Libertarian Free Will is an Extra-Biblical Commitment

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman and Allan,

Good to hear from both of you.

Yes, you are deceiving yourself. If God imposes what you believe, then that is not your choice, it is God's. Even a child would understand this. The problem with Calvinists…

This thread is *not* a thread about Calvinism. It is a thread about LFW. Why does this keep coming up? :BangHead: (I am not really mad - I just wanted to use the smiley.)

Then they are confronted with hundreds of scriptures that clearly show man has a free will and can make a choice.

You say these Scriptures show this, but you never explain how. You simply assert that they do and then castigate me for not seeing what is supposed to be obvious. Winman, assertion is not proof.

Paul is literally begging men to be saved here. That makes no sense if man cannot make his own free choice.

Let me try and provide a possible example that brings some sense to Paul's actions if LFW is not true. Paul does not know the state of the will in any individual. There could be those who are in such bondage to sin that they will necessarily reject his plea. There could be those whose will has been released from such bondage and will accept his plea. Paul simply does not know. As such, a plea like this makes sense. Now, do not mistake what I am doing here. The *only* thing I am arguing for here is that there are conceivable situations where Paul's pleading can make sense when LFW is false. I am not asserting that these conceivable situations are in fact true. I am simply showing you that if LFW is false, then there are conceivable situations where Paul's words make sense.

And I have showed you verses that say "own voluntary will" and "freewill". I mean, what does it take to convince you?

To convince me simply provide me a sound argument from Scripture that demonstrates LFW. You say that 2 Cor. 5:20 proves LFW. OK. How? It is interesting that I have addressed some of those verses you presented to me that speak of “free will” in prior posts in this thread and you did not interact with my rejoinders.

You can not make any choice apart from the ability to choose equally between two or more options.

I deal with this in post #58 where I was responding to MB who was arguing essentially the same thing.

The burden rests upon you because you are the contending no such thing exists.

You contend that such things exist. Why is not the burden on you as well?

You state that man is not 'free' to make choices, ergo man can not make choices or choose.

We all agree men make choices. Let me say it again. We all agree men make choices. Now let me say it in a different way. We all agree that we are free to make choices. Let me say that again. We all agree that we are free to make choices. This is not the issue. Now read very carefully. We do not all agree that the choices we are free to make are made with LFW. We are free to make choices, but what is the state of the will regarding the choices we make? Does it have LFW or not? *That* is the issue. :BangHead: (Again, I am not really mad - I just wanted to use the smiley.)

So you actaully contend that God is and can be a deciever? Wow!...I was being somewhat sarcastic here and nothing more brother.

No problem, Allan. :thumbs: You clarified what you meant by God not being a deceiver, and that is all I wanted. (By the way, I do think the passage in Kings does assert that God played an active role in the deception of the King of Israel. But this is not pertinent to our discussion.)

One can not be a liar without being a deceiver and vise versa. To purposefully lie is to deceive and purposefully deceive is to lie.

OK. So if I am understanding you correctly, the argument you made in post #50 is along the lines of…

Premise 1: If God says ‘choose’ and we do not have LFW, then God is lair.
Premise 2: God does say ‘choose’ and God is not a liar.
Conclusion: We do have LFW.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion does follow from the premises (although not immediately, but the full proof is not necessary). I will grant premise 2. But I think premise 1 is false. Can you flesh out your argument that establishes premise 1 as true?

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[MB]

According to Wiki, when we use the word 'choose' we are speaking of making a selection from multiple options on the basis of what we judge to be the merits of those options. In our debate, the question is whether or not this process of judgment and selection is free or not. Clearly, this is not addressed at all. For example, if someone's process of judging is skewed, then the choice that they make will be skewed. In other words, if their judgement is skewed, then they do not have the freedom to choose accurately between options. Now, if this skewing of judgment is extreme, then it could be that there are some options that they would never choose. Why? Because according to their skewed judgment those options would be completely unacceptable. In other words, they are not able to choose those options because of their skewed judgment. Yet, according to the definition above, all of this is still considered choice. As such, the action of choosing does not in and of itself say anything about whether or not the choice was made with freedom. In other words, P is false and your argument is unsound.

Sincerely,

Brian

Sounds like you're trying to say that man some how convinces himself of the gospel of Jesus Christ through discernment or judgements of what the Word says. As if anyone could convince themselves of anything. Man doesn't convince himself of the gospel the Holy Spirit does this. Both through the Word being preached and the one delivering the message in the Spirit. Myself I was convinced by these very means.
Man doesn't seek Salvation or God unless God is working to bring them to himself. This can be through invitation or even a chance message he over hears while searching for a radio station. It happens sometimes when they may hear a street preacher or even a door to door missionary. There are an infinite number of ways man may hear the gospel. If the man listens even passively with out rebellion he can become convinced. It isn't a matter of weighing the pro's and cons of it, rather it's a matter of calling or drawing. It isn't a choice of whether the gospel is truth or not because it has been manifested with in every mans heart and he knows it's real when he hears it. I did.

The Holy Spirit working on the man to save him guarantees the man will hear the truth.
It all boils down to should I laugh this stuff off or accept it. That is the choice.
MB

 

[MB]

I know men say that they choose Christ and they say this with good intentions. What they don't see or never investigated is that, it is God who chose us instead. He chose us when he died on the cross for the whole world
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

If He died for the whole world, He chose the whole world for Salvation. Nothing humbles me more than to know that Christ is large enough to love every single soul He created enough to give His very life for us.
MB

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello MB,

Sounds like you're trying to say that man some how convinces himself of the gospel...Man doesn't convince himself of the gospel the Holy Spirit does this.

Hmmm...I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the work of the Holy Spirit - independent of your judgment - causes you to believe? Or, are you saying that the Holy Spirit simply influences me to accept the Gospel, but in the end, I decide whether to accept or reject this influencing work of the Holy Spirit? If your position is the latter position, then wouldn't you agree that your choice to accept or reject is based on some type of judgement process on your part?

Myself I was convinced by these very means.

What do you mean to say you were "convinced"? Doesn't 'convince' imply some type of judgment on your part as to the merits of the object you are being convinced of?

If the man listens even passively with out rebellion he can become convinced. It isn't a matter of weighing the pro's and cons of it, rather it's a matter of calling or drawing. It isn't a choice of whether the gospel is truth or not because it has been manifested with in every mans heart and he knows it's real when he hears it.

So, who or what is the deciding factor in this? If man listens with a rebellious heart is he choosing to do so? If man listens with a willing heart is he choosing to do so?

It all boils down to should I laugh this stuff off or accept it. That is the choice.

So, you admit there is some kind of judgment being made; namely, the judgment of rejecting it or accepting it. LFW says this judgment process is absolutely free. This is what has yet to be proved. Do you think this judgment process is free?

Brian

 

[Winman]

The scriptures answer your questions. They also show that believeing is a choice.

Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Believeing involves judgement. Sarah judged God as faithful and could be trusted. A person is persuaded, not forced to believe.

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Believeing involves accounting which means to reckon, count, or calculate. So man's reasoning is involved, it clearly says Abraham was the one doing the accounting.

Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

There you go, doesn't get any clearer than that, the Bible says Moses chose.

Moses esteemed and had respect which involves human reasoning. He considered the pleasures of remaining in Egypt and compared them against the promises of God. So this is a consideration of value.

Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

2 Cor 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Look, the very concept of believeing anything involves choice. For if you believe, then you must also be able to not believe. You cannot believe something that you know as fact.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Another term for believe is to risk. And when you risk anything there has to be at least two possible outcomes. And therefore you must make a choice.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

Around and around we go.

The scriptures answer your questions. They also show that believeing is a choice.

We all agree that believing is a choice that we make. This *is not* the issue. Why do I have to keep pointing this out? :BangHead: The issue is is whether or not the choice we make to believe is LFW.

Believeing involves judgement. Sarah judged God as faithful and could be trusted. A person is persuaded, not forced to believe.

Yes, Sarah did do this. But why does she judge properly when others do not? This is the heart of the issue. Can Sarah make a proper judgment apart from God dealing with her "judging apparatus"? Is her "judging apparatus" free to make proper judgments? The verses simply do not speak to these issues, and as such, you cannot claim that the Bible treaches that her choices are LFW choices.

Believeing involves accounting which means to reckon, count, or calculate. So man's reasoning is involved, it clearly says Abraham was the one doing the accounting.

Yup. Abraham is free to choose the option that he deems best. But is the decision Abraham comes to in this reckoning process a free decision? The verses you are quoting simply do not answer this question.

There you go, doesn't get any clearer than that, the Bible says Moses chose.

Ahhhhhh....:BangHead: We all agree that we make choices. The Bible saying 'choose' does not deal with the issue. The issue is whether or not the choice is an LFW choice. How many times do I have to say this? It seems your bias towards LFW is so strong that you are unable to see this simple distinction, which is in itself evidence that you are bringing it to the text rather than deriving it from the text.

The rest of your post is along the same lines: "The Bible says, 'choose'; therefore, LFW. Q.E.D.!" Around and around we go.

Brian

 

[Winman]

Hello Winman,

Around and around we go.



We all agree that believing is a choice that we make. This *is not* the issue. Why do I have to keep pointing this out? :BangHead: The issue is is whether or not the choice we make to believe is LFW.



Yes, Sarah did do this. But why does she judge properly when others do not? This is the heart of the issue. Can Sarah make a proper judgment apart from God dealing with her "judging apparatus"? Is her "judging apparatus" free to make proper judgments? The verses simply do not speak to these issues, and as such, you cannot claim that the Bible treaches that her choices are LFW choices.



Yup. Abraham is free to choose the option that he deems best. But is the decision Abraham comes to in this reckoning process a free decision? The verses you are quoting simply do not answer this question.



Ahhhhhh....:BangHead: We all agree that we make choices. The Bible saying 'choose' does not deal with the issue. The issue is whether or not the choice is an LFW choice. How many times do I have to say this? It seems your bias towards LFW is so strong that you are unable to see this simple distinction, which is in itself evidence that you are bringing it to the text rather than deriving it from the text.

The rest of your post is along the same lines: "The Bible says, 'choose'; therefore, LFW. Q.E.D.!" Around and around we go.

Brian

If we are going around and around, it is because you refuse to accept the obvious. Every day, every one of us makes choices of our own free will. It is only because your thinking has been poisoned with a falsehood that you cannot see what is right before your eyes and within your own personal experience.

This very debate shows that we have free will. We see the scriptures presented as evidence but come to completely different conclusions.

Now, you think that is because God is causing you to believe as you do, and causing me to believe as I do apart from our wills?

It is silly and unprovable at that. The scriptures clearly say a man has his own voluntary will. I presented the scriptures to you. The Bible speaks of freewill. Do you believe God a liar? Does God tell men to offer a sacrifice of their own voluntary will and then not permit them this own personal will?

The scriptures are on my side in this debate. I have shown you scriptures that say "own voluntary will". Now you show me scriptures where God causes a man to believe outside his own personal will.

Calvinists believe God will not regenerate some men to believe, but then God repeatedly calls them to believe. Do you think God irrational? If they cannot possibly believe, why would God call them?

If I did not own a dog, but every evening went out and called my dog, what would my neighbors think? Why, they would think me looney and rightfully so. Well, this is what your doctrine teaches in effect. God goes out daily and calls people to believe who cannot possibly believe. How you can consider a doctrine that teaches this to make sense for one second baffles me. I hope you are not staying awake nights over this.

The question you pose is unanswerable by any man. If God is causing us to believe what he wills unknown to us, it will remain just that, unknown. It is a silly argument not supported by scripture or common sense either.

 

[MB]

Hello MB,



Hmmm...I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the work of the Holy Spirit - independent of your judgment - causes you to believe? Or, are you saying that the Holy Spirit simply influences me to accept the Gospel, but in the end, I decide whether to accept or reject this influencing work of the Holy Spirit? If your position is the latter position, then wouldn't you agree that your choice to accept or reject is based on some type of judgement process on your part?

Actually there is no judgement on my part at all. To be convinced of something is the work of the one doing the convincing. In this case The Holy Spirit. If we are convinced of something we believe. Don't you believe the Holy Spirit has the power to convince you of something? All man does is passively listen. An ability men have never lost.

What do you mean to say you were "convinced"? Doesn't 'convince' imply some type of judgment on your part as to the merits of the object you are being convinced of?

As I said before we konw the gospel is truth when we hear it. It has been manifested with in all men.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It's that you already know the truth so when you hear it you do not doubt it. You are convinced because you already know it to be true. When Paul was on that road to Damascus he asked "who art thou ?"
it must have been a moment later then he said "Lord" before the Lord answered him. You see even Paul recognized who was speaking with him.

So, who or what is the deciding factor in this?

The decision isn't a choosing of Christ but to rebel or not to rebel.

If man listens with a rebellious heart is he choosing to do so?

Generally men do not listen to what they rebel against Paul obviously didn't while he persecuted the Christians. I'm sure he must have had someone try to tell him.

If man listens with a willing heart is he choosing to do so? [/quote]
When a man listens with his heart it only means he is becoming so interested it's he can't wait to hear the next verse. Like really good food you just can't seem to get enough of it.

So, you admit there is some kind of judgment being made; namely, the judgment of rejecting it or accepting it. LFW says this judgment process is absolutely free. This is what has yet to be proved. Do you think this judgment process is free?

Brian

This last quote was about this statement I made.

It all boils down to should I laugh this stuff off or accept it. That is the choice.

The choice I was referring to is do I rebel or not to the listening of the gospel. Sadly most men won't listen. This is why they do not believe.

The question most will ask then is why did one listen and the other not listen?.


State of mind at the time. As I grew up I sat in church every Sunday and I never really listened because I didn't want to. I never listened until someone came along that said something I over heard in conversation that interested me. When he preached that evening I listened with interest.
MB

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

It is only because your thinking has been poisoned with a falsehood that you cannot see what is right before your eyes and within your own personal experience.

Hmmmm...this is pretty interesting. You are saying that my inability to see the truth of the matter (as you see it) is because my "thinking has been poisoned." So, it would seem there is some type of poison that is interfering with my judgment process so as to not be able to make an accurate judgment. In other words, it seems you say that my poisoned judgment process has limited my ability to make the proper choice. This sounds like a denial of LFW.

I have shown you scriptures that say "own voluntary will".

I have interacted with those Scriptures in prior posts explaining why they do not mean what you take them to mean. So far, you have chosen not to respond to my rejoinders. Don't kid yourself Winman. Simply pointing to passages that speak of us choosing does not say anything about the state of the will in that choosing. We agree that we make choices. To use your own words, the question is whether or not our choosing mechanism is "poisoned". You have already said mine is.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Rippon]

It isn't a choice of whether the gospel is truth or not because it has been manifested with in every mans heart and he knows it's real when he hears it.

You are claiming that everyone has heard the gospel? Well, that's manifestly false.

 

[Winman]

Hello Winman,



Hmmmm...this is pretty interesting. You are saying that my inability to see the truth of the matter (as you see it) is because my "thinking has been poisoned." So, it would seem there is some type of poison that is interfering with my judgment process so as to not be able to make an accurate judgment. In other words, it seems you say that my poisoned judgment process has limited my ability to make the proper choice. This sounds like a denial of LFW.



I have interacted with those Scriptures in prior posts explaining why they do not mean what you take them to mean. So far, you have chosen not to respond to my rejoinders. Don't kid yourself Winman. Simply pointing to passages that speak of us choosing does not say anything about the state of the will in that choosing. We agree that we make choices. To use your own words, the question is whether or not our choosing mechanism is "poisoned". You have already said mine is.

Sincerely,

Brian

Brian,

So, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that when God uses the word choose as in Deut 30:19, he does not really mean choose?

And when God says "own voluntary will" in Lev. 1:3 he does not really mean a person's own, free, and volutary will?

And when God uses the word freewill as in Ezr 3:5, he does not really mean we have a free will that we can exercise ourselves?

And when God says willingly as in Exo 25:2, he really does not mean willingly?

That's your argument?

And I have not addressed the state of the will in my answer? You mean words like "freewill" and "voluntary will" do not address this?

Your argument is absolutely absurd. If I cannot believe God when he says this, how do I know when I can ever believe God? What good is the Bible if when God says something I cannot understand it? And who can I trust to give the explicit meaning or definition of the words God's uses?

You?

You are practically calling God a liar. God says men have their own voluntary will, but you imply that it is not really your own personal will, and that it is not truly voluntary. God uses the word freewill, but you suggest it is not really free.

 

[Winman]

And Brian, I do say your thinking is poisoned. The Calvinists (not all, but generally) teach that a man cannot believe unless God regenerates a man to believe. And if God does regenerate that man to believe, he will always believe and there is no possibility of him not believeing. They also teach that if God does not regenerate a man to believe, then he cannot possibly believe. If this were true, then I would agree with you, man does not have a choice.

But why then would God tell people to choose? Why would God tell someone to give of his own voluntary will? Why would God condemn men for refusing him?

And don't tell me as other Calvinists have that it is because it is God's pleasure to choose who will and who will not be saved. The Bible clearly states that God has no pleasure in sending men to Hell.

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

And Eze 18:32 is an excellent example of how absurd Calvinism is. Why would God tell men to turn themselves if a man cannot possibly do so? And don't give me that mumbo-jumbo that the elect can turn. No, they cannot. If it is God who turns them, they do not have the least bit say in the matter if Calvinism is true. And for God to tell a man to turn himself (as he does numerous times) is absolutely misleading.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Winman,

You wrote/asked:

But why then would God tell people to choose? Why would God tell someone to give of his own voluntary will? Why would God condemn men for refusing him?

Why not simply ask:

"....Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" ......

 

[The Archangel]

Winman,

In a recent posting to Brian Bosse you wrote: "Your argument is absolutely absurd."

Unfortunately, your counter argument is itself absurd. Notice I didn't say anything about Brian's argument as, for now, I will neither argue for or against his position.

There are some things that must be pointed out in your post:

1. Ezra 3:5 Says: and after that the regular burnt offerings, the offerings at the new moon and at all the appointed feasts of the Lord, and the offerings of everyone who made a freewill offering to the Lord.

As you will see, this passage is not talking about "Freewill." Rather, this passage is talking about a freewill offering.

A freewill offering, as opposed to an offering on, say, the Day of Atonement, is an offering that is not required. If a person was so-moved to offer something, he could do so and that would be a freewill offering.

It has nothing to do with "Freewill" as you are arguing. In quoting this verse, you have made a non-sequitur argument and this verse has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

2. Exodus 25:2 is in the same category as the above passage. The contributions for the sanctuary in Exodus 25 were not required as so many things in the Law were. Therefore, to give extra was to give freely. Again, this is a non-sequitur argument.

3. Exodus 30:19 is part of a larger passage:

15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. 16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”

This pericope is the "Blessings and Curses" part of the Covenant between God and Israel. Notice I said "Israel," not mankind.

Your reference to this passage as an argument for your position fails because you did not see that Israel is God's chosen people. God's sovereign choice has already been made and, in this text, God is telling them how to remain in His favor. It has absolutely nothing to do with a freedom to choose Him as if He (God) had not first chosen them. Furthermore, from the New Testament, we see that not all "Israel" was "Israel." Only the true believers were considered true Israel. How do we know who the true believers are? They are the ones who loved the Lord, obeyed His voice, and held on to Him with every ounce of their being.

But, Moses could only command this to the Israelites--because they were already chosen. Your argument from this passage would work if Moses were addressing the Philistines or the Amalekites, not the Israelites.

Of course this is a real choice, but it is only possible because God first acted in an electing way towards Israel.

In a later post you quote Ezekiel 18:32 and say that it proves the absurdity of Calvinism.

Well, again there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of textual things. This passage is God calling the already elected nation back to Himself.

I fear that to make your arguments, you have typed the word "Freewill" into a Bible software program and have made your argument from things that have no bearing on the topic at hand.

The "absurd" post to Brian shows that you care little for true understanding of a Biblical passage and you care little for context.

If I may offer some advice: Always find the main point of the passage and you will find that your interpretations are more in line with Scripture (and that has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

ReformedBaptist

I have been through this a dozen times already. That is a pet verse of Calvinists, but they pull it out of context. Read the entire 9th chapter of Romans and you will see it is contrasting faith versus works. It even defines election as God choosing those who trust by faith opposed to those who try to establish their own righteousness through works.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
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.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (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 is right after this that the hearers complain. They are complaining because God has elected to save only those who come by faith and reject those who try to come by good works. Then Paul compares Moses to Pharaoh. Moses was a man of great faith (read Hebrews chapter 11), while Pharaoh is the great example of a man who will not humble himself and refuses to believe.

Exo 10:3 And Moses and Aaron came in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? let my people go, that they may serve me.

Then again it contrasts the Gentiles who are saved by faith versus those Jews who tried to save themselves through good works.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

You just can't pull a verse out of a chapter to prove a false doctrine. Read the whole chapter, it is comparing faith versus works. It is simply saying God has chosen to show mercy to those who believe by faith and show his wrath on those who try to save themselves through their own good works.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

ReformedBaptist

I have been through this a dozen times already. That is a pet verse of Calvinists, but they pull it out of context. Read the entire 9th chapter of Romans and you will see it is contrasting faith versus works. It even defines election as God choosing those who trust by faith opposed to those who try to establish their own righteousness through works.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
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.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (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 is right after this that the hearers complain. They are complaining because God has elected to save only those who come by faith and reject those who try to come by good works. Then Paul compares Moses to Pharaoh. Moses was a man of great faith (read Hebrews chapter 11), while Pharaoh is the great example of a man who will not humble himself and refuses to believe.

Exo 10:3 And Moses and Aaron came in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? let my people go, that they may serve me.

Then again it contrasts the Gentiles who are saved by faith versus those Jews who tried to save themselves through good works.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

You just can't pull a verse out of a chapter to prove a false doctrine. Read the whole chapter, it is comparing faith versus works. It is simply saying God has chosen to show mercy to those who believe by faith and show his wrath on those who try to save themselves through their own good works.

Friend,

Do discussions like these get your emotions running high? It's hard to read your reply to me and not feel attacked. But I will assume you love your brother in Christ.

I have replied to you because you posted things with what seemed like an desire to understand your calvinist brethren better. I find that to be a noble pursuit...even something that lends to brotherly love and unity.

But this reply now makes it seem like your trying to attack the doctrines called calvinist. So, I am not sure what your intentions are.

My brother, I have read the whole chapter of Romans. I ask you give me your love by believing the best of me: I am in no way interested nor desire to make the text say something that it is not saying or to prove a false doctrine. Why would you charge me with such a pernicious action?

I do not believe you are trying to twist the Scriptures to prove false doctrines. I do believe you and I read this same passage and understand it differently.

Now, all this aside, you stated simply "It is simply saying God has chosen to show mercy to those who believe by faith and show his wrath on those who try to save themselves through their own good works"

No brother, this is not what the text actually says.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

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

and,

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

To whomever He shows mercy, and to whomever He hardens, it is HIS will, of God, and not of the man/woman who wills or runs.

 

[The Archangel]

Winman,

This is now the third post I've written to point out that your interpretation clearly goes against the printed text.

You wrote:

I have been through this a dozen times already. That is a pet verse of Calvinists, but they pull it out of context. Read the entire 9th chapter of Romans and you will see it is contrasting faith versus works. It even defines election as God choosing those who trust by faith opposed to those who try to establish their own righteousness through works. (Emphasis mine)

This is absolutely wrong. There is nothing in the passage that would suggest that. You are absolutely reading things that you want to see into the text.

It is right after this that the hearers complain. They are complaining because God has elected to save only those who come by faith and reject those who try to come by good works. Then Paul compares Moses to Pharaoh. Moses was a man of great faith (read Hebrews chapter 11), while Pharaoh is the great example of a man who will not humble himself and refuses to believe.

You are incorrect again. The text says that God's election is not based on works or faith. In the passage that you so conveniently skipped, Paul writes:

9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “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.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

We are never told that Jacob came by faith and Esau tried to come by works. That is simply not there. The point of this passage is that God, for His own sovereign purposes, chose Jacob over Esau--even before they were born and had done nothing good or evil.

So, your statement suggesting that Jacob was saved because he came by faith and Esau was rejected because he came by works is absolutely wrong and is diametrically opposed to the text itself.

Further, you ignore what the text says about Pharaoh: He was raised up so that God could demonstrate His own power and show His own glory. Pharaoh was not shown mercy and that had nothing to do with his refusal to humble himself.

Again, you are going against the printed text--a dangerous place to be.

You just can't pull a verse out of a chapter to prove a false doctrine. Read the whole chapter, it is comparing faith versus works. It is simply saying God has chosen to show mercy to those who believe by faith and show his wrath on those who try to save themselves through their own good works.

Pot...kettle...never mind.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Archangel

Pure nonsense. The passage clearly shows God is electing those of faith and rejecting those who claim works.

Rom 9:11 (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; )

I don't know how you can overlook that. If that is not explaining that God has elected those of faith and rejected those who come by works, then exactly what does this verse mean? I would love to hear your interpretation.

This is also shown again in 1st Peter.

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

You are elect "through" the sanctification of the Spirit, and being washed by the blood of Christ. And you cannot receive the Spirit unless you believe.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Notice it says you receive the Spirit by hearing the word of God and believeing (the hearing of faith). Notice also that this verse is comparing faith versus works.

You must remember, that although Paul was in Rome, many of his listeners were Jews. They believed they were saved by keeping the law. When Paul told them that only those who believed by faith were accepted, and that those who trusted in the law were rejected, many were offended. This is why Paul explained that a person was not saved simply by descending from Abraham.

Acts 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.
17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
19 But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.
20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.
22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

 

[MB]

Hi reformed;
You quoted;

..Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

Are you making the claim that this is what God said?
MB

 

[Winman]

Yes, MB, Calvinists fail to realize this is a quote of unbelievers, those who not like what Paul is telling them. It is God's word, but God often records the false statements of men and even Satan in his word.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

This is God's word, this is scripture and is 100% truth. But it is God recording what the serpent said, not what God said.

Men certainly do not always obey God's will as shown by Jesus himself.

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Only those who do the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, pure logic argues that those who go to Hell must disobey and not do the will of God.

The Calvinists can never give a reason God chooses some men to go to heaven and choses the rest to go to Hell other than they say it is God's will to do his pleasure. But the Bible says it is not God's pleasure for men to die unsaved.

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Yet again, more scripture that contradicts Calvinism. And again, God tells unsaved men to turn meaninglessly when they cannot possibly do so unless God regenerates them.

Perhaps God does not understand Calvinism?