Sovereignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man

[Elin]

The crux and final rendering of all matters pertaining to God's sovereignty. Not unlike Abiding's contention and others I'm certain as well, I too find myself not necessarily in agreement with the following excerpt from the OP : "God glorifies his mercy by saving only some men, because the glory of his justice is more important than the salvation of all men." ... but, the fact remains that not all will be saved ... and God foreknew those who are His own. In it's simplest terms, any and/or all of our objections remain inconsequential. God's fairness is not in question. Man's understanding of it is ... and can only be reconciled through complete and childlike trust in His infinite wisdom, goodness and love.

John 6:64-66
[SUP] 64 [/SUP]But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. [SUP]65 [/SUP]And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”[SUP]66 [/SUP]From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

BUT ... we say with Peter ... Lord, to whom shall we go ? You have the words to eternal life.

Okay, how about saying it this way:

God does not save all men because his justice does not allow it.

If he were to override his justice, he would diminish his glory by being inconsistent with himself.

Same thing, but less objectionably stated.
It's still about his glory.
It's still about not saving all because of his glory, right?

 

[Abiding]

What do you think cutting them off the one olive tree because of unbelief in Jesus Christ means?
Are you saying they were saved even though they rejected Christ?
That's a fail.
The context says they were cut off "to" show them mercy. Of coarse im not saying they were saved in unbelief
That comes up later in the chapter. Many who received His wrath found mercy after they believed which was His intention all along.


What wrath are you talking about?
Ro 9 deals with only one judgment, the hardening of unbelieving Israel Ill contend that the context is talking about Pharaoh because he(pharaoh) hardened his heart, God took that heart and made it harder to seal his already hardened resolve, then showed His wrath which showed His power and glory to the world. And at the same time saved the Israelites His vessels of mercy. Some egyptians were also saved.

Now you have Israel who hardened their hearts. God hardened them more in their resolve to use that resolve to kill their messiah, and later showed His wrath in 70ad to make His power known to the world(Gentiles) to save the world His vessels of mercy...all who believe. Including Israelites who continued not in unbelief. Who in fact were hardened.

So as you say the bible elsewhere can prove doctrines you may be teaching. Cool then use them. Romans 9-11 has a purpose. Israel. Although it has many truths in it that can apply to all doctrine. I think it does not apply to individual salvation. Hardening, wrath,mercy etc surely may apply to ones salvation as far as how God sees fit to bring someone there. But its about Israel.

In their unbelief, they are cut off from the one olive tree of the saved, and will be grafted back in onlyif they do not persist in their unbelief (Ro 11:23).
Whatever are you talking about?
thats been one of my points, to get you to see that romans 9 is about Israel. Pharaoh is only mentioned in relation to Israel. Also you deny hardening has any use but to damn people, but you correct me by saying hardened Israel can be grafted back in if they continue not in unbelief. So whether you see it or not your inconcistancy betters your theology.


Gods wrath was kindled against Moses and a lot of others that later received His mercy.


They received mercy when they came into obedience, as will unbelieving Israel when they come into obedience to the gospel of Mk 1:1 exactly, i would say God hardens to work His mercy. Although a just mercy.


Finally then to use rom 9 as a means to show salvation as a work of God
to damn whom He chooses save whom He chooses is really to just miss
the purpose of the entire text.

I havnt denied any of the text. God does chose, He does harden, and He does
show His wrath to make His power known. To show mercy.

 

[Abiding]

For the most part, I love Spurgeon, but he is not totally consistent.


Elin this is funny. I havnt found any calvinist be consistent. Especially
when it comes to ministering to people. Or evangelizing, or heretic hunting,
or much of anything for that matter, save expressing their theological views.
Which im glad, very glad of that fact

 

[Abiding]

Okay, how about saying it this way:

God does not save all men because his justice does not allow it.

If he were to override his justice, he would diminish his glory by being inconsistent with himself.

Same thing, but less objectionably stated.
It's still about his glory.
It's still about not saving all because of his glory, right?

Id rather say that the Cross takes care of His justice.
And to reject the truth of the cross will bring you a Holy and pure Justice,

Thats what the bible says....why not just go along with the bible?

Why do you think you have to modify whats already written?

Wait maybe your trying to explain why God wont save those who willingly refuse.
Ok that makes sense to those who deny man has a will. Hmmm

 

[Abiding]

One last thing..Romans 9-11 may not come right out and say it
but the plan of God to find all in unbelief to show mercy to all.
Was also a way to totally change over from the Old to the New
covenant. Did i say that right?

 

[unclefester]

Okay, how about saying it this way:

God does not save all men because his justice does not allow it.

If he were to override his justice, he would diminish his glory by being inconsistent with himself.

Same thing, but less objectionably stated.
It's still about his glory.
It's still about not saving all because of his glory, right?

If by "His glory", you are referring to the radiance of God's divine perfection and holiness (the simplest and shortest term I could come up with), I would agree. Because it would be remiss to speak of God's holiness at the exclusion of His justice ... and we know that His own are justified only thru faith (Romans 5:1). Elin ... for clarification sake for all reading this thread, are you suggesting or saying that God "requires" that most of mankind remain lost in order that He receive His deserved glory ? I don't believe this to be the case ... but I'm wondering here if perhaps this isn't how some are interpreting what I have highlighted in your above post.

 

[Abiding]

Originally Posted by Abiding

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the
initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from
man. Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of
asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology

The covenant to Noah (Ge 9:8-17) was not such.Look at the context: Notice the order v20Genesis 8:20-21

[SUP]20 [/SUP]And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
[SUP]21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in His heart[/SUP], I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.​then continue the story. The covenant was already in place with Noah. Faith, repentance, sacrifice, offerings etc already in play. The covenant made for not destroying earth with a flood although you can say it was not conditioned upon man. Id say the text shows it was...........later for instance when man gets to the place where the flood came without Christ "the sweetsmelling savour" found in the hearts of man the earth will again be destroyed. Alot of conditions there.


The covenant of the land to Abraham (Ge 15:9-21) was not such Actually your only giving reference to part of the greater covenenant...read on to chapter 17 where both the land and the seed were not valid unless you were circumcised. Also notice prior to your listed text this was written 15:6 "And he believed(the promise) in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness." Alot of condition there.

The covenant to Phinehas (Nu 15:10-31) was not such.Was not? practically that entire text was mans commanded duty.

The covenant to David (2Sa 7:5-16) was not such Well this one is Speaking of Jesus of coarse so it must be treated a little different. Although that being said. It also was conditional in the sense that because man screwed up that throne was taken up to heaven and there was not a man sitting on that throne for some time until Jesus sat on the Fathers right hand.

The covenant to Israel (Jer 31:31-34) to forgive her sin was not such This promise was also conditional by faith in Jesus.

All of these covenants required no initial or continuing response.Nonsense. The only people that be part of any of these covenants are people of faith.

None of these covenants could be broken by men.

............Really? All covenants have faith and obedience atatched. Surely God will not break His promises. But all promises are conditional if we want to receive them.
Such as harden your heart and refuse the truth, God promises to damn your soul. He will do His part if you do yours.

Try going to the wedding feast without the proper garment. How do you get the proper garment? See?

 

[zone]

options:


1a)

God looks through time to see who will be willing
knows Adam will fall
plans Christ's Cross
begins creation
causing men to be born He knows are not willing

1b)

He then works in real time,
trying to convince men He knew wouldn't be willing
to become willing/change their minds

1c)

some change their minds and are saved
[Q: can some He saw choosing Him also change their minds and decide not choose Him?]

...........

2a)

God knew Adam would fall and all men with him
began creation with Christ's Cross planned

2b)

He has decided for reasons known only to Him to limit His omniscience (all foreknowledge by whatever name) concerning specific individuals.
He chooses not to know who would, and who would not be willing.
[Q: why does He do this? choose not to know?]

2c)

He works in real time,
not knowing who will and won't until they do
He writes their names into the Book of Life as they get saved

............

3a)

God knows everything to the last detail.
he knows Adam will fall and all men with him.
He plans Christ's Cross.
begins creation.

3b)

He knows all are fallen
He declares all are condemned
He calls all to repentence

3c)

He wants all men to be saved.
but He can not, is not able to accomplish it unless they are willing.
[did He limit His omniscience before starting creation?]

..........

4a)

God knows everything to the last detail
he knows Adam will fall and all men.
He plans Christ's Cross
begins creation

4b)

He knows all are fallen
He declares all are condemned
He calls all to repentance
some don't come, and He doesn't do anything to change that,
though He could.

4c)

though He wants all men to be saved,
He can not accomplish it, or does not want them - unless they are willing.
He knows if He gave them new hearts they would be willing
but He chooses not to do that.
He knew everything to the last detail before He started

...........

5a)

God knew everything to the last detail.
He knew all were condemned.
He planned Christ's Cross.

5b)

He chose some to be saved from among condemned humanity.
He did not reveal why He made His choices.
He said it was strictly Mercy.

5c)

He announced Himself and His Plan
from the beginning.

5d)

He accomplishes everything He set out to do.
He does not fail - His Will is done to the last detail.
even the condemned will agree that He was Right and Just.

...........

6)

??

 

[Abiding]

I must be a Prophet. I did say it would degrade into philosophy.
wait i even said more....i said that the philosophy would overlap
the bible...which would be handling the Word of God deceitfully.
And force answers.

that dont mean i have to sit by Paula White does it?

Why all the questions? Why not just be a gnostic and get it over with and say God wasnt
powerful enuf to make Adam and Eve perfectly obedient? therefore He failed....

Deuteronomy 29:29


[SUP]29 [/SUP]The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

 

[zone]

options:


1a)

God looks through time to see who will be willing
knows Adam will fall
plans Christ's Cross
begins creation
causing men to be born He knows are not willing

1b)

He then works in real time,
trying to convince men He knew wouldn't be willing
to become willing/change their minds

1c)

some change their minds and are saved
[Q: can some He saw choosing Him also change their minds and decide not choose Him?]

...........

2a)

God knew Adam would fall and all men with him
began creation with Christ's Cross planned

2b)

He has decided for reasons known only to Him to limit His omniscience (all foreknowledge by whatever name) concerning specific individuals.
He chooses not to know who would, and who would not be willing.
[Q: why does He do this? choose not to know?]

2c)

He works in real time,
not knowing who will and won't until they do
He writes their names into the Book of Life as they get saved

............

3a)

God knows everything to the last detail.
he knows Adam will fall and all men with him.
He plans Christ's Cross.
begins creation.

3b)

He knows all are fallen
He declares all are condemned
He calls all to repentence

3c)

He wants all men to be saved.
but He can not, is not able to accomplish it unless they are willing.
[did He limit His omniscience before starting creation?]

..........

4a)

God knows everything to the last detail
he knows Adam will fall and all men.
He plans Christ's Cross
begins creation

4b)

He knows all are fallen
He declares all are condemned
He calls all to repentance
some don't come, and He doesn't do anything to change that,
though He could.

4c)

though He wants all men to be saved,
He can not accomplish it, or does not want them - unless they are willing.
He knows if He gave them new hearts they would be willing
but He chooses not to do that.
He knew everything to the last detail before He started

...........

5a)

God knew everything to the last detail.
He knew all were condemned.
He planned Christ's Cross.

5b)

He chose some to be saved from among condemned humanity.
He did not reveal why He made His choices.
He said it was strictly Mercy.

5c)

He announced Himself and His Plan
from the beginning.

5d)

He accomplishes everything He set out to do.
He does not fail - His Will is done to the last detail.
even the condemned will agree that He was Right and Just.

...........

6)

??

this is was not addressed to you mike.

i posted this as general overview of the things i have been mulling over in my mind.
i don't care if ppl refer to it as philosophy, or questions, or theological musings or seeking God's ways.

i posted my own post for valid reasons. i hope to have them seriously addressed. if not, dismissal is fine.
just dismiss it, once is enough.
please bypass this post, as i know your feelings on the matter are quite intense and i'm not interested in exacerbating them or upsetting you.

 

[Abiding]

Oh bs zone. make up your mind. Is it philosophy or not. Should i pull up your past
claims? and charges to people who say things past the scriptures?

If it is philosophy fine. Youve never seen me be "quite intense" over that.
Im sure ive been "quite intense" over biblical claims about God and His will.

Sure ill bypass your post. Doesnt seem to fit the thread but its looking more
and more what the thread is really about.

 

[zone]

Oh bs zone. make up your mind. Is it philosophy or not.

sure mike.
you can call it whatever makes you happy.
it had some propositions it i haven't seen answered.
i am wondering about them

i thought you might bear with me in longsuffering as i work through these things.

or should i just say bite the wall and be done with it.
get over your bad self.

do as you please.

 

[Abiding]

sure mike.
you can call it whatever makes you happy.
it had some propositions it i haven't seen answered.
i am wondering about them

i thought you might bear with me in longsuffering as i work through these things.

or should i just say bite the wall and be done with it.
get over your bad self.


Funny..ok ill try

 

[Abiding]

4 and 5 are the best ones although both have problems.

4's problem is a misunderstanding of the new heart and when it is given. Most reformed have that reversed.
How they could possibly understand there could be believers in the Old Testament is a wonder.

How can you say that God gives man the option to repent then say God didnt do anything to stop man from perishing?

5b again shows romans 9 has overshadowed all the bible that says He will save those who repent and receive
Gods provision. But you dont see the many many reasons the bible gives who He saves. Amazing. His provision
WAS the mercy. Repent believe the gospel and you will be saved.

ok aside from 5b id pick 5. although i wouldnt have written those options in that way. Still 5 wins minus the b part.



To me to really have a biblical understanding of this we shouldnt make so much at just the parts we
have been talking about. the bible has information of how He works in out entire lives. From birth The Spirit
of God is doing things. Illuminations, work with our conscience, good and bad events, people etc.
My point is that all this we talk about doesnt just come down to a onetime event with the gospel.
Jesus explained alot of things...as light given then taken away. Romans also in early chapters.
To say God isnt doing anything will be proven wrong on judgement day.

 

[zone]

i suppose that's why i put this in there:

options:


6)

??

for clarification of the views of others.

i just posted on questions i had.

thank you

 

[Abiding]

Ive seen a similiarity in muslims and calvinists as far as tolerance.
Muslims cant tolerate the thought of God becoming a man
Calvinists cant tolerate God giving man a choice.

 

[Abiding]

i suppose that's why i put this in there:



for clarification of the views of others.

i just posted on questions i had.

thank you

I apologize again. The sincere part is new to me.
ok. ill ponder on 6. My view is actually more radical
in some aspects than a calvinists.

 

[Elin]

What do you think cutting them off the one olive tree because of unbelief in Jesus Christ means?
Are you saying they were saved even though they rejected Christ?
That's a fail.

The context says they were cut off "to" show them mercy. Of coarse im not saying they were saved in unbelief

So what mercy has been shown to the vast majority of Israel that has died in unbelief for two millennia now?

They have received no more mercy than the Gentiles, the vast majority of which have died in unbelief.
So the same can be said of the Gentiles, who likewise receive mercy when they come to belief.

Many who received his wrath found mercy after they believed, which was His intention all along.

Not quite. If wrath is being dispensed, it's too late for mercy.

Ill contend that the context is talking about Pharoah because he(pharaoh) hardened his heart, God took that heart and made it harder to seal his already hardened resolve, then showed His wrath which showed His power and glory to the world. And at the same time saved the Israelites His vessels of mercy.

Except the text states that NT believers, not Israel, are the vessels of mercy (vv. 23-24).

The passage is not just about Israel.

Some egyptians were also saved.
Now you have Israel who hardened their hearts. God hardened them more in their resolve to use that resolve to kill their messiah,

That is nowhere presented in Scripture, and is pure human conjecture.

and later showed his wrath in 70ad to make His power known to the world(Gentiles) to save the world His vessels of mercy...all who believe.

Ro 9 does not treat of the destruction of Jerusalem, and to apply v.17 to Jerusalem is without Biblical warrant.

Including Israelites who continued not in unbelief. Who in fact were hardened.

So as you say the bible elsehwere can prove doctrines you may be teaching. Cool then use them. Romans 9-11 has a purpose. Israel. Although it has many truths in it that can apply to all doctrine. I think it does not apply to individual salvation.
Hardening, wrath,mercy etc surely may apply to ones salvation as far as how God sees fit to bring someone there. But its about Israel.

My point is, and has been, that although Ro 9 concerns Israel, the singular principle of God's election which is presented there applies to all God's electing, of both groups and individuals.

In their unbelief, they are cut off from the one olive tree of the saved, and will be grafted back in only if they do not persist in their unbelief (Ro 11:23).

thats been one of my points, to get you to see that romans 9 is about Israel. Pharaoh is only mentioned in relation to Israel. Also
you deny hardening has any use but to damn people,

Not quite, review it again.
They are condemned as long as they are hardened.
There is no grafting back while in their hardened state of unbelief.

but you correct me by saying hardened Israel can be grafted back in if they continue not in unbelief. So whether you see it or not
your inconcistancy betters your theology.

The inconsistency is only in your misrepresentation.

God hardens to work His mercy. Although a just mercy.

Does that apply to all mankind?

Finally then to use rom 9 as a means to show salvation as a work of God to damn whom He chooses save whom He chooses is really to just miss the purpose of the entire text.

To take the text at its word is not to miss its purpose.

God does chose, He does harden, and He does show His wrath to make His power known. To show mercy.

Scripture does not present the purpose of God's wrath is to show mercy.

When he gets to wrath, mercy is over.

 

[Elin]

For the most part, I love Spurgeon, but he is not totally consistent.


Elin this is funny. I havnt found any calvinist be consistent. Especially
when it comes to ministering to people. Or evangelizing, or heretic hunting,
or much of anything for that matter, save expressing their theological views.
Which im glad, very glad of that fact

Are you saying I'm a Calvinist?

Not so. I am a Paulist.

 

[Elin]

Id rather say that the Cross takes care of His justice.

And to reject the truth of the cross will bring you a Holy and pure Justice,

Thats what the bible says....why not just go along with the bible?

Because what you say does not answer the question which is asked.

Why do you think you have to modify whats already written?

Wait maybe your trying to explain why God wont save those who willingly refuse.

What explaining does that need?

All whom God saves willingly come.

Ok that makes sense to those who deny man has a will. Hmmm

The crowd who asks the question being addressed believes man has free will.