ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW 24:12-13 - WHY IT DISPROVES OSAS

[brakelite]

Wormwood and Phoneman, your reasoning I must say are among the very best I have read on this topic. Well said.

 

[justaname]

JustAName, what is that hard part? The choice is simple: do I want to live or do I want to die?

It's like this: We are born with a satanically selfish heart, upon the throne of which Satan sits. Jesus comes and offers to replace that heart with a new heart upon which He will sit enthroned which will qualify us for heavenly citizenship where all are happily surrendered to Him. The reason most people do not choose life is because they like their selfish hearts. Satan is slowly, almost imperceptively, crushing out their lives, but they find the prospect of a day by day, moment by moment surrendered relationship with Jesus too much, too restrictive, so alas.

For instance, I love to play the drums. Rush has a song called YYZ that has a drum roll fill at 1:49 seconds that is described as "falling off a cliff backwards to a big, stupendous crash". It's awesome to hear and even more awesome to play and the feeling you get is like cocaine - it's the pleasure of idolatry, pure and simple. Now, Jesus comes along and says, "Look, if you're going to follow Me, you've got to give that stuff up because rock music rhythms induce the Alpha brainwave state where the Frontal lobe through which I speak to you is shut off and the Limbic system gets in the driver seat and it is then when you are extremely vulnerable to satanic influence/possession and that will eventually destroy your desire to live with Me in My kingdom." (this is what God meant when He said, 'Come now, let us reason together.")

So, I thought about it and then I made the choice to give them up, and the instant I made the choice, power from above was imparted to me to resist the temptation to return to playing the devil's music. Am I tempted to rock out? Sure, but less frequently as time goes on. Do I ever give into the temptation? No, because everytime it comes, I simply pray for deliverance and He faithfully answers every time. That's a small example of what it means to be in a day by day, moment by moment surrendered relationship with Jesus. Why don't other drummers leave the satanic rush of idolatrous music? Because they would rather choose to indulge idolatry than believe Jesus' promises to "give them life and that more abundantly".

So what made you dislike your selfish heart? Do you credit this to God or to yourself? What caused your belief?

To me it is easy: only God can change the hearts of men thereby God is credited for salvation and salvation is not merited.


Then a side note to the rest of the post:
Are you able to create an awesome drum part to the glory of God?

 

[Wormwood]

justaname,

I appreciate the conversation as well. Hope all is well with you.

 

[justaname]

No. Let me illustrate the difference. Suppose you have 10 criminals going to court. They are all guilty. They all deserve the death penalty. One of the 10 breaks down sobbing in repentance. The judge can see that this criminal is truly repentant, but he is also truly guilty...just like the rest. However, the judge decides to forgive this criminal and bless him instead of cursing him and sets him free. The other 9 are condemned. This is not capricious, it is grace. It is a judge looking at the heart of a repentant man and offering him a second chance he doesnt deserve because he is responsible for his crime.

In this first section you completely avoided the question of God's election of Israel over the other nations.

Now the judge in your scenario did not dispense grace, unmerited favor, rather mercy that was merited through a repentant heart.

I say it was God's grace that brought that man to repentance.

In your scenario, you imagine God creating people with a bent towards doing evil and then God determining to condemn most for that evil he inclinations he placed within them while choosing to give mercy to others that he put that same evil inclination within.

And the straw-man begins...


God created man and woman after His own image. He proclaimed them along with the rest of creation very good. Man is fallen after the sin of Adam, thereby all procreated men have a fallen nature.

You see, the difference in my view is that free-will agents are responsible for their choices and deserve punishment because they sinned by their own free-will choices.

Our views agree here.

If God chooses to give grace to some, that is gracious, not capricious.

And this is my point you just commandeered.

However, if God causes people to do evil by virtue of how he made them and chooses to create some with a desire to repent while creating others with a desire to remain wicked, then it is God, not the free-will agent, who is ultimately determining their fate by virtue of the way he made them.

God does not cause people to do evil by virtue of how He made them because He made them good. It is their fallen nature that creates the evil desire. All men are enslaved to their fallen nature thereby all men have a predetermined fate.

Thus there is no choice and therefore there can be no grace.

Grace, unmerited favor, begins the moment God intercedes in the life of the individual.

Am I gracious if I have the power to burn an anthill but decide to take five ants out of the hill before I burn it? Just because God has the power to save some and condemn others does not make him "gracious" if he unilaterally elects some to save and others to burn. It is only "gracious" if the free-will agents have responsibility for their own evil behavior and God determines to give them mercy and forgiveness when they deserve the opposite. How can a person "deserve" punishment when God created them to act the way they are acting? And if a person cannot deserve punishment (but is merely elected for it) then how can be called grace and forgiveness if they receive the opposite?

This is a furthering of your double predestination argument, something I do not hold to.

That is the whole point. How can you call something "justice" when someone is merely doing what God designed them to do? If I train a pit bull to attack people, how is it just for me to punish the dog for doing the very thing it was bred and trained to do? This is not justice and appealing to hidden mysteries of God's knowledge seems like a cop out to me. Its the whole, "God's hidden will contradicts his revealed will" concept. God commands that we speak honestly, but created us to be liars and then condemns us for those lies. What kind of justice is that? What sense does that make? How does that give him glory or display patience and mercy?

And now you have introduced another straw-man idea of God's hidden will.

Well, if you are consistent, I dont know how you can argue for free will (based on what I think I understand of your position). If you are saying God created people to do the very things they do, then that is not really freedom. Again, its like setting up a maze of dominos and pushing the first one down and then claiming that the 99th domino fell of its own "free-will." Well that's not really free will when you are the one who set everything up and determined how the dominos would fall. If God designed Hitler so he would make the decisions he made and set up those concentration camps then how exactly was Hitler "free" in his choices? He was merely doing what he was created to do. In order for someone to be "free" then they have to have true freedom to make their own decisions. God's sovereignty (in my mind) is expressed not in his determination to make everyone act a certain way by virtue of how he created them, but in his moving in and among our own free-will choices to guide history toward his ultimate plan. Thus, his acts do not determine our actions, but uses our free-will actions and his foreknowledge of them to ultimately accomplish his plan.

I am and have been completely consistent through this entire dialogue.

This highlights the difference in our views. Adam sinned because he rejected God's decree. That is what sin ultimately is: rejecting and not acting in accordance with God's decrees. I dont think God has a hidden set of decrees that contradict his revealed set of decrees. How can you say God decreed people not to worship idols, murder, covet, etc but then behind the scenes ultimately has decreed all humanity to do those very things he decreed they should not do!? This concept goes against everything the Bible teaches about the nature of sin.

Thank you for bringing this back to the garden so maybe you can gain some insight to my understanding of the Scripture.

God's plan has always been His Messiah crucified for the sin of the world and resurrected for the justification of those who believe. This was His plan before Adam sinned. God's decree to Adam was to not take of the tree and eat yet God's decree was always Jesus resurrected. Adam's sin was ordained through God's plan of Jesus Christ all while Adam is culpable for his choice to sin. God did not force Adam to sin it was Adam's choice yet God decreed it would happen. In this though you must recognize God does not base His decrees after decisions of men. He is the Sovereign not the clean up crew.

CF also Acts 2:23 God did not force these men to crucify the Christ but it was His predetermined plan that they would. They are culpable for their actions but they were acting within God's decree.

 

[Wormwood]

In this first section you completely avoided the question of God's election of Israel over the other nations.

Well, I tried to answer it, but I guess I wasn't very clear. My point is that God elected Israel as his instrument to usher in salvation to the world. His revelation to this people was based in grace. Yet even in that grace, not all of the "elect" were saved. Many Israelites did not believe and perished due to their unbelief. There is a difference in saying that God gave a special revelation and grace to some who did not deserve it...and some responded to that grace whereas others didnt....and saying that God mandated some believe and others perish.

Now the judge in your scenario did not dispense grace, unmerited favor, rather mercy that was merited through a repentant heart.

I just cannot understand your rationale here. Imagine I owe you a million dollars. I cry out to you for mercy and you forgive my debt. Did my cries "merit" you to forgive my debt? Did my pleading somehow earn favor? Isnt your decision to forgive my debt unmerited whether or not I cried for forgiveness? I mean, its not like I did some job that paid the debt and was asking you for credit the million to my account! Merit implies that something is deserved or warranted. How do I deserve a free million dollars just because I begged you to forgive the debt? Especially when the debt was incurred due to my reckless and evil behavior?

I say it was God's grace that brought that man to repentance.

I agree that God's grace leads us to repentance. However, I disagree that God's grace is part of some predetermined plan that is irresistible.

God created man and woman after His own image. He proclaimed them along with the rest of creation very good. Man is now fallen, thereby all procreated men have a fallen nature.

Right...but isnt your position that God created Adam (and all humanity) in such a way that their actions would fall into exact concordance with his predetermined plan? I have regularly asked you to correct me if I am wrong about your position. Its not an effort to set up straw men. Its just me making my case based on my best understanding of your views. I apologize if I misunderstood something.

Adam's sin was ordained through God's plan of Jesus Christ all while Adam is culpable for his choice to sin. God did not force Adam to sin it was Adam's choice yet God decreed it would happen. In this though you must recognize God does not base His decrees after decisions of men. He is the Sovereign not the clean up crew.

justaname, I think in your mind you can somehow balance both human freedom and divine, predetermined decrees that are unalterable. I just dont think that logic allows these two to both exist...at least no theologian to date has devised a rational construct of such a view. That is why you have this debate for thousands of years. If there was a way to say both existed without some kind of logical inconsistency, dont you think someone would have done so by now? If God decreed, before Adam made his choice, that Adam would choose to eat the apple, than it was a decree, not a choice. A choice suggests Adam could eat or not eat the apple. He had the power to decide. A decree suggests that God had already decided and thus Adam had no choice. Do you really think if God decreed that Adam would eat the apple that Adam had freedom not to? God's decree was to make a free-will people who are culpable for their own choices. In his foreknowledge of those free-will creatures decisions, he incorporated a plan by which Christ would be exalted.

CF also Acts 2:23 God did not force these men to crucify the Christ but it was His predetermined plan that they would. They are culpable for their actions but they were acting within God's decree.

Notice the predetermined plan includes "foreknowledge." God's predetermined plan is based on the foreknowledge of our actions. If God's leading the dance (so to speak) then why does the author speak of foreknowledge. Why does foreknowledge matter if God predetermined a plan that would determine our choices? Let me illustrate it this way....

Joe is up to bat. Joe has supernatural powers. He can foresee what the pitcher is going to throw. He uses his powers to look ahead into the future and sees the pitcher will throw a fastball. Based on that foreknowledge, Joe anticipates the fastball and hits a home run.

John is up to bat. John also has supernatural powers. He can exert telepathic powers for force people to do what he wants. John telepathically tells the pitcher to throw a fastball. The pitcher does this and John hits a home run.

In the case of Joe, foreknowledge is necessary. He is not telling the pitcher what to do, but simply responding to what he knows the pitcher will do based on his foreknowledge. In the case of John, foreknowledge has nothing to do with it. The pitcher is doing what the batter has decreed he will do. Foreknowledge is unnecessary because his response is not based on the future, but upon what he decreed in the past through his power to control the pitchers actions. In the former case, the pitcher's free-will is not infringed. The pitcher is doing what he wants to do...its just that the batter can foresee it. In the latter case, the pitcher has lost free will. The pitcher's freedom to choose is lost because the batter has overrun the pitcher's will and ability to choose with his own choice.

Let me go back to the end of your previous statement because it, in my mind, is the central issue at stake that you really need to explain:

We choose what we desire yet we never choose outside of God's decree.

So, lets explore this in relation to Adam's one act to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

God's decree to Adam was "Do not eat of it or you will surely die."

Yet, according to how I understand your logic on this issue (correct me if I am wrong), God verbally decreed Adam not to eat the fruit, but God had made another decree that Adam WOULD eat the fruit in order to fill God's plan to sent Christ. Correct?

 

[Phoneman777]

So what made you dislike your selfish heart?

Meeting Jesus. His awesome character either makes us say, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord" or "Depart from me, Lord, for I like the sinful man that I am".

"Do you credit this to God or to yourself?

God gets the credit or blame, depending on which class above we belong to.

What caused your belief?

God dealt to me, as in all men, the measure of faith necessary for me to know that I'm lost without Him.

To me it is easy: only God can change the hearts of men thereby God is credited for salvation and salvation is not merited.

I wish you could disassociate the "valley of decision" from "the mountaintop of salvation". Of course, salvation is not merited. It is imparted to those in the valley of decision who reason with God and decide they want to accept it.

Then a side note to the rest of the post: Are you able to create an awesome drum part to the glory of God?

Having studied the issue for years, I know that it is not possible to praise God with syncopated rhythmic drumming of any kind because of the effect it has on the brain. It is scientifically proven that prolonged, artificially induced Limbic system Alpha brainwave activity is extremely harmful. It causes irreversible attention disorders in developing brains, moderate to severe impairment of Beta brainwave Frontal lobe activity - where the "spiritual man" resides, as well as other harmful effects. No wonder heavy drum rhythms are so intrinsic to pagan/voodoo worship. The belief that they "call down the gods from heaven to inhabit the worshipers" is actually the Alpha inducing effect of the drum playing which causes the worshipers to become psychologically vulnerable to demonic possession. Each drummer plays a specific rhythm which is designed to "call down" a specific god. The drums in these cultures are revered instruments - they are ceremoniously washed and considered sacred. NPR once hosted the Shamens, a band that traveled to Africa and the Caribbean to to study tribal music rhythms. They brought drums into the studio and played various rhythms on them and then played a few of their tracks where they had taken these rhythms and overlaid string, wind, and techno instruments on top of them to demonstrate how at the base of the music is ancient pagan ritual music - and how all too common this happens in every genre of music - taking demonic music and dragging it into the mainstream where we "sophisticated" Westerners "harmlessly" partake of what God never intended for us. Naturally, Occultists/New Age teachers/Witches/etc. emphatically extol the virtues of Alpha brain mode and teach that alcohol, drugs, music, etc. are some of the best ways to induce it. Even the stupid rapid fire news we sit down and watch induces it.

I highly recommend Scott Rizma's "Media on the Brain" which is chock full of Scripture and interesting scientific research which empirically proves what the Biblical adage, "By beholding we become changed." Also, Brian Neumann's "Voices of a Dying Planet" is good too.

 

[justaname]

Well, I tried to answer it, but I guess I wasn't very clear. My point is that God elected Israel as his instrument to usher in salvation to the world. His revelation to this people was based in grace. Yet even in that grace, not all of the "elect" were saved. Many Israelites did not believe and perished due to their unbelief. There is a difference in saying that God gave a special revelation and grace to some who did not deserve it...and some responded to that grace whereas others didnt....and saying that God mandated some believe and others perish.

What you are saying is it is not OK for God to have mercy because that would be capricious...I disagree.

God elects those who are saved as instruments of mercy. Look to Scripture and not to your philosophical view:

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Adding mercy with grace does not make God capricious. Your main argument for those who perish is they deserve it, here we agree. Your main argument for those who are saved is because they deserve it (another form of meriting it) through their belief. Here I disagree. Those who are saved are saved because God has mercy, not even our belief is credited to ourselves even though we do freely come to God.

I just cannot understand your rationale here. Imagine I owe you a million dollars. I cry out to you for mercy and you forgive my debt. Did my cries "merit" you to forgive my debt? Did my pleading somehow earn favor? Isnt your decision to forgive my debt unmerited whether or not I cried for forgiveness? I mean, its not like I did some job that paid the debt and was asking you for credit the million to my account! Merit implies that something is deserved or warranted. How do I deserve a free million dollars just because I begged you to forgive the debt? Especially when the debt was incurred due to my reckless and evil behavior?

This is a terrible illustration. God's salvation deals with sinful men in direct rebellion to Him, not men who borrowed money.

To answer this illustration, yes pleading earned favor. If you stayed obstinate in your disdain of payment the outcome would be different don't you think?

I agree that God's grace leads us to repentance. However, I disagree that God's grace is part of some predetermined plan that is irresistible.

This depends on your usage of grace. If we use the model I have been using, unmerited favor, then grace is irresistible. Look at Cyrus in Isaiah, God's messiah. (Isaiah 45:1)

I think the better conclusion is God's kindness is resistible. God can bestow favor on anyone He desires and none can resist His favor. Who would try to resist for that matter?

Right...but isnt your position that God created Adam (and all humanity) in such a way that their actions would fall into exact concordance with his predetermined plan? I have regularly asked you to correct me if I am wrong about your position. Its not an effort to set up straw men. Its just me making my case based on my best understanding of your views. I apologize if I misunderstood something.

I believe God is the Creator and fashions every creature Himself to His design. Men fashion their own actions in accordance with multiple factors but based ultimately in desire. It is in the tension of divine determinism and free will that we get lost. My view is one of settled tension, living with it, rather than reconciliation.

justaname, I think in your mind you can somehow balance both human freedom and divine, predetermined decrees that are unalterable. I just dont think that logic allows these two to both exist...at least no theologian to date has devised a rational construct of such a view. That is why you have this debate for thousands of years. If there was a way to say both existed without some kind of logical inconsistency, dont you think someone would have done so by now?

Is this the only apparent contradiction in the Bible?

The Bible plainly states God's sovereign rule throughout Scripture. The Bible plainly states men are culpable for their choices.

If God decreed, before Adam made his choice, that Adam would choose to eat the apple, than it was a decree, not a choice.

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

Interesting isn't it?
Yet I do not believe God forced this decision upon Adam. Adam still chose his greatest desire that coincided with God's decree.

A choice suggests Adam could eat or not eat the apple. He had the power to decide. A decree suggests that God had already decided and thus Adam had no choice. Do you really think if God decreed that Adam would eat the apple that Adam had freedom not to? God's decree was to make a free-will people who are culpable for their own choices. In his foreknowledge of those free-will creatures decisions, he incorporated a plan by which Christ would be exalted.

Do you see how you have in your last statement exalted free-will decisions of men over the Christ? You are saying Christ is a result of free-will decisions and God's designed plan of correction. Christ is an afterthought of God's first thought of free-will. Again I disagree, all of creation points to Christ not to free-will.

In your position free-will is the Sovereign by which God bases His choices and decisions. It is a power outside of Him that He has subjected Himself to. I disagree.

Notice the predetermined plan includes "foreknowledge." God's predetermined plan is based on the foreknowledge of our actions. If God's leading the dance (so to speak) then why does the author speak of foreknowledge. Why does foreknowledge matter if God predetermined a plan that would determine our choices? Let me illustrate it this way....

Joe is up to bat. Joe has supernatural powers. He can foresee what the pitcher is going to throw. He uses his powers to look ahead into the future and sees the pitcher will throw a fastball. Based on that foreknowledge, Joe anticipates the fastball and hits a home run.

John is up to bat. John also has supernatural powers. He can exert telepathic powers for force people to do what he wants. John telepathically tells the pitcher to throw a fastball. The pitcher does this and John hits a home run.

In the case of Joe, foreknowledge is necessary. He is not telling the pitcher what to do, but simply responding to what he knows the pitcher will do based on his foreknowledge. In the case of John, foreknowledge has nothing to do with it. The pitcher is doing what the batter has decreed he will do. Foreknowledge is unnecessary because his response is not based on the future, but upon what he decreed in the past through his power to control the pitchers actions.

I know the difference between foreknowledge and coercion. The addition of foreknowledge in the description given by Peter does not negate the predetermination. God hardens who He hardens and men are still culpable.

Let me go back to the end of your previous statement because it, in my mind, is the central issue at stake that you really need to explain:


So, lets explore this in relation to Adam's one act to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

God's decree to Adam was "Do not eat of it or you will surely die."

Yet, according to how I understand your logic on this issue (correct me if I am wrong), God verbally decreed Adam not to eat the fruit, but God had made another decree that Adam WOULD eat the fruit in order to fill God's plan to sent Christ. Correct?

Even if the decree was made in foreknowledge would Adam have chosen differently? Do you believe Christ is preeminent in creation or is free-will?

I do acknowledge God can and does use foreknowledge. I just do not believe it is the sole basis for His decisions.

 

[Wormwood]

What you are saying is it is not OK for God to have mercy because that would be capricious...I disagree.

No, that is not what I am intending to say. What I am saying is that it can be considered mercy if God gives something to someone that they do not deserve. It is not mercy if God is creating some for glory and others for condemnation. You see, if I create a robot to go shoot someone and then, instead of destroying the robot, I reprogram it to do nice things, am I being "merciful?" No, that is not an accurate word for such circumstances. I am merely dictating events and outcomes such that "mercy" and "grace" have nothing to do with it. It's only mercy if someone acts of their own volition and then receives something other than what their actions deserve. If I force someone to do something and them punish them or forgive them for what I caused them to do, how an such terms as "mercy" or "forgiveness" even come into the picture? You dont "forgive" something that has been programmed to carry out the very task it is accomplishing. You expect it. Thus the programming is capricious and mercy and forgiveness have no bearing on such circumstances because the individual is only doing what has been determined beforehand that they should do!

God elects those who are saved as instruments of mercy. Look to Scripture and not to your philosophical view:

I assure you, my view is entirely based on Scripture and has nothing to do with philosophy. In my view, the concept that is based from a series of logical conclusions derived from the concept of total depravity is the one that has been constructed out of a philosophy rather than purely from the Scriptures. But, Im sure that's my bias at work :).

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

I am almost out of time and this section of Scripture requires a great deal of attention. Due to my laziness/business, I am simply going to quote a commentary that I feel properly deals with this text...and shows it has nothing to do with the Calvinist POV that you are proposing. I am sorry for the length, but I think it will be very helpful if you carefully review the material. I think you will find it very much coincides with the overall teaching of the Bible and is in no way based in philosophy. Ill try to address the rest when time allows. Be blessed!

One point that Paul has stressed throughout this chapter is that God has the sovereign right to choose and use both individuals and nations in whatever ways he pleases for the accomplishment of his covenant purposes. No one “resists his will” in such matters (v. 19). These verses are simply reaffirming God’s right, like a potter, to manipulate his clay in any way he chooses.

The “objects of his wrath” in v. 22 are not the total mass of lost human beings, but rather the nation of Israel, specifically the ethnic Jews who rejected God’s promises of grace and were thus accursed (9:3). (The word translated “objects” is actually the word “vessels,” as in v. 21, where the NIV translates it “pottery”.) I.e., these unbelieving Israelites, viewed collectively as a nation, in spite of their indispensable role in God’s plan, are nevertheless indeed the objects of his wrath (see Godet, 360). While allowing that pagans such as Pharaoh may be included, Dunn declares “that the ‘objects of wrath’ are the covenant people themselves, or more precisely, the bulk of the covenant people who have rejected the continuity/fulfillment of the covenant in the gospel” (2:567).

What is the “destruction” for which Israel has been prepared? It is possible that Paul is thinking about some sort of temporal destruction, such as the termination of Israel’s special role in the plan of God as signified by the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Godet, 360). This may be the case, but it is also likely that Paul is referring to the final, eternal destruction of sinners in hell, since its counterpart of “glory” in v. 23 also likely includes eternal life (see Dunn, 2:560; Moo, 607, n. 96; Godet, 362, 372; MP, 406). “Clearly it stands for the ultimate loss,” says Morris (368).

Who, then, is the agent by which these vessels of wrath, these unbelieving Jews, are “prepared” for such destruction, whether temporal or eternal? The difference between the term used here in v. 22 and the comparable term in v. 23 (“he prepared in advance”) makes it very likely (contrary to Calvinism) that they prepared themselves for such destruction (Godet, 361; MP, 406). The verb in v. 23 is active and has the prefix pro-, and clearly means that God himself prepared in advance the vessels of mercy for glory. But in v. 22 the verb seems to be deliberately different. It is either passive voice: “they were prepared,” or (more likely) middle voice: “they prepared themselves” (AG, 419). I.e., they are responsible for their own destruction; by their sin and unbelief and refusal to repent, they sealed their own doom. Even if the agent of preparation were God himself, the lack of the prefix pro- (“in advance, beforehand”), unlike the verb in v. 23, would suggest that God prepared them for destruction only after they manifested their adamant unbelief. The more likely meaning, though, is that they prepared themselves.

The “objects [vessels] of his wrath,” then, are ethnic Israel, viewed in terms of its unbelief. Like a potter God made the nation as such for his glorious purposes, which they did indeed fulfill. But in reference to their individual eternal destiny, the Jews’ personal unbelief makes them the objects of divine wrath. Thus they ultimately become vessels of dishonor and shame (v. 21).
Exactly what is Paul saying about these vessels of wrath prepared for ultimate destruction? He says that God “bore” or “endured” them “with great patience.” This refers to God’s relationship with his chosen people throughout OT history, especially to the fact that he refrained from completely destroying them despite their blatant and repeated idolatry. As Dunn says (2:558), “God’s patience with his chosen people was one of Israel’s most common refrains.” See Exod 34:6; Num 14:18–20; 2 Kgs 13:23; Neh 9:16–19, 29–31; Ps 86:15; 102:8.

This next point is crucial to our understanding of this whole section. The question is, what is meant by the expression, “choosing to show his wrath and make his power known”? As we have seen, Calvinists usually take this as referring to God’s infallible, purposive will: because God has determined (chosen) to display his wrath and power upon the objects of wrath whom he has prepared for destruction, he patiently withholds this wrath until the time comes when it can be exhibited in its most spectacular intensity. I.e., he exercises patience in the interests of greater wrath. In my judgment this interpetation is atrociously inaccurate and is an insult to the mercy and grace of God. What does the expression mean, then?

First of all, “choosing” is an unacceptable translation for the verb θέλω (thelō), used here by Paul. Basically it means “to will, to be willing, to want, to desire, to wish.” The object of the desire may become a reality (9:18), or it may not (7:15–21; Matt 23:37a). It certainly does not have the inherent connotation of the purposive will of God, contrary to many Calvinists. Also, Lard’s “determining” is too strong a meaning (313). At this point Paul is simply saying that God was willing or wanted to show his wrath and power against Israel.

A second point is that the form of thelō is a present participle, indicating that this “wanting” is simultaneous with the action of the main verb, “bore.” But the very nature of a participle requires that we determine from the context just how it relates to the main verb. Here it appears that the participle has either a causal or a concessive relationship with “bore.” I.e., it means either, (1) “Because he was willing to show his wrath and make his power known, therefore he bore with great patience the objects of his wrath”; or, (2) “Although he wanted to show his wrath and make his power known, nevertheless he bore with great patience the objects of his wrath.” For the latter, see the NASB.

In general, Calvinists accept the causal view; see Cranfield, 2:493–494; Murray, 2:34–35; Piper, Justification, 187; Moo, 605 (see also Dunn, 2:558). I.e., because God wants to display his wrath as impressively as possible, he patiently withholds it until he can do this. Likewise in general, non-Calvinists accept the concessive view; see Godet, 359–360; Lard, 312; Fitzmyer, 569 (see also SH, 261). I.e., even though God actually wanted to go ahead and abolish the nation of Israel and send unbelieving Israelites to hell, still he bore with them in order to achieve his ultimate saving purposes.

Is it possible to tell from Scripture itself which of these two views is correct? Yes. The key to the right understanding here is the reference to “patience” (“forebearance, longsuffering”; Greek, μακροθυμία [makrothymia]). Paul says that God bore (endured, put up with) the vessels of wrath—not with just a little patience, but with great patience. Why? According to the causal interpretation of thelō, accepted by Calvinists, God exercises his patience toward the vessels of wrath for the express purpose of being able to heap even greater wrath upon them. On the contrary, however, I must insist that such a purpose is contrary to the very nature of patience. At the very heart of patience is the desire to decrease or even eliminate wrath, and to increase salvation.65 The Calvinist (causal) view thus violates the very essence of divine patience. The concessive view does not, as will be explained below.

This theological weakness of the Calvinist view was pointed out long ago by Godet. He says (359), “The connection expressed by because … would signify that God’s long-suffering had no other end than to bring about an accumulation of wrath; but would such long-suffering deserve the name?” Sanday and Headlam (261) likewise point out that God’s “great patience” is simply not consistent with the causal view. (See also Fitzmyer, 569.) Romans 2:4 expressly says that God’s kindness and patience are designed to lead to repentance. Second Peter 3:9 says that God is patient because he does not want anyone to perish but for everyone to come to repentance. The Calvinist view of 9:22 makes a travesty of such texts.


Jack Cottrell, Romans, vol. 2, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), Ro 9:22–23.

 

[justaname]

No, that is not what I am intending to say. What I am saying is that it can be considered mercy if God gives something to someone that they do not deserve. It is not mercy if God is creating some for glory and others for condemnation.

I have never argued God creates some for condemnation. People condemn themselves by sinning against a Holy and righteous God. The mercy enters when God pulls some from their selfish desires and changes their heart.

You see, if I create a robot to go shoot someone and then, instead of destroying the robot, I reprogram it to do nice things, am I being "merciful?" No, that is not an accurate word for such circumstances. I am merely dictating events and outcomes such that "mercy" and "grace" have nothing to do with it. It's only mercy if someone acts of their own volition and then receives something other than what their actions deserve. If I force someone to do something and them punish them or forgive them for what I caused them to do, how an such terms as "mercy" or "forgiveness" even come into the picture? You dont "forgive" something that has been programmed to carry out the very task it is accomplishing. You expect it. Thus the programming is capricious and mercy and forgiveness have no bearing on such circumstances because the individual is only doing what has been determined beforehand that they should do!

Why do you speak of programming? People make choices by their own volition and are culpable for their choices and actions. When God grants us access to the divine nature His mercy is in action. God forces no one to make poor choices although we do know He hardens who He desires.

I assure you, my view is entirely based on Scripture and has nothing to do with philosophy. In my view, the concept that is based from a series of logical conclusions derived from the concept of total depravity is the one that has been constructed out of a philosophy rather than purely from the Scriptures. But, Im sure that's my bias at work :).

I am certain you know I believe it is your bias at work.

I am almost out of time and this section of Scripture requires a great deal of attention. Due to my laziness/business, I am simply going to quote a commentary that I feel properly deals with this text...and shows it has nothing to do with the Calvinist POV that you are proposing. I am sorry for the length, but I think it will be very helpful if you carefully review the material. I think you will find it very much coincides with the overall teaching of the Bible and is in no way based in philosophy. Ill try to address the rest when time allows. Be blessed!

I have read the commentary section and generally agree except on some irrelevant side issues not related to our greater discussion. This quote is another reason I posted this section of Scripture:
"One point that Paul has stressed throughout this chapter is that God has the sovereign right to choose and use both individuals and nations in whatever ways he pleases for the accomplishment of his covenant purposes. No one “resists his will” in such matters (v. 19). These verses are simply reaffirming God’s right, like a potter, to manipulate his clay in any way he chooses."

Yet I do not see how this commentary quote might refute my position of election. Certainly eternal life and salvation are New Covenant purposes.

Particularly this section is interesting and coincides with what I have been arguing all along, "It is either passive voice: “they were prepared,” or (more likely) middle voice: “they prepared themselves” (AG, 419). I.e., they are responsible for their own destruction; by their sin and unbelief and refusal to repent, they sealed their own doom."

Election is God electing to show His mercy and bestow His grace upon individuals not based on anything they have done rather it is solely purposed after His will and sovereign choice. By electing some unto salvation God has not elected others unto damnation for these were already destined to hell through their own sinful actions.

 

[justaname]

Meeting Jesus. His awesome character either makes us say, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord" or "Depart from me, Lord, for I like the sinful man that I am".


God gets the credit or blame, depending on which class above we belong to.


God dealt to me, as in all men, the measure of faith necessary for me to know that I'm lost without Him.


I wish you could disassociate the "valley of decision" from "the mountaintop of salvation". Of course, salvation is not merited. It is imparted to those in the valley of decision who reason with God and decide they want to accept it.

By your own words God dispenses faith. If God is the Giver of faith then He is the measure of election.

 

[mjrhealth]

Well, I tried to answer it, but I guess I wasn't very clear. My point is that God elected Israel as his instrument to usher in salvation to the world. His revelation to this people was based in grace. Yet even in that grace, not all of the "elect" were saved. Many Israelites did not believe and perished due to their unbelief. There is a difference in saying that God gave a special revelation and grace to some who did not deserve it...and some responded to that grace whereas others didnt....and saying that God mandated some believe and others perish.

Actually none could be saved. grace had not yet entered in and the only way was teh law, whch could save no man. It was not untill after Christ died and entered into hades and spoke to those that where asleep that any where actually saved and we have no numbers.

 

[Wormwood]

I have never argued God creates some for condemnation. People condemn themselves by sinning against a Holy and righteous God. The mercy enters when God pulls some from their selfish desires and changes their heart.

Well, help me understand. You said earlier nothing happens outside of God's decree. Then you said, "God did not force Adam to sin it was Adam's choice yet God decreed it would happen. In this though you must recognize God does not base His decrees after decisions of men." To me, this simply sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If God decreed it, then God wants it to happen. If God decreed it, it must happen. Again, you can say Adam "desired" to eat the fruit all day. Yet if it was God that put that desire in Adam at creation due to his unilateral decree of how human history should play out (after all, "God does not base his decrees on the decisions of men") then how can you say Adam is responsible? This is double-talk. Its not Adam's "selfishness" that led him to sin but God's unilateral decree that had nothing to do with Adam's selfish decision-making. The decision was already made prior to Adam's creation in such a viewpoint.

justaname, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree, brother. It seems to me there is a logical progression here that we simply cannot get past. If you cannot see that God predetermining the actions of men by unilateral decree impedes human freedom then it seems we are at a rational impasse. If someone has been decreed and made for the purpose of committing certain acts and they do that very thing they were decreed to do...then they did it by decree, not by their own decision. To me it seems very evident that a predetermined divine decree is the antithesis of a human's freedom to choose. There is no freedom to choose if God has already predetermined what your choices would be. If that doesnt make sense, then, again, I think we are at an impasse in the discussion.

 

[justaname]

27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. - Acts 4:27-28

I can not see any other way to interpret this other than they willingly worked what God predestined. I am not attempting to reconcile the tension between free-will and divine determinism, rather I accept what the text submits.

 

[justaname]

This is taken from the CARM website...

it is God who appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48), chooses who is to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4), calls according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9), chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14), grants the act of believing (Phil. 1:29), grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26), causes us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3), draws people to Himself (John 6:44, 65), predestines us to salvation (Rom. 8:29-30) and adoption (Eph. 1:5) according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11), makes us born again not by our will but by His will (John 1:12-13), and works faith in the believer (John 6:28-29).

Texts like these throughout the Bible overwhelmingly point to God's monergistic election. God appoints the rulers here on earth, certainly He is able to appoint those who believe.

The only argument against the case I have made using various texts from the Bible is it violates free-will. Perhaps it is the view of free-will that is wrong.

This is an interesting passage concerning election.

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.
32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. - Romans 11:28-32

 

[Phoneman777]

By your own words God dispenses faith. If God is the Giver of faith then He is the measure of election.

What do you mean by "measure of election"?

 

[H. Richard]

Since Jesus Himself said He only came to the house of Israel why do you think He is talking about those under grace in Matt. 24? Isn't He talking about the Jews who endure to the end of the 7 years of tribulations?

Jesus only preached to the Jews. The scriptures say that James, Cephas, and John made an agreement with Paul that they would go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentile. Yet this scripture is never seen by many.

Gal 2:9
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
NKJV

I suppose that some wish to say that James, Cephas (Peter) and John did not keep their word.

 

[Wormwood]

H.Richard,

It is one thing to say that Peter, James and John went to the Jews and Paul focused on the Gentiles (though he did go "to the Jew first") and quite another thing to say there are two different Gospels...a Gospel of works for Jews and one of grace for Gentiles. Scripture says nothing of the sort. You are chopping up the Bible into dispensational categories in your mind when no such categories exist.

 

[Phoneman777]

Since Jesus Himself said He only came to the house of Israel why do you think He is talking about those under grace in Matt. 24? Isn't He talking about the Jews who endure to the end of the 7 years of tribulations?

Where does the Bible say that only Jews will endure a seven years of tribulation?