Romans 9

[pokemaughan]

Here's a neat little conclusion/thought I came across the other day, to add to this discussion of God's glory.

Let's say you have really, really, really buff man. Just ripped. By himself, he's pretty outstanding, sure. But imagine what he looks like next to the skinny couch potato. The contrast is amazing, right? Or perhaps the color white. Great by itself, marvelously contrasted by black.

So God is absolutely mind-blowingly fantastic in all His holiness and goodness, right? What does that look like when contrasted to the opposite? Ahhh... wow, huh? "Here's darkness... and here's the LIGHT!!" I think there is a lot of symbolism along these lines throughout the Bible... darkness versus light.

There's a necessity for this contrast in order for God's true glory to shine. It's the contrast that makes us pitiful humans realize how good He really is. In the end, heaven or hell, God gets all the glory, just as planned. It's not up to us to understand why, even though we really really want to, especially in the arena's of tragic suffering and condemnation. Chew on it for awhile and you're forced to just be humble and accept that God has it all figured out.

[Guest shiloh357]

"What if GOD wanting to show HIS wrath and to make HIS power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath prepard for destruction?"

What if it is GOD's intention to glorify HIS perfect righteousness and Holiness, chose this as HIS way to do it? By showing HIS wrath and vengeance?

And He did that when He poured His wrath and vengence out upon Christ when Christ was on the cross paying the penalty for our sin and took upon Himself the weight of God's justice. God's wrath and justice against sin was satisfied on the cross. If it wasn't, then Jesus' death on the cross is not sufficient as payment for sin and that would unravel much of the NT teaching on that subject.

Furthermore, the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction do not refer to anyone being prepared by God for destruction. "Vessels of wrath" does not mean that there are people created to be the object of the manifestation of God's wrath, but they are in that category due to their own actions, which is why Paul uses the example of Pharoah. Pharoah was not created to be destroyed, but became a vessel of wrath, ripe for destruction due to the unrepentant hardness of His heart which God used for His purpose and glory. God does not "fit" anyone for destruction and the Bible never says He does.

Our focus seems to be on the limitted look at the creation. What if it is really about the creator? What takes place in this world, in this short blink of an eye may not be the point. What comes next might be. This creation being just a way to show all of the aspects/facets of GOD's personallity.

That is really just conjecture.

[Shiloh62]

I have been in many discussions on Romans chapter 9 with those who are very capable of finding a meaning in these phrases that is completely different than what I read. Many very learned men have been able to change the meanings or the focus of Paul's writings to get away from what is a doctrine many do not want to believe. With phrases like:

"For the children, not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand..."

"Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated"

"I will have mercy on who I will have mercy..."

"Therefore HE has mercy on whom HE wills, and whom HE wills HE hardens."

All of which lead to:

"What if GOD wanting to show HIS wrath and to make HIS power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath prepard for destruction,

and that HE might make known the riches of HIS glory on the vessels of mercy, which HE had prepared beforehand for glory,

even us whom HE called.." (taking note that Paul had already explained that those HE called were predestined by GOD and that is why HE called them. Romans 8:29)

Paul clearly is teaching a doctrin of predestination and the work of a soveriegn LORD in determining the destination of individuals. From hardening Pharoah's heart to choosing who will have HIS favor even before they leave the womb.

Still, with these verses and the ones from 1 Chorinthians that establish who GOD calls, " Not many wise according to the flesh... and Epehesians, "Just as HE chose us in HIM before the foundations of the Earth..." The doctrine is still put aside.

Yet, there is (IMO) a lingering question that seems to be a perfect proof of what Paul is teaching. Why would Paul make this statement;

"You will say to me then, 'why does HE still find fault? For who has resisted HIS will?"

How is it that Paul, making this comment, asking and answerring this question, can not be understood to be teaching the very doctrin that says GOD's will is done? IF Paul was not teaching a very specific point that GOD chooses whom HE will have mercy on and HE chooses to harden hearts, based on the predestination Paul spoke of in Romans 8:28-39, why would Paul assume that people would ask this specific question from what he is teaching?

And that is the question. How is it that Paul would anticipate people asking this question to refute his teaching if this is not what he is teaching?

Thoughts?

Good point, Shiloh. We must not forget the predestination aspect. As a soverein and omniscient God , He already knows which ones have/will turn against Him. He did not/will not turn His back on those that love Him.

[Guest shiloh357]

I have been in many discussions on Romans chapter 9 with those who are very capable of finding a meaning in these phrases that is completely different than what I read. Many very learned men have been able to change the meanings or the focus of Paul's writings to get away from what is a doctrine many do not want to believe. With phrases like:

"For the children, not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand..."

"Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated"

"I will have mercy on who I will have mercy..."

"Therefore HE has mercy on whom HE wills, and whom HE wills HE hardens."

All of which lead to:

"What if GOD wanting to show HIS wrath and to make HIS power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath prepard for destruction,

and that HE might make known the riches of HIS glory on the vessels of mercy, which HE had prepared beforehand for glory,

even us whom HE called.." (taking note that Paul had already explained that those HE called were predestined by GOD and that is why HE called them. Romans 8:29)

Paul clearly is teaching a doctrin of predestination and the work of a soveriegn LORD in determining the destination of individuals. From hardening Pharoah's heart to choosing who will have HIS favor even before they leave the womb.

Still, with these verses and the ones from 1 Chorinthians that establish who GOD calls, " Not many wise according to the flesh... and Epehesians, "Just as HE chose us in HIM before the foundations of the Earth..." The doctrine is still put aside.

Yet, there is (IMO) a lingering question that seems to be a perfect proof of what Paul is teaching. Why would Paul make this statement;

"You will say to me then, 'why does HE still find fault? For who has resisted HIS will?"

How is it that Paul, making this comment, asking and answerring this question, can not be understood to be teaching the very doctrin that says GOD's will is done? IF Paul was not teaching a very specific point that GOD chooses whom HE will have mercy on and HE chooses to harden hearts, based on the predestination Paul spoke of in Romans 8:28-39, why would Paul assume that people would ask this specific question from what he is teaching?

And that is the question. How is it that Paul would anticipate people asking this question to refute his teaching if this is not what he is teaching?

Thoughts?

Good point, Shiloh. We must not forget the predestination aspect. As a soverein and omniscient God , He already knows which ones have/will turn against Him. He did not/will not turn His back on those that love Him.

Kross, wrote that, not me.

Biblical Predestination always pertains to service, not salvation. In each case where Predestination is mentioned in the Bible, it pertains to what God has predestined for those who have accepted Christ. There is not ONE place in the Bible that says God has predestined anyone to hell.

[Shiloh62]

I have been in many discussions on Romans chapter 9 with those who are very capable of finding a meaning in these phrases that is completely different than what I read. Many very learned men have been able to change the meanings or the focus of Paul's writings to get away from what is a doctrine many do not want to believe. With phrases like:

"For the children, not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand..."

"Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated"

"I will have mercy on who I will have mercy..."

"Therefore HE has mercy on whom HE wills, and whom HE wills HE hardens."

All of which lead to:

"What if GOD wanting to show HIS wrath and to make HIS power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath prepard for destruction,

and that HE might make known the riches of HIS glory on the vessels of mercy, which HE had prepared beforehand for glory,

even us whom HE called.." (taking note that Paul had already explained that those HE called were predestined by GOD and that is why HE called them. Romans 8:29)

Paul clearly is teaching a doctrin of predestination and the work of a soveriegn LORD in determining the destination of individuals. From hardening Pharoah's heart to choosing who will have HIS favor even before they leave the womb.

Still, with these verses and the ones from 1 Chorinthians that establish who GOD calls, " Not many wise according to the flesh... and Epehesians, "Just as HE chose us in HIM before the foundations of the Earth..." The doctrine is still put aside.

Yet, there is (IMO) a lingering question that seems to be a perfect proof of what Paul is teaching. Why would Paul make this statement;

"You will say to me then, 'why does HE still find fault? For who has resisted HIS will?"

How is it that Paul, making this comment, asking and answerring this question, can not be understood to be teaching the very doctrin that says GOD's will is done? IF Paul was not teaching a very specific point that GOD chooses whom HE will have mercy on and HE chooses to harden hearts, based on the predestination Paul spoke of in Romans 8:28-39, why would Paul assume that people would ask this specific question from what he is teaching?

And that is the question. How is it that Paul would anticipate people asking this question to refute his teaching if this is not what he is teaching?

Thoughts?

Good point, Shiloh. We must not forget the predestination aspect. As a soverein and omniscient God , He already knows which ones have/will turn against Him. He did not/will not turn His back on those that love Him.

Kross, wrote that, not me.

Biblical Predestination always pertains to service, not salvation. In each case where Predestination is mentioned in the Bible, it pertains to what God has predestined for those who have accepted Christ. There is not ONE place in the Bible that says God has predestined anyone to hell.

Thank you for the correction. My point was that God already DOES know who will accept Him; I fully realize that God would never predestine someone to Hell; everyone must make the decision on their own, of their own free will,and God already knows the choices that they will make. Try as we may, we cannot pretend to understand the things that God knows, we are limited in our human thoughts and minds.

[Guest shiloh357]

I see what you mean, now. You are spot on!

[BlindSeeker]

Furthermore, the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction do not refer to anyone being prepared by God for destruction. "Vessels of wrath" does not mean that there are people created to be the object of the manifestation of God's wrath, but they are in that category due to their own actions, which is why Paul uses the example of Pharoah. Pharoah was not created to be destroyed, but became a vessel of wrath, ripe for destruction due to the unrepentant hardness of His heart which God used for His purpose and glory. God does not "fit" anyone for destruction and the Bible never says He does.

Amen. What God "predetermined" were the rewards for man's actions. For those who through faith, brokenness, contrition and obedience honored God He predestined life, but those who were faithless, prideful, contentious and disobedient, they have His wrath on every soul that worked evil.

Ro 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14 Whereunto He called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

IMHO I believe God predetermined [foreknowledge] that those who He would choose [elect] for life is based on their willful surrender [sanctification] to the Holy Spirit

[EricH]

I agree Shilo and that was my point, it is Gods will/desire that we all be saved, and that obviously isn't going to happen from many many other verses in the Word. Gods will is not always done here on planet earth because he has given us free will.

This really is not stated anywhere in scripture. It is a logical deduction (as is the reformed position that God's glory was the reason He did not save everyone). What is interesting is that people on both sides of the argument agree that there was something more important to God than saving everyone. One side says it was free choice. The other, God's glory. Both sides use a specific set of verses to arrive at their conclusions and seem to ignore others that don't quite fit.

It's more than that, Eric. What I mean is, is God's will being done when a person shoplifts? Is God's will being done when some is raped? Murdered?, Robbed?

People like myself cannot accept that God's Sovereignty means that God's will is always done especially when acts AGAINST the revealed will of God are being committed. How can God's will be done by someone violating God's Will? Why would the will of God be found in that which God has told us He hates and commands us not to do in the first place?

God is sovereign, and God is in control of this world and the universe, but I don't think there is scriptural support for the notion that every action, every choice is God's Sovereign Will being done.

I would also find it hard to accept that it glorifies God for someone to die in their sin. God is glorified when people are saved, not when people die without Christ.

I guess I am always cautious evaluating truth claims based on my ability to accept them. The reason is that I am limited in my ability to understand things based on the limitations of living in this world. I don't have access to the additional dimensions God does. For example, I am time bound and God is not.

As I read scripture, I see it teaching 2 things clearly:

1. That everything (including evil) is subject to God's soveriegnty (That does not mean He caused it. It means He is in control of it)

2. That people make real decisions for which God holds them morally responsible and which have real consequences (that does not mean thay can thwart God's purposes. It simply means they can decide and act).

In logic these constitute a duality (things that appear to be opposites, but are not). When I am confronted with things like this in scripture, I have 2 choices:

1. Accept them at face value and allow the tension to exist until God resolves it

2. Raise one of the dualities above the other, then force any passages that seem to support the opposite duality to fit

Most folks take the second option. I think that is because in the West, we are uncomfortable with ambiguity and mystery. In the case of God's soverignty vs. human choice, most from the Arminian camp have decided that free-will is the prime datum (even thought that is not in any place stated in scripture). They then interpret verses that seem to support soverignty in light of this assumption. Reformed theologians do the opposite with soveriegnty (even though that is not stated in scripture as well).

To say that all passages that speak to soverignty never speak to salvation, only service, just doesn't seem to be supported by all of passages that speak to this issue as I read them.

People on both sides of the discussion agree that God has stated that it is His will that all come to repentance. They also agree (for the most part unless one is a universalist) that all will not. Where they part company is the explanation why all do not. I think the reason people part company here is because scripture never tells us why. Obviously, there must be something more important to God than all coming to repentance, otherwise all would. What that more important thing is, I cannot say.

I do not think the answer is to diminish God's absolute soveriegnty, or to make it subserviant to human choice. Nor is it appropriate to make humans robots. I think we just need to live with the tension

[Guest shiloh357]

To say that all passages that speak to soverignty never speak to salvation, only service, just doesn't seem to be supported by all of passages that speak to this issue as I read them.

I was talking about the places where the Bible directly mentions Predestination, not sovereignty per se.

Other than that, I agree with what you have said.

[kross]

To say that all passages that speak to soverignty never speak to salvation, only service, just doesn't seem to be supported by all of passages that speak to this issue as I read them.

I was talking about the places where the Bible directly mentions Predestination, not sovereignty per se.

Other than that, I agree with what you have said.

2Thess. 2:13 "But we are bound to give thanks to GOD always for you, bretheren beloved of the LORD, because GOD from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the SPIRIT and beliefe in the truth, to which HE called you by our gospel..."

Admittedly, this verse does not use the word "Predestination" but it does explain the concept and ties it to salvation.