thing in the Bible. The Israelites believed in God, but did that save them?