Romans 9

[quantumfaith]

Well, at least you see there are only two possible choices as there is no middle ground between conditional and unconditional.

I respect your right to choose the position you think best suits what you believe the Bible teaches.

I humbly disagree with your choice as I believe it does not harmonize with explicit teachings of the scripture in regard to election but promotes pride rather than humility (1 Cor. 1:26-31).

I take serious intellectual offence to say that "conditional election" presupposes an posture of pride rather than humility, I dont think anything could be further from the truth (actual truth). By that, one could just as easily argue that "unconditional election" also engenders pride, but I will not assume that posture.

It is the by the grace of God that he has granted man the opportunity to choose Him and accept the marvelous gift of restoration and redemption in Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I take serious intellectual offence to say that "conditional election" presupposes an posture of pride rather than humility, I dont think anything could be further from the truth (actual truth). By that, one could just as easily argue that "unconditional election" also engenders pride, but I will not assume that posture.

It is the by the grace of God that he has granted man the opportunity to choose Him and accept the marvelous gift of restoration and redemption in Christ.

However the fundemental differnence is that conditional election is based on what God forsaw YOU DO whereas unconditional election is not based upon any foresight of anything you do. Hence, the fundemental difference is between what God does solely by grace and what God does in response to your actions?

Thus the fundemental difference is between election BY GOD as the cause of salvation or foreseen responses BY YOU being the cause of election. Thus unconditional election gives no cause in man for election whereas conditional election by its very nature is conditioned upon causes found in man.

Unconditional election gives no ground for boasting at all by any means (I Cor. 12;26-31) whereas conditional election by its very nature is merely God's response to what He first forsees in man.

 

[Dr. Walter]

"He has atoned for my sins. He is just and Justifier, who died for me. He has made His righteousness my own and my sins His own. But if He has made my sins His own, then I no longer have them but am free from them. And if He has made His righteousness my own, then I am righteous because of His righteousness, for He is God, blessed forever." - Martin Luther

 

[quantumfaith]

However the fundemental differnence is that conditional election is based on what God forsaw YOU DO whereas unconditional election is not based upon any foresight of anything you do. Hence, the fundemental difference is between what God does solely by grace and what God does in response to your actions?

Thus the fundemental difference is between election BY GOD as the cause of salvation or foreseen responses BY YOU being the cause of election. Thus unconditional election gives no cause in man for election whereas conditional election by its very nature is conditioned upon causes found in man.

Unconditional election gives no ground for boasting at all by any means (I Cor. 12;26-31) whereas conditional election by its very nature is merely God's response to what He first forsees in man.

:smilewinkgrin: I smile, but I respectfully disagree.

 

[Dr. Walter]

:smilewinkgrin: I smile, but I respectfully disagree.

How can you disagree when that is the distinction between "unconditional" versus "conditional"? Conditional is based upon YOU and your responses whereas unconditional denies any basis upon YOU and your responses!

Conditional finds its conditions for election IN YOU and YOUR RESPONSES whereas unconditional finds its conditions IN GOD and GOD's RESPONSES.

You may not like it but I don't see how you can intellectually deny it as that is the very essence of difference between the two.

Anything condition on YOU and YOUR RESPONSES promotes pride whereas election based solely upon GOD and HIS RESPONSES without conditions in YOU promotes humilty. There can be intellectual honest disagreement with these two conclusions.

 

[quantumfaith]

An interesting analysis, but I remain "unconvinced" as to the "unconditionality" of election.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003ii/badger.pdf

 

[Dr. Walter]

An interesting analysis, but I remain "unconvinced" as to the "unconditionality" of election.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003ii/badger.pdf

When a philosopher/theologion presents a theory of election that is based wholly upon the necessity to correct the grammar of the inspired Paul we may safely conclude he does not know what he is talking about.

For this man's theory to be correct, that election is a present time continum rather than a completed action in relationship to our own state of existence then Paul is necessarily incorrect in using completed action verbs and/or past time descriptives "before the world" "from the beginning" in describing the act of election. According to this fellow, Paul should have used the continuing present tense.

He may present the Calvinistic view but I am not a Calvinist. He is completely ignorant of the distinction between free will versus free agency. He is completely ignorant of the distinction between outward versus inward coersion. He completely ignores the specific inspired language of the apostle in regard to election and especially that election is "to" salvation (2 thes. 2:13). He completly distorts the Biblical doctrine of complete and total depravity of the human nature.

I will say this though, he completely invalidates conditional election by his analysis of foreknowledge and the immutability of God.

Furthermore, I do not disagree with his analysis of the attributes of God or that God is a constant outside of time. However, I totally disagree with his application to election. If Paul believed this man's view he would not have used completed action verbs to describe election nor would he have used the descriptive language of a completed action prior to human existence, nor would he have placed election as causal "to" salvation (2 Thes. 2:13). It is clear from the choice of language by Paul that Paul does not ascribe to this man's view but wishes his readers to understand that election stands as a completed action in relationship to human existence as the language "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand," is completely invalidated and meaningless by the present continuum election theory.

 

[Dr. Walter]

An interesting analysis, but I remain "unconvinced" as to the "unconditionality" of election.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003ii/badger.pdf

I also might add that his supposition that unconditional election contradicts human responsibility and response to the gospel is manufactured rather than real.

The Bible does not teach that God coerces the human will to reject or accept the gospel. The coercion of the will to reject the gospel is entirely interior by the fallen nature just as the coercion of the divine will is interior by his righteous nature. There are things God cannot do - "it is impossible for God to lie" not because of any exterior coercion that forces him to be truthful but by his own interior nature. Likewise, Jesus describes the interior coersion of the fallen nature in these words:

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

The fallen human will is coerced by the LOVE and HATRED of the human heart.

Paul describes this interior coersion of the will by the mind as follows:

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The human will is the servant of the heart and mind just as God's will is the servant of His heart and mind - He does only what He pleases or chooses without external coersion.

Election must be "unconditional" as neither the heart or mind of fallen man "will" repent or believe the gospel freely by their own choice (Psa. 14:2-3; with Rom. 3:10-12).

Reprobation is simply God leaving the non-elect to the inward coercion of their own nature whereas election is "to" salvation "through" setting apart by the Spirit of God in regeneration and belief of the truth in conversion to the gospel (2 Thes. 2:13-14). Regeneration is simply giving the fallen man a NEW heart and a NEW spirit (Ezek. 36:26-27) and thus a new set of interior coersion in opposition to the old interior nature (Rom.7:25). The Holy Spirit empowers the new interior nature so that God "worketh in you to both WILL and to DO of His good pleasure."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: I also might add that his supposition that unconditional election contradicts human responsibility and response to the gospel is manufactured rather than real.

HP: Who are you trying to kid? Something apart from any choice period, yet one is held accountable for it???? Unconditional election destroys any semb;lence of justice concerning human responsibility. What is fallen man, not unconditionally chosen to do? Act in opposition to necessitated fate?? And you talk of responsibility holding to unconditional election.

DW: The Bible does not teach that God coerces the human will to reject or accept the gospel.

HP: Unconditional election IS coercion. If ones fate is sealed before one ever does good or evil, that is as coercive as it could possibly get.

DW: The coercion of the will to reject the gospel is entirely interior by the fallen nature just as the coercion of the divine will is interior by his righteous nature.

HP: If one can do nothing other than what it does under the very same set of circumstance, choice cannot be predicated period.

By the way, it is philosophical error, speaking concerning that which is indeed higher than your abilities to comprehend, of the nature of God as being driven by compulsion. If God is necessitated by anything He is not Sovereign and a Creator by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a robot driven by compulsion, compulsion being god.

DW: There are things God cannot do - "it is impossible for God to lie" not because of any exterior coercion that forces him to be truthful but by his own interior nature.

HP: There are things I cannot do, for it is impossible for me to go back to the places I used to frequent. For one to say that they cannot do something, or it is impossible for them to do something, does not in common parlance speak to a literal impossibility, but rather to an unwillingness to do that particular thing. We are to be dead to sin, but that does not speak to an impossibility, but rather we are to be totally unwilling to sin even as God is unwilling to sin. True, nothing outside of God makes Him unwilling, but because He acts in accordance to His nature of love does not proof that if He so desired He could. We both know He is faithful and will not act contrary to love.

DW: Likewise, Jesus describes the interior coersion of the fallen nature in these words:

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

HP: No one argues that men do not have a fallen nature. You would like to paint your opponent as believing such but it is a misrepresentation of anything I have ever stated or implied. We simply disagree on whether such a nature is ‘sinful’ from birth. I say we are born with a proclivity to sin, but that is not the same as being born a sinner. You believe it is, and I believe you, and many others, are wrong.

DW: The fallen human will is coerced by the LOVE and HATRED of the human heart.

HP: You confuse the sensibilities with the will, ascribing sin to inclinations of the sensibilities whereas I believe sin does not occur until the will of man chooses to act in accordance to those fallen selfish sensibilities. Listen to James carefully: Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I no longer take your comments as serious and I doubt if many others do.

HP: Who are you trying to kid? Something apart from any choice period, yet one is held accountable for it???? Unconditional election destroys any semb;lence of justice concerning human responsibility. What is fallen man, not unconditionally chosen to do? Act in opposition to necessitated fate?? And you talk of responsibility holding to unconditional election.


HP: Unconditional election IS coercion. If ones fate is sealed before one ever does good or evil, that is as coercive as it could possibly get.


HP: If one can do nothing other than what it does under the very same set of circumstance, choice cannot be predicated period.

By the way, it is philosophical error, speaking concerning that which is indeed higher than your abilities to comprehend, of the nature of God as being driven by compulsion. If God is necessitated by anything He is not Sovereign and a Creator by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a robot driven by compulsion, compulsion being god.



HP: There are things I cannot do, for it is impossible for me to go back to the places I used to frequent. For one to say that they cannot do something, or it is impossible for them to do something, does not in common parlance speak to a literal impossibility, but rather to an unwillingness to do that particular thing. We are to be dead to sin, but that does not speak to an impossibility, but rather we are to be totally unwilling to sin even as God is unwilling to sin. True, nothing outside of God makes Him unwilling, but because He acts in accordance to His nature of love does not proof that if He so desired He could. We both know He is faithful and will not act contrary to love.





HP: No one argues that men do not have a fallen nature. You would like to paint your opponent as believing such but it is a misrepresentation of anything I have ever stated or implied. We simply disagree on whether such a nature is ‘sinful’ from birth. I say we are born with a proclivity to sin, but that is not the same as being born a sinner. You believe it is, and I believe you, and many others, are wrong.


HP: You confuse the sensibilities with the will, ascribing sin to inclinations of the sensibilities whereas I believe sin does not occur until the will of man chooses to act in accordance to those fallen selfish sensibilities. Listen to James carefully: Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Duty is mine, the results are the Lord's. :thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

I no longer take your comments as serious and I doubt if many others do.

I appreciate HP's comments and contributions to discussion and debate. I even appreciate your comments and contributions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thank you Quantumfaith! I for one certianly appreciate your input as well!:thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have answered these objections so many times and put the evidence before you only to be ignored or distorted.

HP: Who are you trying to kid? Something apart from any choice period, yet one is held accountable for it???? Unconditional election destroys any semb;lence of justice concerning human responsibility. What is fallen man, not unconditionally chosen to do? Act in opposition to necessitated fate?? And you talk of responsibility holding to unconditional election.

HP: Unconditional election IS coercion. If ones fate is sealed before one ever does good or evil, that is as coercive as it could possibly get.

Unconditional election is God's response to foreseen free choice by all fallen men to refuse to "seek" God (Psa. 14:2-3; Romans 3:10-12). Those not elected by God exercise their free choice in that they ALWAYS resist God (Acts 7:51) just as their fathers did. Indeed nothing prevents the salvation of any non-elect but their own free choice to resist and reject the light God has given them.

In regard to the elect, God graciously imparts unto them a new heart and spirit (Ezek. 36:26-27) that freely choose to repent and believe the gospel.

In regard to justice, all men have sinned and all deserve eternal wrath. God can do what he wills with the condemned. If He chooses to carry out justice upon some and determines to have mercy on others that is His right (Rom. 9:16,18).

HP: If one can do nothing other than what it does under the very same set of circumstance, choice cannot be predicated period.[/FONT][/COLOR]

You are perfectly free to do whatever you please. However, that is the problem with sinners - they LOVE darkness rather than light and WILL NOT COME to the light and that is precisely what God foresaw concerning the free choice of all fallen men (Psa. 14:2-3). They are at "enmity with God" and will not be "subject to the law of God." It is your free will that is your damnation. It is your will that is lost and needs saving. It is in bondage to sin.

By the way, it is philosophical error, speaking concerning that which is indeed higher than your abilities to comprehend, of the nature of God as being driven by compulsion. If God is necessitated by anything He is not Sovereign and a Creator by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a robot driven by compulsion, compulsion being god.

God is under the compulsion of HIS OWN WILL which is under the control of HIS OWN NATURE which makes it IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO CHOOSE sin, to lie, to commit iniquity. That is the Biblical teaching of the true God of the Bible. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to act contrary to HIS OWN RIGHTEOUS AND HOLY NATURE.

Likewise, the same is true for fall man. Fallen man is under the compulsion of HIS OWN WILL which is under the control of HIS OWN NATURE which the Biblical writers conclude:

Jn. 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be[/B].

Rom. 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Jn. 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Jer. 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Isa. 64:7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.

HP: True, nothing outside of God makes Him unwilling, but because He acts in accordance to His nature of love does not proof that if He so desired He could.

Is God immutably holy or mutably holy? You are claiming God is only mutably holy as that is the only possibly way he could even think or feel in such a way to choose to do or be unholy. God's nature is immutable. Adam and Eve were created in a MUTABLE state. Their choice to sin placed them in an IMMUTABLE sinful nature. The only solution is a NEW CREATION as the old creation is immutably unholy. - Mal. 3:6.

HP: No one argues that men do not have a fallen nature. You would like to paint your opponent as believing such but it is a misrepresentation of anything I have ever stated or implied. We simply disagree on whether such a nature is ‘sinful’ from birth. I say we are born with a proclivity to sin, but that is not the same as being born a sinner. You believe it is, and I believe you, and many others, are wrong.

Is death the consequences of an inclination to sin or the act of sin? Nowhere does the bible say that the wages of INCLINATION to sin is death. It is the act of sin that brings the wages of sin which is death. Why then do babies die? Why did Israelites have to offer a sin sacrifice for infants if they did not sin "in Adam"? How can the act of "ONE MAN" make many "sinners" if we only have an "inclination" toward sin??? Apparently you have not raised any children. I have five children and nine grandchildren and I have yet to have to teach them to sin - it comes naturally because they have a SINFUL NATURE that produces the inclination to sin.

HP: You confuse the sensibilities with the will, ascribing sin to inclinations of the sensibilities whereas I believe sin does not occur until the will of man chooses to act in accordance to those fallen selfish sensibilities.

God has the inclination toward righteousness because He is righteous BY NATURE! Man has the inclination to sin because he is a sinner BY NATURE.

Listen to James carefully: Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

This speaks to our SINS not to our sinful nature. Our sinful nature was obtained BY THE ACT OF ONE MAN "many were made sinners." James 1 refers to your sins not original sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

DW: Might it be that "ignoring" might be a better course of action, rather than continuing in a thelological and intellectual dispute, which does little if any to alter one another's perspective. Granted, sometimes we all have the energy and motivation for theological "throw down" other times not so much.

"Distortion" , if by that you mean "creatively and actively disagreeing", well OK, but otherwise, distortion is in the eye of the beholder. (Exempting of course "ridiculous" claims, but then again, we might disagree on what "ridiculous" is)

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW: Might it be that "ignoring" might be a better course of action, rather than continuing in a thelological and intellectual dispute, which does little if any to alter one another's perspective. Granted, sometimes we all have the energy and motivation for theological "throw down" other times not so much.

"Distortion" , if by that you mean "creatively and actively disagreeing", well OK, but otherwise, distortion is in the eye of the beholder. (Exempting of course "ridiculous" claims, but then again, we might disagree on what "ridiculous" is)

This issue is at the base of most of the posts and threads of recent date. To ignore it is to give opposition to the truth the podium to espouse nonsense. No, "distortion" is the correct term not "creatively and actively disagreeing" as we both cannot be correct.

Of course, the only viewpoint that I can give is my own but that does not mean it is wrong - prove it is wrong and then you can assert it is nothing but "in the eye of the beholder."

 

[quantumfaith]

This issue is at the base of most of the posts and threads of recent date. To ignore it is to give opposition to the truth the podium to espouse nonsense. No, "distortion" is the correct term not "creatively and actively disagreeing" as we both cannot be correct.

Of course, the only viewpoint that I can give is my own but that does not mean it is wrong - prove it is wrong and then you can assert it is nothing but "in the eye of the beholder."

DW: As sharp as you are you seemed to have missed the point. Most, who read and post here on these boards have reached reasonable levels of spiritual and intellectual maturity. Though I make the following claim only anecdotally, I am confident that it has at least a 95% confidence interval. Most folks here are sufficiently convinced that their own position and perspectives are the correct ones. Personally, I find it intellectually less complex to determine things with which I do not agree than to say I AM ALWAYS CORRECT about everything theological.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW: As sharp as you are you seemed to have missed the point. Most, who read and post here on these boards have reached reasonable levels of spiritual and intellectual maturity. Though I make the following claim only anecdotally, I am confident that it has at least a 95% confidence interval. Most folks here are sufficiently convinced that their own position and perspectives are the correct ones. Personally, I find it intellectually less complex to determine things with which I do not agree than to say I AM ALWAYS CORRECT about everything theological.

I am not overly concerned with those who are cemented in error but with those who are reading it and haven't come to any fixed determination. Changing people like you is not my goal. I can't do that anyway. I have my sights on better things.