God has put us here for a reason

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Scripture clearly teaches both God's sovereignty and human responsibility, as both being true at the same time.

[Note: there is a central question being asked of you in this post re Romans 9. We are looking to see whether Romans 9 is clear.

God's sovereign choice:

1st sort. God's sovereign choice as to the WAY people will be saved. The route, the manner, the means. It is by faith, not by law. The clear theme of the book.

2nd sort. God sovereign choice regarding WHO will be saved. The Reformed view. A double sovereign: the WAY of salvation and the WHO of salvation. BOTH God's sovereign choice.

I want to know the basis whereby the 2nd is extracted from Romans 9, when the clear theme of 9 and the book entire to this point, is the 1st ]


As I said, there is no impact on
God's sovereignty in the event man is saved by faith unless he wills damnation. If that is God's sovereign decision re: the mode of salvation then so be it.

Where is the argument for God being the sole will involved in mans destiny. If it were so, then that too would be a sovereign decision. But where is it?

I don't think it's possible to eliminate the tension between these two truths; we simply don't have the knowledge to do so as it hasn't been revealed to us. The question we need to ask is whether your framework does justice to what we do know, and as I said I'm not convinced it accounts for God's sovereignty in the way the Bible reveals it to us.

There is no tension until it is shown that God is the only will involved in man's eternal destiny. That we are agreed that there is no willing for - because man is dead and blind, does not exclude will involvment. Man's will against salvation is not excluded.

I've honestly always found this a strange way to read Romans 9, to insist that it only and exclusively refers to the fate of ethnic Israel.

Ethnic Israel connects to salvation by law (ethnic Israel being the carriers of the law). It is salvation by law which is being displaced (not that there ever could be salvation by law, but that was the understanding and it needs to be dealt with by Paul. Salvation by law set aside has consequences for physical Israel. It also deals however, with every Religion that has law obedience as a way to get right with God. Which is every religion (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)

The commentary involves all mankind thus. It even deals with the atheist who reckons 'I'm not such a bad chap, if there is a God afterall, my good deeds vs bad deeds will see me right"

Paul is airtight.

How can it be "strange" when there is a constant reference to a nation (representing law)? Start, middle, end: nation, nation, nation. The only strange bit is the skip to individual salvation sovereignly decided upon by God, when all there is in the chapter is the line of people through whom salvation by faith connects on down to us. The spiritual line running through the physical line.

Paul has spent the whole letter contrasting salvation by faith and works (unpacking that purpose statement in 1:16-17). By the end of chapter 8 we understand that the gentiles can also be heirs of the promises made to Abraham. A fair question, which Paul answers in chapter 9, is "What about the promises made to Israel? Have they failed?" The contrast between the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham is absolutely relevant to the individual; salvation by faith is necessarily an individual matter.

Relevant to the individual of course. A decision by Government that travel between Dublin and Dundalk shall now be exclusively by rail and that all road links will be closed .. concerns individuals. But when the talk is all about the rationale for the decision and the need for it and the cost of the infrastructure, you can't get to supposing the Government is also deciding precisely who will be taking the train. To Dundalk by train: sovereign decision of Government. Who on the train? .. well Romans 9 is not the place to find it - it's simply not being dealt with here.

The issue is your extracting the mode of INDIVIDUAL salvation (i.e. God's sovereign choice to save this one and not that one) from a passage which tells us that God's sovereign choice is that salvation will be spiritual, by faith, not physical, by law. The law is represented by nation Israel, the carriers of the law.

That's the issue: what is God's sovereign choice referring to? In a text drumbeating nation in order to underline God's sovereign choice that salvation be spiritual nation/faith NOT physical nation/law - Paul's whole theme - you've switched tracks to make it God's sovereign choice WHO to save.

Sovereign choice as to what means people will be saved is not the same as sovereign choice as to whom will be saved. The former is the chapters theme. The latter an inappropriate jumping of tracks.

In short, no! Nothing is shoehorned in. The whole chapter is about physical vs spiritual Israel, salvation by works vs salvation by faith. That is the theme of the whole book, as Paul outlines in chapter 1.

See above, last para.

I think you've misunderstood reformed theology on this point. The reformed understanding of election and the atonement says nothing about how many people will be saved, still less that salvation is limited to those who hold to reformed theology. It also has no bearing on how or to whom we evangelise.

Salvation is closed to those God does not choose to save. I agree Reformed theology doesn't limit things to the Reformed. It limits things to the (s)elect.

It simply states that God saves, and it doesn't ultimately depend on us. Our job is to hold out the good news of the gospel, in the certainty that anyone who responds with faith will be saved. Those who hear are responsible for how they respond, either with faith or disbelief, and God is also in control, from first to last. That seems to me to do most justice to what the Bible teaches.

You simply end with, to my mind, a nonsense. You label it 'tension' and 'mystery' - which is really just a way of saying the two aren't rationally reconcilable. Man is responsible for not responding to a gospel God didn't make irresistable. C'mon!

Fair enough if you're happy with the fact that logically and rationally, the theology doesn't make any sense and fills the gap with 'tension'.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, whether you're being serious or whether this is a rhetorical flourish. Reformed theology doesn't rest on a few proof texts, and it certainly can't be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

It's just that I see the same few texts come up again and again. The Roman's track switch is a glaring flaw in the approach - "God's sovereign choice as to WHO to apply salvation to" - beggars belief. How do you manage to do this?

What else is there if not these proof verses. What theme are you relying on? What weight of scripture pointer - when it comes to who is saved and how? I mean when it comes to this 'God sovereignly chooses who to save' idea.

I disagree with many of the conclusions of Roman Catholicism and Arminian Protestants on matters of faith, but it's a nonsense to pretend that there is no substance to either. We shouldn't seek to bind one another's consciences in this way, and it doesn't make for fruitful discussion.

But when you go ask ardent, bible-very-knowlegable Arminians, where do they get the idea that man choses God they struggle. God does some mysterious prevenient (yes, that mystery word again) work to reverse their total depravity so that they can respond to God. A sort of celestial balancing of the scales to render 'free will'. But it's back to slivers of scripture to support the idea - generally it is assumed to have occurred because without God acting so, how could man overcome the drumbeat of scripture saying man is stone dead to God?

Asked why there isn't a single NT reference to man choosing God (there is one in Philemon apparently, but that's a believer choosing, not an unbeliever) they point to Deuteronomy 30 with the same regularity that a Calvinist points to Jacob and Esau. Deut 30, the bit where God says 'choose life'. "See" they say "man CAN choose for God".

You couldn't make it up!

Arminianism and Calvinism are about more than just the mode of salvation. But if substance on this narrow salvation issue, then I've yet to see it. And it's not for want of asking.

Romans 9 discusses the application of God's sovereignty regarding but one issue - the very same issue being laid out in the book up to that point: that it be by faith and not law. That it be so, is his sovereign choice. Say's Romans 9.

Nothing, but nothing, on the matter of how this one and not that one is saved by sovereign choice. Other than it shall be by faith. To suppose that the WHO too is God's sovereign choice, if the idea is to be supported, must find that support elsewhere. Splitting God's sovereign choice in order to cover 2 bases simply isn't a runner. Not if exegesis is your guide.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

I want to know the basis whereby the 2nd is extracted from Romans 9, when the clear theme of 9 and the book entire to this point, is the 1st

Verses 9-16 seem relevant. They apply to the individual, not just the nation - a principle is being established.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue is your extracting the mode of INDIVIDUAL salvation (i.e. God's sovereign choice to save this one and not that one) from a passage which tells us that God's sovereign choice is that salvation will be spiritual, by faith, not physical, by law.

Right, so where does faith come from? From within us, or from God? Why do some believe, and not others?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You simply end with, to my mind, a nonsense. You label it 'tension' and 'mystery' - which is really just a way of saying the two aren't rationally reconcilable. Man is responsible for not responding to a gospel God didn't make irresistable. C'mon!

The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign, and absolutely so. It also teaches that we are responsible for our response to him. How do you reconcile the two, without over emphasising one at the expense of the other?

If we don't choose God, and he doesn't choose us, then I'm really not sure how anyone is saved at all!

antiskeptic wrote: »

But when you go ask ardent, bible-very-knowlegable Arminians, where do they get the idea that man choses God they struggle

I'm glad you see Arminians as idiots too, and not just us Reformed lot. At least you're consistent! Does the label apply to everyone who disagrees with you?

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Verses 9-16 seem relevant. They apply to the individual, not just the nation - a principle is being established.

Verse 9 starts with the word 'for'. The word 'for' is a connective: for= because. Verse 9 is thus a support, a continuation of the argument going before. The national argument is the argument up to now.

What God said at vs.9 is given as evidence that faith and not law (the argument Paul has made throughout and the specific objection he is dealing with here: physical Israel's displacement) stretches right back in time. Spiritual lineage traced through physical Israelites.

At vs 10,11 and 12, the argument, the proof continues. The spiritual lineage continues through Isaac's children with a displacement again occurring: rather than the younger serving the older as is usual, the older serves the younger. That is the route the spiritual line is taking and nothing, not even younger serves older, the normality, stands in its way. It even states the preservation-of-line aim at vs 11 and 12: "in order that ..not by works (law) but by him who calls (faith). The 'by faith' line is being underlined and shown from all angles. The same theme.


Yet you are saying that another principle is being established. This "God choosing who to save" principle.

In what specific verse does this new argument commence since it doesn't in vs 9-12. The connective words, the step wise linking to the spiritual route running through and displacing the physical makes it impossible to just leap in with this new idea.

Rather than just state a new principle is being established, can you show it? Where does the argument start, how is it stiched together? Show how Paul develops this other idea. Why does he draw a nation conclusion and not an individual one at the end of chapter?

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Right, so where does faith come from? From within us, or from God? Why do some believe, and not others?

Faith comes from hearing. And hearing from the word of God. The folk who come to faith hear the word of God. The folk who don't, don't. Why one hears and not the other. Well you have this belief that God ensures some hear and doesn't others. I await your support for God sovereignly choosing.

My position is that the call is universal, in that all men have access to God's word - since God's word is written in the heart as well as on the page. And it is written in what he has made. It speaks to a man when he does good. And it speaks to a man when he does ill. When he says that there will be trouble for everyone who sins, that word is experienced by everyone. The issue then, in light of God's word universally issued and accessible, is one of hearing.

You don't hear if you clamp your hands over your ears - so to speak. Deny God telling you your actions are wrong - justify them instead, downplay them, tell yourself and others that it was their fault. Suppress the truth (which is the word of God) in your unrighteous = clamping your hands over your ears so that you can't hear it.

That's why some don't come. They refuse to believe the truth (hear the word of God) and so be saved.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign, and absolutely so. It also teaches that we are responsible for our response to him. How do you reconcile the two, without over emphasising one at the expense of the other?

I do it by asking: what impact on God's sovereignty would his allowing us to refuse his salvation .. and so be damned, have?

You keep on saying God is sovereign as if that implies the above way of salvation diminishes his sovereignty. Sovereignty merely means he can have salvation any way he wants - consistent with who he is.

Do you not agree?

If we don't choose God, and he doesn't choose us, then I'm really not sure how anyone is saved at all!

Indeed. And it this kind of thinking that produces Arminianism and Calvinism. The Calvinists see that man can't choose God - his will is bent towards sin. And they make the leap of logic that God must choose man.

The Arminians look at all the exhortations to repent, to turn, to come to God - modelled by God yearning for, chasing after and contending with man. And suppose all this pleading must mean that man somehow can chose God. Hence this magic act of grace (scripturally unfounded) to balance the clearly skewed will of man. They too make a leap of logic.

I merely suppose that God doesn't chose man (because of the terrible scriptural support for it - Romans 9 being a case in point). And that man doesn't chose God - again because the scriptural support is as bad. How saved?

Well, as stated a number of times: all men will be saved by default. Unless they will it not. That is, all men will be landed (saved), unless they will to escape the hook that would land them.

- there is no willing for. God's word issued and the experience of men in the face of exposure to God's word at work every moment of their lives is the hook which draws them all. God fishes for all.

- all will be landed. Unless they will it not. Unless they resist and insist and deny and suppress to the very end. In not being saved by God they are damned by act of own will against God.

No choosing for required. No God choosing them (other than his choosing to attempt to save all). No impact on God's sovereignty - since it only meed be that this is his way for his sovereignty to remain intact. If he is happy to attempt to save all, but permit those who will it not to have it not, then sovereignty has no issue with that

I'm glad you see Arminians as idiots too, and not just us Reformed lot. At least you're consistent! Does the label apply to everyone who disagrees with you?

Martyn Lloyd Jones would rip you a new one for your approach to Romans 9. He literally would turn in his grave, where he there. I'm being relatively mild in my criticism

But you kind of revealed the root problem earlier with your question: if not God choses man and if not man choses God .. then whats left? Because you cannot envisage an alternative (having rightly dismissed Arminianism as unworkable), you are wedded to the idea that there are no alternatives. But..

- do you not find God pleading with man. Constantly reaching, reaching, reaching out?

- do you see a universal outreach. Leave aside special reformed devices to work around 'for God so loved the world' because you presuppose God choses some. Leave aside special reformed devices for dealing with God not wanting that any should perish but that all.. for the same God choses reason.

- do you see man unable to will for God. Bent on resistance?

- do you see man nevertheless capable of responding positively to God. He is not as evil as he could be. He feels and acts with compassion, he loves, he self sacrifices. He responds .. in other words .. to God's word. Even if bound in sin. That response can find a place in a mode of salvation that is not works based.

The mode of salvation described: all men will be saved by the work of God bringing them to faith, unless they will it not.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

Verse 9 starts with the word 'for'. The word 'for' is a connective: for= because. Verse 9 is thus a support, a continuation of the argument going before. The national argument is the argument up to now.

What God said at vs.9 is given as evidence that faith and not law (the argument Paul has made throughout and the specific objection he is dealing with here: physical Israel's displacement) stretches right back in time. Spiritual lineage traced through physical Israelites.

At vs 10,11 and 12, the argument, the proof continues. The spiritual lineage continues through Isaac's children with a displacement again occurring: rather than the younger serving the older as is usual, the older serves the younger. That is the route the spiritual line is taking and nothing, not even younger serves older, the normality, stands in its way. It even states the preservation-of-line aim at vs 11 and 12: "in order that ..not by works (law) but by him who calls (faith). The 'by faith' line is being underlined and shown from all angles. The same theme.


Yet you are saying that another principle is being established. This "God choosing who to save" principle.

In what specific verse does this new argument commence since it doesn't in vs 9-12. The connective words, the step wise linking to the spiritual route running through and displacing the physical makes it impossible to just leap in with this new idea.

Rather than just state a new principle is being established, can you show it? Where does the argument start, how is it stiched together? Show how Paul develops this other idea. Why does he draw a nation conclusion and not an individual one at the end of chapter?

I'm not saying that we draw a straight line from Romans 9 to the reformed doctrine of election, which is a result of systematic theology and not biblical theology. So, Romans 9 is one relevant passage along with a plethora of others including Ephesians 1, Exodus 33, etc. It's also very important for me to emphasise that this isn't the only valid position for the Christian; I think it's the best way to understand the biblical data, but it's also perfectly fine to disagree on this point. Practically, it has no bearing whatsoever on evangelism or the sharing of the gospel. I'm also not particularly interested in "converting" you to my position.

The best advice I would give anyone is to do some reading on these things and decide for themselves. It sounds like you've already done that, and landed somewhere different from me. I'm perfectly fine with that

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's why some don't come. They refuse to believe the truth (hear the word of God) and so be saved...

as stated a number of times: all men will be saved by default. Unless they will it not. That is, all men will be landed (saved), unless they will to escape the hook that would land them.

The problem with what you're saying is that, if we really are dead in sins and trangressions, no-one will respond to the gospel. Spiritual corpses can't respond to a call; they are dead.

You seem to be describing a kind of hypothetical universalism, and I don't see that as being well supported by scripture.

I prefer to take what scripture says about God's sovereignty and human responsibility at face value and accept that I will never be able to fully reconcile the two in this life; I simply don't have the knowledge to be able to do so. It hasn't been revealed to us.

antiskeptic wrote: »

- do you see man nevertheless capable of responding positively to God. He is not as evil as he could be. He feels and acts with compassion, he loves, he self sacrifices. He responds .. in other words .. to God's word. Even if bound in sin.

I think you're confusing common grace and saving grace. By the former, God restrains human evil, and things aren't as bad as they might be - the sun rises on the righteous and the unrighteous alike. By the latter, sinners are saved and brought into a new relationship with their creator. The two are distinct.

And again, I think you are underestimating the extent of our sinfulness ("None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. etc.)

mosii

Hi,I ve always wondered, what our ancestors of the 1845-47 famine,walking around barely clothed and their mouths green from eating grass,trying to survive,what they did to have such an existence?.What did they do to a Loving God .?Ive always wondered,any reasonable answers?. I was watching a documentary about the Holocaust,one of the survivors was asking,where was God,when 99% of the people who went into the Gas Chambers died.He told how miraculously one day,a baby survived the gas,only for a German soldier to shoot the poor innocent,what did this baby do ,to deserve such a fate.I often wonder about free will. I would appreciate some genuine explanation,not blind faith. Tks.

antiskeptic

mosii wrote: »

Hi,I ve always wondered, what our ancestors of the 1845-47 famine,walking around barely clothed and their mouths green from eating grass,trying to survive,what they did to have such an existence?.What did they do to a Loving God .?Ive always wondered,any reasonable answers?. I was watching a documentary about the Holocaust,one of the survivors was asking,where was God,when 99% of the people who went into the Gas Chambers died.He told how miraculously one day,a baby survived the gas,only for a German soldier to shoot the poor innocent,what did this baby do ,to deserve such a fate.I often wonder about free will. I would appreciate some genuine explanation,not blind faith. Tks.

Sin will be defeated. It isn't yet. Man hasn't got free will but he has a will. And that will can suppress the influence and restraint imposed by good (God). Suppress unto an Irish holocaust.

They say that darkness is the absence of light. Man wills to turn off the light. Darkness follows.

The baby didn't deserve to die. But what has deserving got to do with it when a will can will the light out?

- It is a sign that the light hasn't gone out in a person when what is wrong is considered wrong. It's when you don't care anymore that you're in real trouble.


You do, of course, need faith (belief in God and a world he allowed free willed man to corrupt) in order to believe anything I've said

mosii

And the ANSWER to my question is?

antiskeptic

mosii wrote: »

And the ANSWER to my question is?

You asked a number of questions. You got an answer to some. Anything to say to them?

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

The problem with what you're saying is that, if we really are dead in sins and trangressions, no-one will respond to the gospel. Spiritual corpses can't respond to a call; they are dead.

Yet man responds to God. He is compassionate, loving and self sacrificial. Whilst being dead in his sins. What are we to do with that fact?
.

I prefer to take what scripture says about God's sovereignty

You keep saying God's sovereignty without saying how what I say impacts on it. Could you say how a salvation as I have described impacts on Gods sovereignty?

and human responsibility

The salvation/damnation mechanism I describe sees man responsible if he is damned.

at face value and accept that I will never be able to fully reconcile the two in this life; I simply don't have the knowledge to be able to do so. It hasn't been revealed to us.

There might be no need to reconcile it if you get around to fleshing out God's sovereignty. The request was that you demonstrate 'God choses man sovereignly' in Romans 9, showing how Paul introduces and develops the argument - rather than simply state individual salvation is being talked of.

Paul makes it easy. His method is painstaking, careful, step by step. To me it seems you're supposing him some kind of mystic - prone to crypticism and the like. This is precisely what he isn't.

I think you're confusing common grace and saving grace. By the former, God restrains human evil, and things aren't as bad as they might be - the sun rises on the righteous and the unrighteous alike. By the latter, sinners are saved and brought into a new relationship with their creator. The two are distinct

Common grace as you describe it is a statement. Not an argument. The point is to show your work - where is the argument to show that God merely acts to restrain and limit so that things won't be as bad as they could be.

We have man responding to God. His conscience defending and accusing along the way. That is a fact. Now, what is done with that fact?

And again, I think you are underestimating the extent of our sinfulness ("None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. etc.)

So what that none are righteous? Do you know the standard for righteousness is?

So what that we are terrible sinners. Our sin brings us trouble. Others sin brings us trouble. A world fallen and under the reign of sin brings trouble. And trouble can bring us to our knees. In fact, thats the drumbeat of those types in the bible who come to Christ. All people in desperate trouble. Think thief on the cross, think woman caught in adultery, think lepers, despised taxman, Roman with dying child. It screams from the pages of the Bible: people in trouble turn to God.

Trouble. God works all things to good. Wouldn't that include trouble.

So what no one seeks God if the mode of salvation described has God seeking man?

mosii

Human Nature will never change,as far as i can see,this is why there is so much suffering in the world.It has nothing to do with mans will or any light defeating darkness, in my opinion. I cant understand ,why a loving god allows so much suffering,and as i said already,of innocent people.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet man responds to God. He is compassionate, loving and self sacrificial. Whilst being dead in his sins. What are we to do with that fact?...

Common grace as you describe it is a statement. Not an argument. The point is to show your work - where is the argument to show that God merely acts to restrain and limit so that things won't be as bad as they could be.

We have man responding to God. His conscience defending and accusing along the way. That is a fact. Now, what is done with that fact?

You're connecting two things that, in scripture, aren't connected. You need to distinguish between the two.

People can do all sorts of good things, because we are made in God's image. God has ordered the world so that, although marred by sin, it is not as bad as it could be.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with salvation and our standing before God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You keep saying God's sovereignty without saying how what I say impacts on it. Could you say how a salvation as I have described impacts on Gods sovereignty?

I think I've done that already. You seem to be saying that God has potentially saved everyone, and hasn't neccessarily saved anyone. That doesn't seem to do justice to the decisive way scripture talks about the atonement. It also doesn't seem to do justice to the way God is described, as powerful, sovereign and in control.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There might be no need to reconcile it if you get around to fleshing out God's sovereignty. The request was that you demonstrate 'God choses man sovereignly' in Romans 9, showing how Paul introduces and develops the argument - rather than simply state individual salvation is being talked of.

Paul makes it easy. His method is painstaking, careful, step by step. To me it seems you're supposing him some kind of mystic - prone to crypticism and the like. This is precisely what he isn't.

Not sure where you get the idea that I think Paul is a mystic. In Romans 9, we see God choosing. He chooses Jacob over Esau. Verse 11 tells us that he did this "not because of works but because of him who calls." The contrast of works and calling shows that salvation is in view, and not merely the historical destiny of the nation of Israel.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what that none are righteous? Do you know the standard for righteousness is?

So what that we are terrible sinners. Our sin brings us trouble. Others sin brings us trouble. A world fallen and under the reign of sin brings trouble. And trouble can bring us to our knees. In fact, thats the drumbeat of those types in the bible who come to Christ. All people in desperate trouble. Think thief on the cross, think woman caught in adultery, think lepers, despised taxman, Roman with dying child. It screams from the pages of the Bible: people in trouble turn to God.

Trouble. God works all things to good. Wouldn't that include trouble.

God does indeed work all things for good. But his doing so requires his sovereign initiative and control from first to last because we aren't just in terrible trouble, we're dead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what no one seeks God if the mode of salvation described has God seeking man?

Well, indeed. We are all guilty before God, and responsible for our guilt. We are willing rebels, as the early chapters of Romans tell us. We will never seek God, so he needs to seek us. But he doesn't stop part way and hope we don't run off again, he brings us safely home. He intervenes and changes us so that we willingly turn to him in repentance and faith.

P.S. it feels like we are going in circles here, and I feel I've explained myself as well as I can. If you want a brief primer on what I believe about all this you should read Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J. I. Packer, and decide for yourself if you think he is doing justice to what the bible teaches.

Edit: P.P.S! We've also severely derailed the thread with this conversation. Can we at least agree that God has, indeed, put us here for a reason??

antiskeptic

mosii wrote: »

Human Nature will never change,as far as i can see,this is why there is so much suffering in the world.It has nothing to do with mans will or any light defeating darkness, in my opinion. I cant understand ,why a loving god allows so much suffering,and as i said already,of innocent people.

You might be best heading to a forum with a different god to the Christian one. The answers (which are pretty standard Christian fare) don't seem to be to your liking.

mosii

Thanks,but as i said previously,no one is giving a practical answer to my questions.I still respect blind faith ,to be honest.

realdanbreen

Seeing as all I usually get in terms of a simple answer to a simple question is a load of talking in riddles I'm not expecting much but here's another one.

Of all the faiths( not including the thousands of variations of those faiths) which of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, hindus etc are actually true and correct faiths? Surely they can't all be right?

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

But that has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.

You say it hasn't to do with salvation.

You'll find scripture excludes our good works from a merit based salvation. To say our good has nothing to do with a non merit salvation is another thing. Can you show?

You'll probably find scripture doesn't exclude our bad works from salvation either!

Hence a leap being made.

I think I've done that already. You seem to be saying that God has potentially saved everyone, and hasn't neccessarily saved anyone

I have said that God will save all except those who will salvation not. I've no idea of numbers who will be saved and lost but don't suppose all will be either saved or lost.

That doesn't seem to do justice to the decisive way scripture talks about the atonement.

Meaning?

It also doesn't seem to do justice to the way God is described, as powerful, sovereign and in control.

Again you fail to make any comment at all on how a salvation mode, whatever it may be, affects God's power, sovereignty or control. Whatever he deems is his sovereign choice. If he deems salvation except where man wills it not, this is not lack of control. You mean that unless I turn my kid into a robot, doing only what I want, I am not in control of my kid?

Not sure where you get the idea that I think Paul is a mystic. In Romans 9, we see God choosing. He chooses Jacob over Esau.

Choses? Can you show me where God choses Jacob? God loves Jacob and hates Esau .. is what my bible says

There is nothing there about how Jacob came to be on the faith line. Are you reading God loving Jacob means God determined Jacob saved?. Or is it because Jacob came to faith (something God knows before either are born) that God loves Jacob and runs the line through him - even though it upsets the younger serves the older norm?

Which is it and how do you tell?

Verse 11 tells us that he did this "not because of works but because of him who calls." The contrast of works and calling shows that salvation is in view, and not merely the historical destiny of the nation of Israel.

Or course its in view. SALVATION by faith and not works. Physical Israel is the carrier of salvation by law. That is what is being displaced: salvation by law (the displacement being the opening theme of the book). And along with it, physical Israel as Gods carriers and representatives of the way of salvation. Christians are spiritual Israel. We are the carriers now.

History isn't the issue. Status as carriers of the way of salvation is. Paul is mopping up - the law displaced is his theme. The carriers of the law are necrssarily displaced too - they are a connected loose end needing attending to.

God does indeed work all things for good. But his doing so requires his sovereign initiative and control from first to last because we aren't just in terrible trouble, we're dead.

Something needing showing: the excluding of good and evil from a non meritous salvation.

Well, indeed. We are all guilty before God, and responsible for our guilt. We are willing rebels, as the early chapters of Romans tell us. We will never seek God, so he needs to seek us. But he doesn't stop part way and hope we don't run off again, he brings us safely home. He intervenes and changes us so that we willingly turn to him in repentance and faith.

Willingly? After being reprogrammed without our willing it? Sure, God in his sovereignty can make us will anything he likes. And because he is Good, there can be nothing untoward in his doing so - at least not in the mind of a will which has reprogrammed to find an irrational idea a rational one. And a bad idea a good one. A will which is programmed to respond without its will's say so, is a will?

A programmed will is a will. More tension and mystery. There is a heavy reliance in Reformed thinking on the wonderful wisdom of God, whose paths are beyond tracing out!

P.S. it feels like we are going in circles here, and I feel I've explained myself as well as I can.

Well, you've said not a word on sovereignty and how it is in anyway diminished by a 'God saves man / man damns himself salvation'.

And your exposition of Romans is a bit on the vague side. We both know the law displacement element bit and could trace Paul in this. And the displacement of Israel as carriers of the law is pretty clear, the mention of my people and Israel and Zion etc. The 'Individual salvation' idea rests on not a lot and appears to have your meaning laid on the text (e.g. God chose Jacob, when in fact the text doesn't say that) rather than being extracted from it.

But as you say it's gone in circles so happy to leave it at that.

antiskeptic

realdanbreen wrote: »

Seeing as all I usually get in terms of a simple answer to a simple question is a load of talking in riddles I'm not expecting much but here's another one.

Of all the faiths( not including the thousands of variations of those faiths) which of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, hindus etc are actually true and correct faiths? Surely they can't all be right?

They don't need to be right in order that their adherents be saved (your afterlife outcome being a rather front and central
aspect).

What faith they have (or none, the atheists aren't excluded a salvation opportunity) is irrelevant.

That's according to the faith I think is the right one. Indeed, one of the reasons I think its the right one is that it is an equal opportunity salvation. Everyone run through precisely the same process ro determine their afterlife destination. No fear or favour.

Another interesting point is that there is only one world religion whereby your standing with God isn't dependent on your performance in any way shape or form. Salvation by faith alone has this uniqueness. I'd have to exclude Roman Catholicism from salvation alone Christianity because in that system, there is performance dependence. If, for example, you commit a mortal sin then its good bye salvation. Not committing a mortaller is a performance/behaviour element and so shifts RC to the performance side of the divide.

Allied to the above is your ability to know you are in rightstanding with God and that your eternal future is assured. A positive future that is. A feature of the performance religions is that you cannot be sure. You can hope that when the fat lady sings, things will turn out on the bright side. But you cannot know. Which, of course, keeps you performing. And leaves you with a niggle in the back of your mind. Would a God who is love birth such a system? Leave folk worrying whether they might, in fact, miss the mark?

They say best thing that can happen a Catholic is that they exit confession only to be immediately run over by a bus (removing the opportunity for unforgiven sin to land on their account). Tongue un cheek but it makes the point.

What's right is something only you can decide upon. But universal opportunity and that unique non-performance way of coming into right standing with God are ones to consider in your reckoning. Along with certainty (at least to your satisfaction, if not the A&A forum) for the rest of your life - once, of course, you are born again.

Not to be sniffed at .. certainty.

antiskeptic

mosii wrote: »

Thanks,but as i said previously,no one is giving a practical answer to my questions.I still respect blind faith ,to be honest.

I can't say I do tbh. Faith, in Christianity, doesn't require blindness. Hebrews 11:1, "faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (i.e. the spiritual realm as it operates both in heaven and in the physical world around us,)

Substance. Evidence. Hardly blind. Of course, if the dictionary or Richard Dawkins is your bible then that's a different matter.

nthclare

Here's a good quote I seen today...

In a utilitarian age, of all other times, it is a matter of grave importance that fairy tales should be respected.

Charles Dickens

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

Here's a good quote I seen today...

In a utilitarian age, of all other times, it is a matter of grave importance that fairy tales should be respected.

Charles Dickens

I'm guessing what Dickens is saying is that there is more to life than drudgery and we should value attributes such as imagination and a sense of wonder in addition to pure utility. While you could place the value people derive from their faith in a similar category, I wouldn't be of the opinion he was referring to religion directly.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I'm guessing what Dickens is saying is that there is more to life than drudgery and we should value attributes such as imagination and a sense of wonder in addition to pure utility. While you could place the value people derive from their faith in a similar category, I wouldn't be of the opinion he was referring to religion directly.

Utility a drudge. Progress!

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm not saying that we draw a straight line from Romans 9 to the reformed doctrine of election, which is a result of systematic theology and not biblical theology

I'm not familiar with the difference: systematic vs biblical. What is the difference?

. So, Romans 9 is one relevant passage along with a plethora of others including Ephesians 1, Exodus 33, etc.

God chose us in him? Us in him = Christians. There is no other reading that doesn't mangle English. I mean, isn't the Reformed reading of 'chose us in him' something along the lines of 'chose to put us in him" (meaning: chose to make us Christians / chose to save us)

Except that that reading can't be extracted from the text, it must be laid onto the text. 'to put' is inserted between 'choose' and 'us in him'.

Whereas if you just deal with the text before you, us in him = Christians. Rendering what God chose to do being things he chose to apply to Christians. Christians would be made holy and blameless in his sight etc.

Maybe there is some other Reformed paraphrase that works? I don't see hoe God can chose us (as in save us) who are in him, unless the unsaved are in him and God choses some in him unto salvation.

Have I got the 'chose to put us in him' paraphrase right?

It's also very important for me to emphasise that this isn't the only valid position for the Christian; I think it's the best way to understand the biblical data, but it's also perfectly fine to disagree on this point. Practically, it has no bearing whatsoever on evangelism or the sharing of the gospel. I'm also not particularly interested in "converting" you to my position.

Paul reasoned with people where they were at. He knew the root - why they had an altar to an unknown god. His evangelism took aim at the root.

Do you evangelise towards the root of those you meet - as Paul did in Athens? Or do you pronounce the straight up good news of Jesus Christ (who Paul didn't mention in his address?

I would have thought an understanding of the root problem would sharpen the point of evangelism. So the root matters. But, of course, if God is choosing then it probably doesn't matter whether the evangelism is dull or razor edged.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the difference: systematic vs biblical. What is the difference?

My understanding is that biblical theology emphasises the process - what does this book / section say, and how does it fit into the story of redemption and the progress of biblical revelation.

Systematic theology emphasises the end product - what is everything the bible has to say about this subject.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God chose us in him? Us in him = Christians. There is no other reading that doesn't mangle English. I mean, isn't the Reformed reading of 'chose us in him' something along the lines of 'chose to put us in him" (meaning: chose to make us Christians / chose to save us)

Except that that reading can't be extracted from the text, it must be laid onto the text. 'to put' is inserted between 'choose' and 'us in him'.

Whereas if you just deal with the text before you, us in him = Christians. Rendering what God chose to do being things he chose to apply to Christians. Christians would be made holy and blameless in his sight etc.

Maybe there is some other Reformed paraphrase that works? I don't see hoe God can chose us (as in save us) who are in him, unless the unsaved are in him and God choses some in him unto salvation.

Have I got the 'chose to put us in him' paraphrase right?

My understanding of the reformed position is that God really has chosen, specifically, all who repent and believe the gospel. So, chose us in him is shorthand for everything that God has done to bring us from death to life and on to glory (including our conversion and bringing us into the kingdom). Romans 8:28-30 captures it well; if you are a Christian, then you can be assured that God saves, from first to last, and it doesn't depend on us. He will complete the good work he has begun in us, and nothing can pluck us from his hand.

edit:
You seem to be saying chose...us in him
I'm saying chose us...in him
In other words, the Father chose those to whom Christ's redeeming work would be applied, and he did that before we repented and believed; in fact he did this in eternity past.

I'm not saying I have all the answers by any means, but that's how I take it

antiskeptic wrote: »

Paul reasoned with people where they were at. He knew the root - why they had an altar to an unknown god. His evangelism took aim at the root.

Do you evangelise towards the root of those you meet - as Paul did in Athens? Or do you pronounce the straight up good news of Jesus Christ (who Paul didn't mention in his address?

I would have thought an understanding of the root problem would sharpen the point of evangelism. So the root matters. But, of course, if God is choosing then it probably doesn't matter whether the evangelism is dull or razor edged.

Totally agree, so I'd say it's both / and, rather than either / or. You need to meet people where they are - so saying "Jesus saves" makes sense where you have a reasonable expectation that your hearers understand who Jesus is and what it is he is saving them from. That takes hard work, so being reformed is no excuse for laziness in evangelism (ah sure, he'll save them anyway.)

Sharing the gospel is the means by which God has said he will carry out his purpose of saving sinners, and he has given the job to us (Christians) so we have a responsibility to do it as faithfully as we can. And our hearers have a responsibility to respond with repentance and faith. Neither is mitigated by a reformed doctrine of election.

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

My understanding is that biblical theology emphasises the process - what does this book / section say, and how does it fit into the story of redemption and the progress of biblical revelation.

Systematic theology emphasises the end product - what is everything the bible has to say about this subject.

But how can you decide what the entire bible is saying about subject A without first deciding whether each particular section is talking about subject A or not. The particular sections add up to the entire.

Surely you have to follow the strand of the section in order to decide what the section about. And then you'll see whether subject A is included in it?

My understanding of the reformed position is that God really has chosen, specifically, all who repent and believe the gospel. So, chose us in him is shorthand for everything that God has done to bring us from death to life and on to glory (including our conversion and bringing us into the kingdom). Romans 8:28-30 captures it well; if you are a Christian, then you can be assured that God saves, from first to last, and it doesn't depend on us. He will complete the good work he has begun in us, and nothing can pluck us from his hand.

edit:
You seem to be saying chose...us in him
I'm saying chose us...in him
In other words, the Father chose those to whom Christ's redeeming work would be applied, and he did that before we repented and believed; in fact he did this in eternity past.

I'm not saying I have all the answers by any means, but that's how I take it

Nor do I have all the answers. But I certainly have questions.

I am saying choose us in him. As in chose us located in Christ. Seated in Christ = located in Christ. The EU chose us in Ireland (the Irish) to take one for the EuroTeam back in the days of the bail out.

Perfectly fine syntax in both cases. God chose the Christians. The EU chose the Irish.

There is no alternative syntax sense to be extracted (exegesis) from 'God chose us in him'. Try making a sentence structured other than I have above, for instance. If you can't that might be a big hint.

Adding in a few ... doesn't help - it actually helps draw out the problem.

God chose us. What is this? God chose us particular unbelievers? Okay then, God chose us particular unbelievers .. in him. Huh? God chose to put us in him? God chose to save us in him. God chose to locate us in him? All fine. But there is no action word here.

'God chose us' stands on it own fine. Then there's an ..in him floating at the end. 'In him' is unconnected, using any syntax that I've ever heard of to 'God chose us'.

The only way to connect the two is to lay an idea pulled from somewhere else onto the text. You say 'shorthand'. But shorthand only works when the original is established and a clear path shown. For your information. A clear path to FYI.

So you can't rely on this verse at all. Until it is shown clearly what the longhand is. By that I don't mean an summary of the theology. I mean in the same way I could show (and you yourself know) that us-in-him is a safe, directly connected alternative to the word 'Christians'. No added meaning, nothing laid in from elsewhere. A simple matter with believers described all over as put, located, seated, risen 'in him

Totally agree, so I'd say it's both / and, rather than either / or. You need to meet people where they are - so saying "Jesus saves" makes sense where you have a reasonable expectation that your hearers understand who Jesus is and what it is he is saving them from. That takes hard work, so being reformed is no excuse for laziness in evangelism (ah sure, he'll save them anyway.)

Sharing the gospel is the means by which God has said he will carry out his purpose of saving sinners, and he has given the job to us (Christians) so we have a responsibility to do it as faithfully as we can. And our hearers have a responsibility to respond with repentance and faith. Neither is mitigated by a reformed doctrine of election.

Yes, but there is a difference in telling them they have no will input into their salvation or if they have, God will alter their will for them so they will will. And telling them they have a will input.

How strange not to be able to share fully. Or could you truly imagine delivering a gospel message adding "by the way, you don't have to do anything. If you are to be saved, God will change your will so that you accept and believe what I have just told you. And if you are not to be, he won't. So carry on as you are if you prefer, the matter is out of your hands anyway. You say "when will you know one way or the other?" Well you'll know when you know. But God is just, so if he decides not to save you, then that is good."


Kind of leaves the person stewing a bit, does it not?

I'm not being facetious. This is perfectly acceptable for you to say, if you are permitted to broach enquiry.

hinault

realdanbreen wrote: »

Seeing as all I usually get in terms of a simple answer to a simple question is a load of talking in riddles I'm not expecting much but here's another one.

Of all the faiths( not including the thousands of variations of those faiths) which of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, hindus etc are actually true and correct faiths? Surely they can't all be right?

Of course they're not all right.

Jesus Christ only created one church and that church is the Catholic Church.

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
However salvation for those within the Catholic Church is not guaranteed either.

nthclare

hinault wrote: »

Of course they're not all right.

Jesus Christ only created one church and that church is the Catholic Church.

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
However salvation for those within the Catholic Church is not guaranteed either.

This is why I gave up on Christianity and the abrahamic version of morals and how to live a good life.
There's so many of ye saying your version of salvation is the only way to the true lord etc

Being a pagan myself I think the idea of selling my soul to a sand demon from the middle East who's going to send me to a golden city with angels and angelic music for all eternity is a bad deal.

I respect that's what some people strive for, but it's not for someone like myself.

Am I a bad person I think not.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

Being a pagan myself I think the idea of selling my soul to a sand demon from the middle East who's going to send me to a golden city with angels and angelic music for all eternity is a bad deal.

Mod warning: Please note you're on the Christianity forum where the above is considered trolling. You're more than welcome to comment on your own beliefs but please do not denigrate the broad beliefs central to Christianity here. A&A or world religions forum might be better suited to your line of reasoning

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Utility a drudge. Progress!

Not exactly news. Like many left leaning liberal atheists, I value the pursuit of happiness. For me personally, a keen imagination and sense of wonder is an important component of this.

antiskeptic

nthclare wrote: »

This is why I gave up on Christianity and the abrahamic version of morals and how to live a good life.
There's so many of ye saying your version of salvation is the only way to the true lord etc

Being a pagan myself I think the idea of selling my soul to a sand demon from the middle East who's going to send me to a golden city with angels and angelic music for all eternity is a bad deal.

I respect that's what some people strive for, but it's not for someone like myself.

Am I a bad person I think not.

Few people consider themselves bad. A good reason for this is that they set the standard for good and bad themselves.

Little surprise if they come out smelling of roses! Sure the odd ball drop. But overall, not so bad.

Apparently the usual score people award themselves is a 7/10 (a first class honour I believe). Even serious criminals.

Question for you. Given God can't be excluded as a possibility, would you reckon, despite your being a pagan, that in the event he exists, you might well land on the right side of him? You not being a bad person and all.