Refuting Calvinism

[subllibrm]

All I know is that Pharaoh must have been pretty pissed that God raised him up only for the purpose of showing His power and not letting him have a choice in the deal. That God, going and acting like He's in control or something.  8)

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

All I know is that Pharaoh must have been pretty pissed that God raised him up only for the purpose of showing His power and not letting him have a choice in the deal. That God, going and acting like He's in control or something.  8)

God can choose to do anything He wants, including choosing to let man choose salvation.

If you are trying to link this to salvation, I believe Ransom refers to this as the law of Indistinct Induction.

 

[christundivided]

All I know is that Pharaoh must have been pretty pissed that God raised him up only for the purpose of showing His power and not letting him have a choice in the deal. That God, going and acting like He's in control or something.  8)

First, you're being very shallow. "Raising" up Pharoah doesn't have anything to do with predetermining Pharoah to hell before this world was ever formed. God "raised" up Pharoah to power. To leadership. It has nothing to do with creating Pharoah for damnation. NOTHING. Don't read your silly dribble into the text.

 

[subllibrm]

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

Yep, plenty of "choice" right there.

 

[christundivided]

All I know is that Pharaoh must have been pretty pissed that God raised him up only for the purpose of showing His power and not letting him have a choice in the deal. That God, going and acting like He's in control or something.  8)

God can choose to do anything He wants, including choosing to let man choose salvation.

Don't be coy with it. Just come right out and say that the elect can choose and the damned have no choice.

If you are trying to link this to salvation, I believe Ransom refers to this as the law of Indistinct Induction.

So impressive.....

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

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

Yep, plenty of "choice" right there.

Context. Romans 9 has nothing to do with salvation

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

All I know is that Pharaoh must have been pretty pissed that God raised him up only for the purpose of showing His power and not letting him have a choice in the deal. That God, going and acting like He's in control or something.  8)

God can choose to do anything He wants, including choosing to let man choose salvation.

Don't be coy with it. Just come right out and say that the elect can choose and the damned have no choice.

If you are trying to link this to salvation, I believe Ransom refers to this as the law of Indistinct Induction.

So impressive.....

I am not Calvinist. All have choice.

 

[christundivided]

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

Yep, plenty of "choice" right there.

You have NO idea why God hardened Pharoah. Don't pretend to know the mind of God. Your attempt to attribute an arbitrary choice to God is sickening. The Scriptures you reference teach that ultimately God's choice is what matters. It doesn't go into any detail as to why. You Calvinist jerks are the ones saying you know why.

 

[Ransom]

Huh. Spurgeon thought so.

Which you proved by linking to a booklet by R. L. Dabney. Wrong author, wrong denomination, and wrong continent. That's some rigorous research you did, there.

Here's what Charles Spurgeon really believed:

Child of God, will you, for a moment, reflect upon the overruling power of God even in the case of the most mighty and wicked of men? They sin grossly, and what they do is done of their own free will, and the responsibility for it lies at their own door. That we never can forget, for the free agency of man is a self-evident truth; but, at the same time, God is omnipotent, and he is still working out his wise designs, as he did of old, in the whirlwind of human wrath, in the tempest of human sin, and even in the dark mines of human ambition and tyranny, all the while displaying his sovereign will among men even as the potter forms the vessels on the wheel according to his will.

- Charles Spurgeon, An Instructive Truth

Charles Spurgeon most definitely believed in free agency: that the choices men made are uncoerced and in accordance with their desires. But he distinguished this from free will, the false idea that the will is autonomous, rather than being driven by a man's own desires, inclinations, and sinful nature.

 

[Ransom]

Context. Romans 9 has nothing to do with salvation

OK, if you say so . . .

I am speaking the truth in Christ - I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit - that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. . . .

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,

    "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
          and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. (Rom. 9:1-2, 9:30-10:1)

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Lacking time, but yes, Ransom, I posted a link that I attributed to the wrong authour.

 

[Ransom]

If you are trying to link this to salvation, I believe Ransom refers to this as the law of Indistinct Induction.

No, in your case, this is the Law of Inept Exegesis.

 

[Ransom]

Lacking time, but yes, Ransom, I posted a link that I attributed to the wrong authour.

Well, it's great that you have plenty of time to to sloppy research, but little time to correct your mistakes. I should also point out that you got the title of Dave Hunt's book wrong.

Why don't you try refuting something you have the skills to refute? You're obviously out of your league.

 

[christundivided]

Charles Spurgeon most definitely believed in free agency: that the choices men made are uncoerced and in accordance with their desires. But he distinguished this from free will, the false idea that the will is autonomous, rather than being driven by a man's own desires, inclinations, and sinful nature.

Then how does to think apply to the Elect?

On one hand you morons make this the argument that man's choice are uncoerced and then you turn right around and have the gall to ignore this in application to a specific group of people.

Talk of a "false idea".....

 

[christundivided]

Lacking time, but yes, Ransom, I posted a link that I attributed to the wrong authour.

Well, it's great that you have plenty of time to to sloppy research, but little time to correct your mistakes. I should also point out that you got the title of Dave Hunt's book wrong.

Why don't you try refuting something you have the skills to refute? You're obviously out of your league.

I've got the time and desire. Want to pick on me?

 

[subllibrm]

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

Yep, plenty of "choice" right there.

Context. Romans 9 has nothing to do with salvation

Those silly "mercy on whom I will have mercy" thoughts not withstanding?

 

[Ransom]

I've got the time and desire.

Well, bless your heart.

 

[Ransom]

• So far in this thread, Bibleburner has already appealed to a "whosoever" or two in Romans 9, and then IP has claimed that Romans 9 has "nothing to do with salvation." There's nothing like two free-willies sending contradictory messages!
  
  Anyway, I thought it would be a good time to repost something I originally wrote for the original FFF, going through Romans 9 bit by bit. It's longer than the average post, but hopefully helpful if you take the time to go through it. If the forum free-willies want to take issue, let them go through the chapter in the same detail and provide a credible alternative.
  
  
  
  Romans is Paul's great treatise on justification by faith: that is, how is it that men have a right standing with God?
  
  First, Paul deals with the sin problem.  He notes that the pagans, though they know from nature that there is a God who is to be worshiped and obeyed, suppress that knowledge and give themselves over to idolatry and perversion (chapter 1).  Then he turns his attention to the religious moralists, arguing that they are guilty of the very same things they are critical of in their society (2:1-16).  Next, he addresses the Jews, who, despite being the recipients of the Law of God, are nonetheless lawbreakers (2:17-29).
  
  This, then, is the universal condition.  All men are enslaved to sin; none do good; none seek out God; all are devoted to a life of wickedness (3:1-20).  That's the bad news.
  
  But the good news is this: God's righteous has been made manifest in Jesus Christ, whose substitutionary atonement on the cross provides an objective moral basis upon which divine justice can be satisfied. Christ's death puts all men who place their faith in him in a right standing with God (3:21-31). We know that justification comes through faith rather than doing the works of the Law, because Abraham believed God and his faith was credited to him as righteousness, and thus we can know that our faith will be imputed to us as righteousness as well (4:1-5:11).
  
  Jesus Christ is the second Adam.  Adam was the head of the human race and when he sinned, his guilt was passed on to all his descendants.  Thus all those who are in Adam stand condemned.  But all those who are in the second Adam are raised again to life (5:12-21).
  
  As a result, Paul says, we are dead to sin, in effect having died with Christ and been raised again to new life. We are free to no longer practice sin, but to practice righteousness (6).  This is because we are in Christ and no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law, which could not work righteousness in us.  Its purpose was to show men what sin was and how sinful they were; in fact, it cultivated unrighteousness (7:1-13).  Now that we are in Christ, we recognize the Law for the good it is; however, our new spiritual nature is still at war with our old fleshly nature. Though we desire to do good we are still inclined to do evil.  Only Christ can deliver us from the power of sin (7:14-25).
  
  Therefore, in Christ we are no longer under condemnation, because Christ has fulfilled the righteousness of the Law on our behalf.  In Christ we are led by the Holy Spirit, who confirms to us that we are indeed children of God and helps us to live righteously; indeed, without the Spirit we would fail.  It is through the Spirit that we can have hope of eternal life because we know that God works all things for good for his children and that therefore no one can condemn us or accuse us.  There is nothing that can separate us from God any longer because the highest court has pronounced us guiltless and the penalty has been paid for us (8:1-39).  Thanks be to God!
  
  But now, Paul answers a significant objection that can be raised against his doctrine.  If all this is true, the critic may ask, then what does Paul say to the fact that his own people, the Israelites, are in a state of rebellion?  What about all those promises God made to them?  Has God broken his word?  It is to answering that question that Paul now turns his attention.
  
  
  Chapter 9​
  
  

  I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. (Rom. 9:1-5)

  
  The Jews had all these privileges. They were the chosen ones of God.  They had the Law. They had the divine covenants and promises. They were the race that brought the Messiah into the world. Yet they were not all saved as Paul was - indeed, the vast majority were not. Why not? Did God's word fail?</p>
  
  

  Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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. (6-8)

  
  In other words, no, it isn't that God has failed, but the physical nation of Israel and the chosen people of God are not co-extensive. Not all of Abraham's seed is Israel, only those born of Isaac; not all of Jacob's (Israel's) seed is true Israel.
  
  This passage also refutes the notion that the doctrine of election expressed in Rom. 9 refers only to nations, and not to individuals. Paul has already divided Israel into two camps of individuals - the "children of the flesh" who are "not the children of God," and "the children of the promise," who are "counted" amongst the children of God.
  
  He expands upon the analogy:
  
  

  For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; (9-10)

  
  Of course, Isaac's descendents are not exclusively the descendents of Abraham. There was also Ishmael. But only Isaac was chosen as the ancestor of God's chosen people. But as if this wasn't clear
  enough:
  
  

  (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 was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (11-13)

  
  Now Paul drives the point home. God chose Jacob, not Esau, to beget his chosen people before he and his twin brother were born, before either of them had any opportunity to do anything good or bad. God's election of Jacob over Esau was based exclusively on "the purpose of God according to election." God, being God, has every right to act according to his own agenda and
  is under no obligation to do otherwise under any circumstances.
  
  Out of Abraham's descendents, only the children of Isaac were chosen.
  
  Out of Isaac's descendents, only the children of Jacob were chosen.
  
  Out of Jacob's descendents, only the "children of the promise" were chosen.
  
  Again - although the passages in Genesis and Malachi that Paul cites are referring to the nations of Israel and Edom, that's not Paul's application, which is to explain why only some of the nation of Israel was saved - individuals. As it was with Jacob, so it is with the "children of the promise." Of course, as Paul says elsewhere (e.g. Rom. 11:17, Gal. 3:29), some (not all) Gentiles are added into the promise. This fact further militates against the "nations" interpretation of this chapter; salvation is irrefutably without respect to race or ancestry.
  
  At this point, Paul's imaginary opponent comes back with the standard whine: "That's not fair!" Paul has anticipated this objection and answers:
  
  

  What shall we say then? [Is there]  unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 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. (14-15)

  
  Why is it that only some of Paul's race is saved? Because God dispenses compassion and mercy to whomever he wills, and for no other reason than that he wills to do so. Paul has already argued in Rom 1-3 that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, willingly reject God; "there is none that understandeth; none that seeketh after God" (3:11). He has argued in chapter 5 that all men are under the sentence of death that we inherited from Adam. Unless God shows mercy, all men without exception are <em>already</em> under condemnation. But God's mercy is given as God sees fit; it is <em>not</em> contingent upon the desire or work of men, as the next verse makes evident:
  
  

  So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (16)

  
  Election is conditioned upon neither human will ("him that willeth") nor human work ("him that runneth"), but all of grace.
  
  Of course, there's a flip side:
  
  

  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. (17-18)

  
  Compassion depends only upon the will of God, but so does "hardening." God chose to harden the heart of Pharaoh because, in so doing, he exalted his own name throughout all peoples.
  
  Why were only some Jews saved?  Because God had chosen, sovereignly, to harden their hearts. As Paul later says, "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According to as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day" (Rom. 11:7-8).
  
  But here comes Paul's opponent again:
  
  

  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? (19)

  
  "Oh, woe is me," whines our critic. "I have no choice. Those people we lock up have every right to be the way they are, for they have no choice either. Woe, woe, woe."
  
  By Paul's answer, you would think he had heard these objections as many times as I have. Truly, nothing is new under the sun. So he answers:
  
  

  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? (20)

  
  In other words: "Remember your place - you man. Just who do you think you are? What right do you have to talk back to God? Do you honestly think the Creator is answerable to his creation for what he chooses to do with it?"
  
  

  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (21-24)

  
  Suppose I was into pottery-making and molded myself a coffee cup. You can imagine my shock if one day I open up my cupboard to find it ranting at length against me because I made it too round or too small or the wrong colour. The clay has no claims against the potter. If I took a lump of clay and made it into a coffee cup or an ashtray, that is my business.  If I drink coffee out of the cup or store pencils in it, or toss it off the roof onto the sidewalk because I want to see crockery fly, that is my prerogative.[/quote]
  
  Similarly, if God wants to have mercy upon some men, and not have mercy upon other men, that is his prerogative. God is God. He is not under any obligation to treat his creation in any way other than what he does. If he chooses not to elect some Jews, that is his sovereign right. If he chooses to elect some Gentiles, that too is his sovereign right. (Note again that Paul says God has called not the nation of the Jews, nor a nation of Gentiles, but some "of the Jews" and some "of the Gentiles," again putting the kibosh on any pretenses that Paul is talking about election of nations or to national privilege here.)
  
  Paul is beginning to wind down this part of his argument, and so he cites further proofs from the Prophets of God's freedom to choose whom he wills. First, of the inclusion of the Gentiles:
  
  

  As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where t was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (25-26)

  
  And then, concerning the remnant of Israel that would be saved:
  
  

  Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut [it] short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. (27-29)

  
  Finally, Paul concludes, pointing out that even though the Gentiles had not originally been chosen by God, now they were reckoned righteousness through faith:[/quote]
  
  

  What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. (30)

  
  But what of Israel? Well, contrasted with the Gentiles, they had the Law, but they didn't pursue righteousness by faith, but by works, stumbling over Christ, whom the Scriptures say God had laid in Zion <em>as a stumblingblock</em>:
  
  

  But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (31-33)

  
  
  Summing Up​
  
  Why did the majority of Paul's fellow Jews not have salvation?
  
  • Because not all of them are true Jews.
  • Because God has not granted compassion to all of them.
  • Because God has, in fact, blinded some of them to the truth.
  • Because God, in his sovereignty, has chosen to save only a remnant of Abraham's descendents.
  • Because God has caused them to stumble over the offense of the cross.
  
  And that is what Romans 9 is all about.

 

[subllibrm]

Prior to salvation my will was not free for it was captive to the shackles of my sin nature. Since salvation my will is not free for it is beholden to the One who bought me from the slave market of sin. My will was never free and as a child of God I am thankful that it never shall be.

 

[christundivided]

Prior to salvation my will was not free for it was captive to the shackles of my sin nature. Since salvation my will is not free for it is beholden to the One who bought me from the slave market of sin. My will was never free and as a child of God I am thankful that it never shall be.

It must feel good to blame God for your lack of freewill. I'm certain that God's children don't feel the same way.