But that view makes God out to be partial even though scripture says He is impartial. It also contradicts the scripture that teaches God wants everyone to repent (Eze 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30-31) and to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6). It makes no sense to think He wants all people to repent and to be saved but purposely makes it so that only some can repent and be saved.

If I am correct, and I believe I am, on what I wrote about Eph. 2:8 and Titus 3:5 in post 234 relative to all else stated there it takes us out of the equation. That is just like Jesus using the words we have translated born again. There is no way and I repeat no way we can be involved in being born of the Spirit just as we had no involvement in being born of the flesh. We shall be born into the kingdom of God.
At the present time we are begotten of God, we have the earnest of our inheritance, the Spirit of adoption allowing us to call God Father, making us heirs of the kingdom of God, Putting us in the body of Christ the Church of God as physical flesh and blood human beings as which we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. We have to be changed, born of the spirit, flesh and bone spirit beings as Jesus was after his resurrection. Presently our life is in our blood but we have the promise of spirit life by the Holy Spirit of promise. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. That is why we should pray.
Our Father who art in heaven, Holy is thy name, Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Yes, exactly. So, for Him to condemn someone for not believing in Christ despite not choosing them and giving them faith and to give eternal life to someone else would be a case of partial judgment since He wouldn't be judging them by the same standards.I understand your point, but remember, salvation isn't a matter of condemnation; it's a matter of mercy. In Romans 5, Paul points out that God is fair with regard to his judgments but super abundant with regard to his mercy. If God decides to show mercy to one person but not another person, he isn't being unjust. He isn't being partial in his judgments, he is being partial in his mercy. This is true in both of our theologies. In my view, God's mercy is prior to my decision to believe; and in your view God's mercy is after my decision to believe but in either case, God is being partial to those who believe.


In His judgments, He is.How do you figure that God is fair?


Where does Romans 9 say that God isn't fair?It's implied in the question, "You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"


Where does Romans 9 say that? I think you are severely misinterpreting that text.Paul says God makes vessels prepared for destruction in Romans 9:22.


And...? Did you read on? Not only does He not take pleasure in their death but He'd rather they turn from their wickedness so that they will live (not just physically).But when we read on a little further he points out that if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness he will not live and all his righteous deeds will not be remembered. In this we learn that although God takes no pleasure in the death of someone, he condemn him anyway if a righteous man turns from his righteousness. The contrast is between what God does, i.e. judges rightly, and how he feels about those whom he condemns, i.e. takes no pleasure in their death.


But your belief is that He doesn't really care if the wicked repent or not before they die if they are not among His chosen, isn't that right?No, I believe God has more than one desire, just like us, and he prioritizes his desires just like us. In my view, he can desire both that all men come to repentance and to demonstrate his wrath and power on vessels he created for destruction. And, according to his priorities, he choses to do the latter.


It says that God does not wish any to perish, not "any of THESE".Of course, that's what the text says. But the meaning of that sentence is informed by the rest of the discourse. The subject of the discourse is about mockers who, intending to refute Peter and the apostles, ask "Where is the promise of his coming?" Peter explains the delay in terms of God's patience toward his readers, "not wishing for any to perish." Peter isn't saying, "God is having patience with these mockers, waiting for them to repent." He is having patience with his readers, not willing that any of THEM should perish.

What is the argument? These mockers will argue that the messiah is never coming back because if he was coming back, he would have been here already. God wouldn't make a promise and then wait for thousands of years to keep it. Since God wouldn't do this, then it stands to reason that he isn't going to keep his promise concerning the return of Christ. Too much time has gone by. Peter argues that it has escaped the notice of the mockers that God's time scale is much longer than a man's. For one thing, God created the world ages ago, and he brought about a worldwide flood thousands of years after that. To God, a thousand years is like a day.

But notice, Peter is arguing with folks from his future. The mockers will come in the last days, which is future to Peter. And so he is not only speaking to his readers, he is speaking to future believers that will read his words in a Bible. When he says, God is being patient with "you" he refers to those living thousands of years into the future. Thousands of years into the future, some mockers will come saying, "Where is he?" And Peter is telling those future believers God is not slow as we count slowness. He is waiting for YOU (you believers who are going to be born thousands of years into the future) -- he is waiting for you to come into the body of Christ.


Sorry, but this comes across as kind of brushing the passage aside without really dealing with what it says. Why would God command everyone to repent if not everyone could repent?I think all of us have the mental capacity to believe the truth. So it isn't a matter of ability. Rather, unbelief is a matter of the will, a choice to ignore or suppress what we already know to be true. God commands everyone to repent because it's possible to repent.


I completely disagree. Tell me, who does "all men" represent here:

1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.If Paul meant to say that God saved all men, then we would need to be universalists. But universalism is not a Biblical doctrine, and so upon an initial reading we would not conclude that "all men" referred to each and every individual. Upon further examination we see that Paul is dealing with a young minister who lacks confidence. He encourages Timothy to not let anyone look down on his youthfulness but through love, purity, faith etc. to be an example for his congregation. When Paul says that God is the savior of "all men" he means "even young pastors who lack confidence." Paul's emphasis is placed, I think, on the phrase "the living God" which stands in contradistinction with his congregation and especially those who are older. He is reminding Timothy that it is God, not his congregation that he has to please. It is God that is saving him, not his congregation.

Well, you knew I would and I did I looked it up and here is what I found:
Punctiliar rate this definition:
pertaining to a moment in time.
Usage: Justification is presented in Romans (Holy Bible) as a punctiliar act; that is, it happens at a point in time. One moment the sinner is outside, unrighteous, and unaccepted; the next moment, following justification, the person is inside, righteous, and accepted.
punctiliar rate this definition:
(Adjective) of or relating to a point of time
Usage: Thomas and Roy were unhappy with the punctiliar demand Sally made on their schedule when she unexpectedly called them into the meeting at noon.

Does it say anywhere in the bible to an individual just before or just after, depending on your point of view, baptism: Hey you were just justified?
No because the justification is the result for man because of what Christ did and he did it at a point in time. If you give it a little thought man was justified before he was created in that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

Election, election, election, who, what, when, where and most of all why?

Punctiliar is more of a linguistic translational term to contrast with other tenses and modes of action; like linear action, continuous and repeated action, etc. It's not to specifically define a point in time, so much as to make it a more simple undefined action that isn't recurring.

Punctiliar is more of a linguistic translational term to contrast with other tenses and modes of action; like linear action, continuous and repeated action, etc. It's not to specifically define a point in time, so much as to make it a more simple undefined action that isn't recurring.

I just used what first googled up.

If I am correct, and I believe I am, on what I wrote about Eph. 2:8 and Titus 3:5 in post 234 relative to all else stated there it takes us out of the equation.But passages like John 3:16, Romans 10:9-13 and Acts 16:30-31 say we are in the equation so I truly don't understand at all how you come to your conclusions.

I understand your point, but remember, salvation isn't a matter of condemnation; it's a matter of mercy.I'm not sure what you mean here. Salvation and condemnation are opposites. Those who believe in Christ are saved and those who reject Him are condemned.


In Romans 5, Paul points out that God is fair with regard to his judgments but super abundant with regard to his mercy. If God decides to show mercy to one person but not another person, he isn't being unjust.We've been over this before. I showed you scripture that speaks of Him showing mercy to those who call on Him, turn from their sins, humble themselves and so on. So, His mercy is not arbitrary. He's not obligated to have mercy on anyone at all, but thankfully He wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:32).


He isn't being partial in his judgments, he is being partial in his mercy.Where does scripture teach that?


This is true in both of our theologies. In my view, God's mercy is prior to my decision to believe; and in your view God's mercy is after my decision to believe but in either case, God is being partial to those who believe.I'm speaking of the words partial versus impartial in the sense of fairness, though. Is God "partial" to those who believe for no reason or because they believe? Without faith it is impossible to please God. So, He blesses and rewards people for their faith because it pleases Him. He does not act partially or arbitrarily.


How do you figure that God is fair? Because scripture says He judges without respect of persons which means He judges everyone by the same standards. If He did that would not be fair because He would be judging people for things that are out of their control, but since He doesn't do that, He is fair.


It's implied in the question, "You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"How does this imply that God isn't fair?


Paul says God makes vessels prepared for destruction in Romans 9:22. If you read a little earlier it speaks of God using Pharaoah for a particular purpose. He would be an example of a vessel prepared for destruction. But that does not mean he was created/born for that purpose. He was already evil before God used him for the purpose to show His power and make Himself known to the world. God didn't make him that way but because he decided to reject God, God used him for a purpose which He has every right to do. But He doesn't just do things arbitrarily as you seem to think He does.


But when we read on a little further he points out that if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness he will not live and all his righteous deeds will not be remembered. In this we learn that although God takes no pleasure in the death of someone, he condemn him anyway if a righteous man turns from his righteousness. The contrast is between what God does, i.e. judges rightly, and how he feels about those whom he condemns, i.e. takes no pleasure in their death. Can you see that He acts in this case according to what man decides to do? He wants man to repent rather than die in his wickedness, but if he doesn't then He will condemn him. Again, this is not arbitrary. God holds man responsible to choose whether to turn to Him and away from their wicked ways or not and He responds accordingly in His judgments.


No, I believe God has more than one desire, just like us, and he prioritizes his desires just like us. In my view, he can desire both that all men come to repentance and to demonstrate his wrath and power on vessels he created for destruction. And, according to his priorities, he choses to do the latter. I just don't get this way of thinking at all. What you actually end up doing here is making His desire for all to be saved no priority to Him at all.


Of course, that's what the text says. But the meaning of that sentence is informed by the rest of the discourse. The subject of the discourse is about mockers who, intending to refute Peter and the apostles, ask "Where is the promise of his coming?" Peter explains the delay in terms of God's patience toward his readers, "not wishing for any to perish." Peter isn't saying, "God is having patience with these mockers, waiting for them to repent." He is having patience with his readers, not willing that any of THEM should perish. Even if that was true, why would God need to be patient with them if whether or not they perished was entirely up to Him and not up to them at all?


I think all of us have the mental capacity to believe the truth. So it isn't a matter of ability. Rather, unbelief is a matter of the will, a choice to ignore or suppress what we already know to be true. God commands everyone to repent because it's possible to repent. So, why do some not repent? Because they choose not to despite it having been possible for them to repent, right?


If Paul meant to say that God saved all men, then we would need to be universalists.Right, so 1 Tim 4:10 clearly does not mean that since scripture clearly teaches against that idea elsewhere.


Upon further examination we see that Paul is dealing with a young minister who lacks confidence. He encourages Timothy to not let anyone look down on his youthfulness but through love, purity, faith etc. to be an example for his congregation. When Paul says that God is the savior of "all men" he means "even young pastors who lack confidence."How does this make sense when Timothy was a believer? It says God is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe. So, "all men" is contrasted with those who believe there. The "all men" includes those who believe and also those who don't believe. That means it's saying God is the Savior of all men and especially the Savior of those who believe, including Timothy. You somehow did not include Timothy in the part that says "especially those who believe" and that is a mistake on your part.

It's clearly saying God is especially the Savior of those who believe, but also of those who do not believe in some sense, but not in the same sense as believers. So, in what sense is God the Savior even of unbelievers? I believe it is in the sense that He offers them salvation and He is the way for them to be saved if they would just humble themselves and believe in His Son. Unless they do that He will not be their personal Savior even though He is still the only Savior by which they can be saved.

But passages like John 3:16, Romans 10:9-13 and Acts 16:30-31 say we are in the equation so I truly don't understand at all how you come to your conclusions.

First on what you posted to BroRog in the next post.
John146: If you read a little earlier it speaks of God using Pharaoah for a particular purpose. He would be an example of a vessel prepared for destruction. But that does not mean he was created/born for that purpose. He was already evil before God used him for the purpose to show His power and make Himself known to the world. God didn't make him that way but because he decided to reject God, God used him for a purpose which He has every right to do. But He doesn't just do things arbitrarily as you seem to think He does.

Rom. 9:20,21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? (We have no right to question God about how we are made) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Are they being made or are they becoming?) (It's just like being born of God. Is he putting the seed in us or is he throwing the seed out there and everyone that wants to can grasb for themselves? Kind of makes me think of Simon of Samaria)

Now back to my post. Would you agree that because of the words, "are ye saved from Eph. and he saved us from Titus," that the words , "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; " from Titus mean the same thing as, "through faith;" from Eph. And that being that through his death that is the shed blood of Jesus which cleanseth us from all sin, washing of, and we shall be saved by his life, regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit of Christ it is made possible to be saved, then it would stand to reason that it is the faith of Christ, by which we are saved not our faith.

Which by the way is exactly what Gal. 2:16 says.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Salvation and condemnation are opposites. Those who believe in Christ are saved and those who reject Him are condemned.I am talking about the difference between justice and mercy in terms of what is fair and the context of our discussion of God's pariality. God is impartial as regards his justice, and he is partial as regards his mercy.


We've been over this before. I showed you scripture that speaks of Him showing mercy to those who call on Him, turn from their sins, humble themselves and so on. So, His mercy is not arbitrary. He's not obligated to have mercy on anyone at all, but thankfully He wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:32).Mercy is not a matter of obligation. This is another difference between justice and mercy. I acknowledge and agree with those scriptures that say God has mercy on those who humble themselves and so on. But statements such as these are not intended, I don't think, to establish a justification or a cause for mercy. Such statements establish a correlation between the mercy of God and the contrition of the supplicant. But I don't think it necessarily follows that God is obligated to have mercy on a humble supplicant. It's just as likely that he is happy to forgive and offers his mercy according to what pleases him.


Where does scripture teach that?God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion on whom I have compassion." By this we know that God's mercy is not a matter of duty, obligation, fairness, or legal agreement. Mercy is simply a matter of what pleases him. He can have mercy on whomever he wants. There is nothing about mercy that restricts it from being arbitrary, even though we know that God has his reasons and therefore it isn't arbitrary.


I'm speaking of the words partial versus impartial in the sense of fairness, though. Is God "partial" to those who believe for no reason or because they believe? Without faith it is impossible to please God. So, He blesses and rewards people for their faith because it pleases Him. He does not act partially or arbitrarily.There is nothing fair about mercy. If God was being fair, he would condemn each of us for THAT is what we deserve. I don't think the scriptures teach us that we deserve God's mercy. If he chooses to correlate his mercy with belief or humility, it isn't a matter of reciprocity.

One could, I suppose, postulate that humility, contriteness, belief, trust and etc. is meritorious and that God finds something worthy of such a state of heart. Accordingly, salvation would be a matter of justice as God would certainly be right to honor his obligation to save the humble. So why does the NT couch our salvation in terms of God's forgiveness and his mercy? What's mercy and forgiveness have to do with it? If salvation is a matter of God's duty in the light of a humble heart, then salvation is a matter of justice and not mercy. But since salvation is a matter of mercy and not justice, then God has other reasons to be merciful other than a duty to perform in view of a humble heart. (I'm not saying this is what you are saying.)


Because scripture says He judges without respect of persons which means He judges everyone by the same standards. If He did that would not be fair because He would be judging people for things that are out of their control, but since He doesn't do that, He is fair.Yes, God is fair in his judgments and he has judged that we all deserve condemnation.


If you read a little earlier it speaks of God using Pharaoah for a particular purpose. He would be an example of a vessel prepared for destruction. But that does not mean he was created/born for that purpose. He was already evil before God used him for the purpose to show His power and make Himself known to the world. God didn't make him that way but because he decided to reject God, God used him for a purpose which He has every right to do. But He doesn't just do things arbitrarily as you seem to think He does.Paul clearly says that God creates vessels of wrath made for destruction. Nonetheless, you haven't explained how God's mercy is arbitrary.


Can you see that He acts in this case according to what man decides to do? He wants man to repent rather than die in his wickedness, but if he doesn't then He will condemn him. Again, this is not arbitrary. God holds man responsible to choose whether to turn to Him and away from their wicked ways or not and He responds accordingly in His judgments.Where do you see mercy in this passage? The text describes the justice of God, stating that it is right of God to treat a righteous man who turns from his righteousness as an unrighteous man. And it says that if an unrighteous man should turn from his unrighteousness, it would be right for God to treat him accordingly also.


I just don't get this way of thinking at all. What you actually end up doing here is making His desire for all to be saved no priority to Him at all.Is that how you experience your desires?


Even if that was true, why would God need to be patient with them if whether or not they perished was entirely up to Him and not up to them at all?If my wife bakes a cake, she has to wait patiently while it bakes. The fact that she waits doesn't mean she didn't make the cake.


So, why do some not repent? Because they choose not to despite it having been possible for them to repent, right?Sure. It's always possible to repent if you want to repent. But don't forget, the scriptures say that human beings are NOT morally neutral. Unbelief is a moral issue not a mental issue. All are sinners. Salvation is when God, through the Holy Spirit, helps us overcome our unbelief, which we would continue to grasp without his help.


Right, so 1 Tim 4:10 clearly does not mean that since scripture clearly teaches against that idea elsewhere.Right. So we must be sensitive to the fact that the NT authors use the phrase "all men" when they don't necessarily mean "each and every man."


How does this make sense when Timothy was a believer? It says God is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe. So, "all men" is contrasted with those who believe there. The "all men" includes those who believe and also those who don't believe. That means it's saying God is the Savior of all men and especially the Savior of those who believe, including Timothy. You somehow did not include Timothy in the part that says "especially those who believe" and that is a mistake on your part. No, I must have miscommunicated. I don't think Paul meant to indicate two categories of people: all men, and those who believe as if these were discrete and unique sets of people.

As a side note: sometimes we miss the fact that WE bring an unspoken question to a text, which subconsciously informs our interpretation of a text. In order to illustrate this, let's invent some questions and make them explicit.

Question:
Is there one savior for Jews, another savior for Christians, and yet another savior for Muslims?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

Question:
Is God saving only a handful of people who believe in him?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

Question:
Is God saving the poor and the downtrodden only, and not saving people with the means to take care of themselves?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

We could multiply examples, but I think this is enough to see that the unstated question WE bring to a text colors our interpretation of the passage. This is why I strive to find the unstated or implied question Paul was answering. Perhaps I haven't got it right, but that is my goal.

It's clearly saying God is especially the Savior of those who believe, but also of those who do not believe in some sense, but not in the same sense as believers. So, in what sense is God the Savior even of unbelievers? I believe it is in the sense that He offers them salvation and He is the way for them to be saved if they would just humble themselves and believe in His Son. Unless they do that He will not be their personal Savior even though He is still the only Savior by which they can be saved.[/QUOTE]Does this interpretation explain why Paul labor's and strives?

I am talking about the difference between justice and mercy in terms of what is fair and the context of our discussion of God's pariality. God is impartial as regards his justice, and he is partial as regards his mercy.

Mercy is not a matter of obligation. This is another difference between justice and mercy. I acknowledge and agree with those scriptures that say God has mercy on those who humble themselves and so on. But statements such as these are not intended, I don't think, to establish a justification or a cause for mercy. Such statements establish a correlation between the mercy of God and the contrition of the supplicant. But I don't think it necessarily follows that God is obligated to have mercy on a humble supplicant. It's just as likely that he is happy to forgive and offers his mercy according to what pleases him.

God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion on whom I have compassion." By this we know that God's mercy is not a matter of duty, obligation, fairness, or legal agreement. Mercy is simply a matter of what pleases him. He can have mercy on whomever he wants. There is nothing about mercy that restricts it from being arbitrary, even though we know that God has his reasons and therefore it isn't arbitrary.

There is nothing fair about mercy. If God was being fair, he would condemn each of us for THAT is what we deserve. I don't think the scriptures teach us that we deserve God's mercy. If he chooses to correlate his mercy with belief or humility, it isn't a matter of reciprocity.

One could, I suppose, postulate that humility, contriteness, belief, trust and etc. is meritorious and that God finds something worthy of such a state of heart. Accordingly, salvation would be a matter of justice as God would certainly be right to honor his obligation to save the humble. So why does the NT couch our salvation in terms of God's forgiveness and his mercy? What's mercy and forgiveness have to do with it? If salvation is a matter of God's duty in the light of a humble heart, then salvation is a matter of justice and not mercy. But since salvation is a matter of mercy and not justice, then God has other reasons to be merciful other than a duty to perform in view of a humble heart. (I'm not saying this is what you are saying.)

Yes, God is fair in his judgments and he has judged that we all deserve condemnation.

Paul clearly says that God creates vessels of wrath made for destruction. Nonetheless, you haven't explained how God's mercy is arbitrary.

Where do you see mercy in this passage? The text describes the justice of God, stating that it is right of God to treat a righteous man who turns from his righteousness as an unrighteous man. And it says that if an unrighteous man should turn from his unrighteousness, it would be right for God to treat him accordingly also.

Is that how you experience your desires?

If my wife bakes a cake, she has to wait patiently while it bakes. The fact that she waits doesn't mean she didn't make the cake.

Sure. It's always possible to repent if you want to repent. But don't forget, the scriptures say that human beings are NOT morally neutral. Unbelief is a moral issue not a mental issue. All are sinners. Salvation is when God, through the Holy Spirit, helps us overcome our unbelief, which we would continue to grasp without his help.

Right. So we must be sensitive to the fact that the NT authors use the phrase "all men" when they don't necessarily mean "each and every man."

No, I must have miscommunicated. I don't think Paul meant to indicate two categories of people: all men, and those who believe as if these were discrete and unique sets of people.

As a side note: sometimes we miss the fact that WE bring an unspoken question to a text, which subconsciously informs our interpretation of a text. In order to illustrate this, let's invent some questions and make them explicit.

Question:
Is there one savior for Jews, another savior for Christians, and yet another savior for Muslims?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

Question:
Is God saving only a handful of people who believe in him?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

Question:
Is God saving the poor and the downtrodden only, and not saving people with the means to take care of themselves?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

We could multiply examples, but I think this is enough to see that the unstated question WE bring to a text colors our interpretation of the passage. This is why I strive to find the unstated or implied question Paul was answering. Perhaps I haven't got it right, but that is my goal.

It's clearly saying God is especially the Savior of those who believe, but also of those who do not believe in some sense, but not in the same sense as believers. So, in what sense is God the Savior even of unbelievers? I believe it is in the sense that He offers them salvation and He is the way for them to be saved if they would just humble themselves and believe in His Son. Unless they do that He will not be their personal Savior even though He is still the only Savior by which they can be saved.

Couldn't this just be summarized as "sufficiency v. efficiency".

Do we have free will?

Yes .

Couldn't this just be summarized as "sufficiency v. efficiency".I'm not sure, can you fill that out more?

I'm not sure, can you fill that out more?

Efficacy of salvation and redemption... Sufficient for all; efficient only for those to whom it is applied.

God tells us in Romans 11 who he will show mercy to.... the one who has faith. :)

Efficacy of salvation and redemption... Sufficient for all; efficient only for those to whom it is applied.

I'm not sure I believe that or if it reflects the Biblical picture. Some Christians think of salvation by analogy to being healed. The medicine (path to salvation through Jesus Christ) God offers each of us is sufficient to heal us (save us) but it is only efficient for those who drink it (believe in Jesus as Lord.) In this view, God has done his part, i.e. placed the medicine in the medicine cabinet. It's up to those of faith to take the medicine. It's an offer and we have the choice whether to take it or leave it.

The think is, one can go a long way understaning the NT this way because much of the NT seems to teach this. But there are other passages that seem to paint a different picture, and our challenge as Bible students is to make sense of all of the passages.

I'm not sure I believe that or if it reflects the Biblical picture. Some Christians think of salvation by analogy to being healed. The medicine (path to salvation through Jesus Christ) God offers each of us is sufficient to heal us (save us) but it is only efficient for those who drink it (believe in Jesus as Lord.) In this view, God has done his part, i.e. placed the medicine in the medicine cabinet. It's up to those of faith to take the medicine. It's an offer and we have the choice whether to take it or leave it.

The think is, one can go a long way understaning the NT this way because much of the NT seems to teach this. But there are other passages that seem to paint a different picture, and our challenge as Bible students is to make sense of all of the passages.

Just tossin' it in. I don't hold to the Calvinist OR Arminian models; it's a false dichotomy. The question I'd have for you would be whether or not man has salvation and sanctification by nature or just identity? If we are not intrinsically changed by nature, what good is a change of identity?

Just tossin' it in. I don't hold to the Calvinist OR Arminian models; it's a false dichotomy. The question I'd have for you would be whether or not man has salvation and sanctification by nature or just identity? If we are not intrinsically changed by nature, what good is a change of identity?Agreed .

Just tossin' it in. I don't hold to the Calvinist OR Arminian models; it's a false dichotomy. The question I'd have for you would be whether or not man has salvation and sanctification by nature or just identity? If we are not intrinsically changed by nature, what good is a change of identity?

We have sanctification and identify (set apart in Christ) now through the earnest of the Spirit and will have salvation through the divine nature in a moment at the twinkling of an eye.

No. We have sanctification and identify through the blood of His cross (Col 1:20). The earnest of the Spirit is the promised result (Gal 3:14, Eph 1:13, Act 2:38, Act 10:45, Heb 6:4, Col 1:12, Col 2:11-12). Also. We have salvation through the divine nature.

First on what you posted to BroRog in the next post.
John146: If you read a little earlier it speaks of God using Pharaoah for a particular purpose. He would be an example of a vessel prepared for destruction. But that does not mean he was created/born for that purpose. He was already evil before God used him for the purpose to show His power and make Himself known to the world. God didn't make him that way but because he decided to reject God, God used him for a purpose which He has every right to do. But He doesn't just do things arbitrarily as you seem to think He does.

Rom. 9:20,21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? (We have no right to question God about how we are made) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Are they being made or are they becoming?) (It's just like being born of God. Is he putting the seed in us or is he throwing the seed out there and everyone that wants to can grasb for themselves? Kind of makes me think of Simon of Samaria)

Now back to my post. Would you agree that because of the words, "are ye saved from Eph. and he saved us from Titus," that the words , "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; " from Titus mean the same thing as, "through faith;" from Eph. And that being that through his death that is the shed blood of Jesus which cleanseth us from all sin, washing of, and we shall be saved by his life, regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit of Christ it is made possible to be saved, then it would stand to reason that it is the faith of Christ, by which we are saved not our faith.

Which by the way is exactly what Gal. 2:16 says.

Hi Percho,

Two points I would like to point out. One, Romans 9 is speaking of Israel. Notice Paul says "from the same lump. The vessels are made from the same lump. The lump is Israel. The other point is that when Scripture says 'The faith of Christ', it is not saying that Jesus had faith. "The faith" means the Christian faith, the body of Christian doctrine. It is called the faith of Christ because it comes from Christ. The Greek word "Ek" is translated of, however it means from. It should be understood like this, The queen of England, here we see clearly the meaning is from, it is the same with the "Faith of". It means the faith from Jesus Christ, it is the gospel message the He brought.

Hi Percho,

Two points I would like to point out. One, Romans 9 is speaking of Israel. Notice Paul says "from the same lump. The vessels are made from the same lump. The lump is Israel. The other point is that when Scripture says 'The faith of Christ', it is not saying that Jesus had faith. "The faith" means the Christian faith, the body of Christian doctrine. It is called the faith of Christ because it comes from Christ. The Greek word "Ek" is translated of, however it means from. It should be understood like this, The queen of England, here we see clearly the meaning is from, it is the same with the "Faith of". It means the faith from Jesus Christ, it is the gospel message the He brought.

^ True this. "Ek" indicates directional motion out from. It would mean faith that came out from or out of Christ.

Hi Percho,

Two points I would like to point out. One, Romans 9 is speaking of Israel. Notice Paul says "from the same lump. The vessels are made from the same lump. The lump is Israel.I don't think the lump is Israel. Paul never identifies it as Israel. But even so, he says that God makes a vessel of wrath and a vessel of mercy from the same lump.

Hi Percho,

Two points I would like to point out. One, Romans 9 is speaking of Israel. Notice Paul says "from the same lump. The vessels are made from the same lump. The lump is Israel. The other point is that when Scripture says 'The faith of Christ', it is not saying that Jesus had faith. "The faith" means the Christian faith, the body of Christian doctrine. It is called the faith of Christ because it comes from Christ. The Greek word "Ek" is translated of, however it means from. It should be understood like this, The queen of England, here we see clearly the meaning is from, it is the same with the "Faith of". It means the faith from Jesus Christ, it is the gospel message the He brought.

This lump passage starts with the election of God concerning Jacob and Esau and Esau ain't Israel and neither is Pharaoh. The passage is about God being God and we don't get a vote. IMHO.

Even though I disagree with the following description I will accept it as it is that death is really being alive somewhere but apart from God. Now the Word that was made flesh who was God and was with God, made himself of no reputation. We could kick this around for awhile but this is all we need to know that is means for sure and that is he made himself subject to death, separated from God. Paul says even having been washed in the blood of the dead Jesus you need more 1 Cor. 15:16,17 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. Why? Because he would still be separated from God. and so would you. The fear of death? Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Heb. 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Luke 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Does this sound like one not needing faith? Heb. 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. I believe this was speaking of Christ in the garden Going backward herein Heb. 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 2 last part: who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 2 first part: Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of the faith.

You can call this the faith what you want but Paul calls it the faith of Christ. BTW this isn't the only proof of this. It was from Christ alright is was from Jesus to God the Father.

First on what you posted to BroRog in the next post.
John146: If you read a little earlier it speaks of God using Pharaoah for a particular purpose. He would be an example of a vessel prepared for destruction. But that does not mean he was created/born for that purpose. He was already evil before God used him for the purpose to show His power and make Himself known to the world. God didn't make him that way but because he decided to reject God, God used him for a purpose which He has every right to do. But He doesn't just do things arbitrarily as you seem to think He does.

Rom. 9:20,21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? (We have no right to question God about how we are made) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Are they being made or are they becoming?) (It's just like being born of God. Is he putting the seed in us or is he throwing the seed out there and everyone that wants to can grasb for themselves? Kind of makes me think of Simon of Samaria)

Now back to my post. Would you agree that because of the words, "are ye saved from Eph. and he saved us from Titus," that the words , "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; " from Titus mean the same thing as, "through faith;" from Eph. And that being that through his death that is the shed blood of Jesus which cleanseth us from all sin, washing of, and we shall be saved by his life, regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit of Christ it is made possible to be saved, then it would stand to reason that it is the faith of Christ, by which we are saved not our faith.

Which by the way is exactly what Gal. 2:16 says.The "faith of Christ" refers to the gospel or the Christian faith in general and not personal faith in Christ. There are many other verses that say personal faith IN Christ is necessary for salvation (Gal 3:26, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, Acts 16:31, etc.), so what do you do with those?

I am talking about the difference between justice and mercy in terms of what is fair and the context of our discussion of God's pariality. God is impartial as regards his justice, and he is partial as regards his mercy.

Mercy is not a matter of obligation. This is another difference between justice and mercy. I acknowledge and agree with those scriptures that say God has mercy on those who humble themselves and so on. But statements such as these are not intended, I don't think, to establish a justification or a cause for mercy. Such statements establish a correlation between the mercy of God and the contrition of the supplicant. But I don't think it necessarily follows that God is obligated to have mercy on a humble supplicant. It's just as likely that he is happy to forgive and offers his mercy according to what pleases him. God is not obligated to have mercy on anyone but He does. Do you think He has mercy on people arbitrarily?


God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion on whom I have compassion." By this we know that God's mercy is not a matter of duty, obligation, fairness, or legal agreement. Mercy is simply a matter of what pleases him. He can have mercy on whomever he wants. There is nothing about mercy that restricts it from being arbitrary, even though we know that God has his reasons and therefore it isn't arbitrary. He can have mercy on whoever He wants but it so happens that He has mercy on those who call on Him, humble themselves and so on. He has mercy on all people in some respects but when it comes to salvation He has mercy on those who call on Him and put their faith in Him and His Son.


There is nothing fair about mercy. If God was being fair, he would condemn each of us for THAT is what we deserve. I don't think the scriptures teach us that we deserve God's mercy. If he chooses to correlate his mercy with belief or humility, it isn't a matter of reciprocity.I didn't say anything about deserving God's mercy so it appears that you are misunderstanding me, at least to some extent. I simply believe that God is not obligated to do anything at all but when He does something He does it without respect of persons and doesn't do it arbitrarily.


One could, I suppose, postulate that humility, contriteness, belief, trust and etc. is meritorious and that God finds something worthy of such a state of heart. Accordingly, salvation would be a matter of justice as God would certainly be right to honor his obligation to save the humble. So why does the NT couch our salvation in terms of God's forgiveness and his mercy? What's mercy and forgiveness have to do with it? If salvation is a matter of God's duty in the light of a humble heart, then salvation is a matter of justice and not mercy.It's both because that's how God made it. He wasn't obligated to make salvation available at all but He did, anyway. And He made salvation conditional upon man's choice to accept or reject Christ, so it's a matter of justice in that sense. Once He did that then it only makes sense that He will give everyone the chance to be saved because He is not a respecter of persons and doesn't act arbitrarily towards people. If He unconditionally and arbitrarily picked some to be saved and not the rest then it wouldn't be possible for Him to not be a respecter of persons in His judgments.


Paul clearly says that God creates vessels of wrath made for destruction.Except that he doesn't use the word "create" there in that Romans 9 passage. You are interpreting it that way, but why can't it be saying that God can see a wicked person like Pharaoh, who chose to be that way, and then use that person for his purposes?


Nonetheless, you haven't explained how God's mercy is arbitrary.Why would I? I don't believe it is arbitrary.


Where do you see mercy in this passage? The text describes the justice of God, stating that it is right of God to treat a righteous man who turns from his righteousness as an unrighteous man. And it says that if an unrighteous man should turn from his unrighteousness, it would be right for God to treat him accordingly also. My point was that God responds to what people choose to do. He makes them responsible to make the right choices. If they don't He corrects them or punishes them if they do so repeatedly in defiance of His commands, and if they do He blesses them or rewards them.


Is that how you experience your desires?What do you mean? Salvation is a huge issue, right? Yet, you see God's desire for all people to be saved as a secondary priority and, really, no priority at all compared to other things. I don't get that.


If my wife bakes a cake, she has to wait patiently while it bakes. The fact that she waits doesn't mean she didn't make the cake. This is a bad analogy, IMO. The context of 2 Peter 3:9 is God waiting for people to repent. In your analogy your wife is waiting for something that she knows will happen and programmed to happen and it's just a matter of time. In the case of people repenting, however, there is no guarantee that they will. They have to choose to repent or not. An oven doesn't choose whether or not to bake a cake. Ezekiel 18:23 says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and instead wants them to repent and live. He patiently reaches out to them in an effort to lead them to repentance but if they decide not to repent then they will die in their wickedness, which is not what God wants. They will not be able to stand before the throne and tell God that He never reached out to them. He patiently reached out to them, but they refused to repent and that's why they will be punished.


Sure. It's always possible to repent if you want to repent. But don't forget, the scriptures say that human beings are NOT morally neutral. Unbelief is a moral issue not a mental issue.If unbelief is a moral issue then it only follows that belief is a moral issue as well.


All are sinners. Salvation is when God, through the Holy Spirit, helps us overcome our unbelief, which we would continue to grasp without his help. But it requires our choice to accept God's help. That isn't automatic. Many are called, but few are chosen to salvation. Those who are called but not chosen are geniunely called to salvation but they refuse to accept the offer. That's entirely their fault. They could have chosen to accept it. The reason people are punished is for not doing what God gave them the chance to do. It wouldn't make sense for Him to punish people if they didn't have the ability to do what He required of them.


Right. So we must be sensitive to the fact that the NT authors use the phrase "all men" when they don't necessarily mean "each and every man." In the case of 1 Tim 4:10 it clearly means each and every man because the "especially those who believe" are the believing part of "all men" and the rest clearly would be unbelievers. No one is excluded there.


No, I must have miscommunicated. I don't think Paul meant to indicate two categories of people: all men, and those who believe as if these were discrete and unique sets of people.

As a side note: sometimes we miss the fact that WE bring an unspoken question to a text, which subconsciously informs our interpretation of a text. In order to illustrate this, let's invent some questions and make them explicit.

Question:
Is there one savior for Jews, another savior for Christians, and yet another savior for Muslims?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

Question:
Is God saving only a handful of people who believe in him?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

Question:
Is God saving the poor and the downtrodden only, and not saving people with the means to take care of themselves?

Answer:
[No] we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men . . .

We could multiply examples, but I think this is enough to see that the unstated question WE bring to a text colors our interpretation of the passage. This is why I strive to find the unstated or implied question Paul was answering. Perhaps I haven't got it right, but that is my goal. Sorry, but I have no idea what you were trying to say here. Do you believe the "all men" in 1 Tim 4:10 refers to literally all people or not?


It's clearly saying God is especially the Savior of those who believe, but also of those who do not believe in some sense, but not in the same sense as believers. So, in what sense is God the Savior even of unbelievers? I believe it is in the sense that He offers them salvation and He is the way for them to be saved if they would just humble themselves and believe in His Son. Unless they do that He will not be their personal Savior even though He is still the only Savior by which they can be saved.
Does this interpretation explain why Paul labor's and strives?What do you mean exactly?

The "faith of Christ" refers to the gospel or the Christian faith in general and not personal faith in Christ. There are many other verses that say personal faith IN Christ is necessary for salvation (Gal 3:26, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, Acts 16:31, etc.), so what do you do with those?

On a bright and sunny day let's say three to ten men were walking down a dusty road on the way to a city called Damascus. To my knowledge the only one we know by name was Saul. Saul and his friends were going to Damascus to arrest people for believing that Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah. Jesus had been killed earlier in the year however it had been testified to that he had risen from the dead. Saul nor his friends believed this. At around noon there was a bright light, brighter than the sun and a voice from heaven calling out Saul, Saul. After this Saul whose name was changed to Paul believed that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, yet there is no record that any with him believed also even though they had also seen the light but did not understand the voice. Why?

Why only Paul and why did Paul all of a sudden believe? It it for the same reason as given in John 10:25-27. Does anything in the following verse describe Saul at 11AM that day: Matt. 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. All of them or just the ones that God calls?

I don't think the lump is Israel. Paul never identifies it as Israel. But even so, he says that God makes a vessel of wrath and a vessel of mercy from the same lump.

The whole 9 chapters are speaking to Jewsish believers and Paul makes it clear in chapter 9 that he is speaking of the Jews.

This lump passage starts with the election of God concerning Jacob and Esau and Esau ain't Israel and neither is Pharaoh. The passage is about God being God and we don't get a vote. IMHO.

Even though I disagree with the following description I will accept it as it is that death is really being alive somewhere but apart from God. Now the Word that was made flesh who was God and was with God, made himself of no reputation. We could kick this around for awhile but this is all we need to know that is means for sure and that is he made himself subject to death, separated from God. Paul says even having been washed in the blood of the dead Jesus you need more 1 Cor. 15:16,17 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. Why? Because he would still be separated from God. and so would you. The fear of death? Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Heb. 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Luke 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Does this sound like one not needing faith? Heb. 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. I believe this was speaking of Christ in the garden Going backward herein Heb. 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 2 last part: who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 2 first part: Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of the faith.

You can call this the faith what you want but Paul calls it the faith of Christ. BTW this isn't the only proof of this. It was from Christ alright is was from Jesus to God the Father.

My friend, In context Paul is speaking to Jewish believers, In chapter 9 he is speaking of national Israel, this continues through the entire chapter and into chapter 11. Paul says there is a remnant according to the election of grace, these are the vessels prepared for glory. The ones who rejected Christ are the vessels prepared for destruction. They are all Jews that Paul is speaking of.

Concerning "The faith", it means the body of Christian doctrine. As I said, the Greek word "ek" means from, the faith, the Christian faith is from Christ. It doesn't mean that Jesus had faith in something and the Christian is benefited by the faith. The writer of Hebrews says that faith is the evidence of things hoped for. Jesus created everything, what could He possible hope for? Scripture says He is the express image of the invisible God. Do you really think that Jesus was just hopeful that God would raise Him from the dead or do you think He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God would raise Him from the dead?

My friend, In context Paul is speaking to Jewish believers, In chapter 9 he is speaking of national Israel, this continues through the entire chapter and into chapter 11. Paul says there is a remnant according to the election of grace, these are the vessels prepared for glory. The ones who rejected Christ are the vessels prepared for destruction. They are all Jews that Paul is speaking of.

Concerning "The faith", it means the body of Christian doctrine. As I said, the Greek word "ek" means from, the faith, the Christian faith is from Christ. It doesn't mean that Jesus had faith in something and the Christian is benefited by the faith. The writer of Hebrews says that faith is the evidence of things hoped for. Jesus created everything, what could He possible hope for? Scripture says He is the express image of the invisible God. Do you really think that Jesus was just hopeful that God would raise Him from the dead or do you think He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God would raise Him from the dead?

I can only go by what the scriptures I quoted say. The sweat drops of blood speak for themselves. I know the Word was made flesh. There is a reason there are a lot of passages in the word of God such as, Acts 13:30 God raised him from the dead. John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth. Was Jesus dead in the tomb for three days and three nights or not? 1 Cor 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Acts 2:33 and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, (Why would the Son of God have to receive something from God?) Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Why would a promise have to be made to the Christ the Son of God? What was it and how was it carried out?) Was it carried out because of faith? Stated later in this chapter, when faith came. Where had it been since chapter 11 of Hebrews or was it by the faith of God those things took place in Hebrews?

The whole 9 chapters are speaking to Jewsish believers and Paul makes it clear in chapter 9 that he is speaking of the Jews.This is beside the point, because Paul is talking about what God did at the creation, i.e. make vessels for destruction and other vessels for mercy and glory. Unless you want to say that God created Jews only, and this isn't true, then God is talking about creating everyone.

This is beside the point, because Paul is talking about what God did at the creation, i.e. make vessels for destruction and other vessels for mercy and glory. Unless you want to say that God created Jews only, and this isn't true, then God is talking about creating everyone.

Well it's really not beside the point because that isn't the point. The whole chapter isn't just about Jewish believers it's about what God is doing and how he is doing it. Abraham wasn't a Jew or Isralite, Easu wasn't and neither was Pharaoh nor the Gentiles in verse 24. The answer to it all is found in verse 11 where it says, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand". Jew or Gentile.

Well it's really not beside the point because that isn't the point. The whole chapter isn't just about Jewish believers it's about what God is doing and how he is doing it. Abraham wasn't a Jew or Isralite, Easu wasn't and neither was Pharaoh nor the Gentiles in verse 24. The answer to it all is found in verse 11 where it says, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand". Jew or Gentile.:thumbsup: ..........................

I can only go by what the scriptures I quoted say. The sweat drops of blood speak for themselves. I know the Word was made flesh. There is a reason there are a lot of passages in the word of God such as, Acts 13:30 God raised him from the dead. John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth. Was Jesus dead in the tomb for three days and three nights or not? 1 Cor 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Acts 2:33 and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, (Why would the Son of God have to receive something from God?) Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Why would a promise have to be made to the Christ the Son of God? What was it and how was it carried out?) Was it carried out because of faith? Stated later in this chapter, when faith came. Where had it been since chapter 11 of Hebrews or was it by the faith of God those things took place in Hebrews?

My friend, the phrase can be understood in more than one way. Jesus created everything, why would He need to have faith?

Hebrews 11:1 ( KJV )
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What exactly is there that Jesus has not seen??? Since Jesus created all things what exactly would He hope for??? As I've pointed out already, the Greek word "ek" means from, it reads the faith from Jesus Christ. The faith that comes from Jesus is the Christian faith. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches that Jesus needed to have faith in anyone or anything.

There are many words and phrases that can be understood more than one way. We must look at the context to determine how a word or phrase should be read. To say that Jesus needed to have faith in something indicates that He is not if full control of all things.

This is beside the point, because Paul is talking about what God did at the creation, i.e. make vessels for destruction and other vessels for mercy and glory. Unless you want to say that God created Jews only, and this isn't true, then God is talking about creating everyone.

Come on Rog, context. The context is Israel, Paul's whole argument is why some of Israel is not part of the seed of promise. He's not speaking of Gentiles here, why do you insist on inserting them?

Where does Paul say the vessels were created at creation???

Well it's really not beside the point because that isn't the point. The whole chapter isn't just about Jewish believers it's about what God is doing and how he is doing it. Abraham wasn't a Jew or Isralite, Easu wasn't and neither was Pharaoh nor the Gentiles in verse 24. The answer to it all is found in verse 11 where it says, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand". Jew or Gentile.

The purpose of election is that the elder shall serve the younger, Paul doesn't say anything about being chosen for salvation. Read the beginning of chapter 9,

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

My friend, the phrase can be understood in more than one way. Jesus created everything, why would He need to have faith?

Hebrews 11:1 ( KJV )
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What exactly is there that Jesus has not seen??? Since Jesus created all things what exactly would He hope for??? As I've pointed out already, the Greek word "ek" means from, it reads the faith from Jesus Christ. The faith that comes from Jesus is the Christian faith. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches that Jesus needed to have faith in anyone or anything.

There are many words and phrases that can be understood more than one way. We must look at the context to determine how a word of phrase should be read. To say that Jesus needed to have faith in something indicates that He is not if full control of all things.

Why would the Christ have to receive from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit? Acts 2:33
Why would the Father have to give the Christ life to have in himself? John 5:26
Why would the Christ have to inherit anything? After all he made everything that was made. Rom. 8:17
Why would the Christ need to be promised anything. Gal, 3:16
John 5:21 says it is the Father that raises the dead and quickens. Did the Christ have to be raised? Acts 2:32 What about quickened? 1 Cor. 15:45 + Rom. 8:11 + 1 Cor. 15:53 The Christ did come in mortal flesh did he not? 2 John 1:7

The first man Adam was not made perfect and the word of God does not say he was. He was made a mortal,flesh and blood, corruptible living soul subject to death when he sinned. The Lamb of God had already been slain before the first man Adam was created. The Word was made flesh. Mortal, subject to corruption, flesh and blood, a living soul. He did not sin yet he was in agony over his upcoming death to the sweating of drops of blood, praying to the one who was abel to save him from death, striving against sin unto blood if Heb. 12:4 applies to him, which I do believe because of the passage in Luke. He who knew no sin was made sin for us unto death, separation from God. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He died. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth. the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

Show me where something may be out of context and I will be happy to say I err.

I would like to point out a mysterious verse: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (Gal 2:20 ESV)."

What is the meaning of this verse? Doesn't this mean we don't have free will? :confused

Interesting thought : Does a dead man have a will ? If it is indeed Christ that lives in us, it must be His will in us . 1Co 2:16 ....But we have the mind of Christ.
I think its a good subject to meditate on , because if we have the mind of Christ, it should then also be in line with the Word of God (which is in line with God)

Personally I think the answer is not so simple as a "yes' or a "no" . I see verses like this one : Php 2:13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. So this verse is saying that it is God who "works" in us to will.

Even David thanked the Lord after Israel gave liberally for the building of the Temple. He thanked God for allowing them to give ! David did not seem to claim the goodness for himself, nor for Israel.

1Ch 29:13 Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.
1Ch 29:14 But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee.

David knew that it was God who enabled them, God willed in them to will and then they gave freely.

Why would the Christ have to receive from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit? Acts 2:33
Why would the Father have to give the Christ life to have in himself? John 5:26
Why would the Christ have to inherit anything? After all he made everything that was made. Rom. 8:17
Why would the Christ need to be promised anything. Gal, 3:16
John 5:21 says it is the Father that raises the dead and quickens. Did the Christ have to be raised? Acts 2:32 What about quickened? 1 Cor. 15:45 + Rom. 8:11 + 1 Cor. 15:53 The Christ did come in mortal flesh did he not? 2 John 1:7

The first man Adam was not made perfect and the word of God does not say he was. He was made a mortal,flesh and blood, corruptible living soul subject to death when he sinned. The Lamb of God had already been slain before the first man Adam was created. The Word was made flesh. Mortal, subject to corruption, flesh and blood, a living soul. He did not sin yet he was in agony over his upcoming death to the sweating of drops of blood, praying to the one who was abel to save him from death, striving against sin unto blood if Heb. 12:4 applies to him, which I do believe because of the passage in Luke. He who knew no sin was made sin for us unto death, separation from God. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He died. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth. the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

Show me where something may be out of context and I will be happy to say I err.

You didn't answer my questions, Jesus was the creator of all things, what did He not see? Scripture says He is the express image of the invisible God, what then would He need to hope for?

Jesus wasn't slain before Adam was created, that is an expression.Scripture says that Christ died once, that was at Calvary. The phrase 'the lamb slain from the foundation of the world' speaks of God plan being before the foundation of the world.

You didn't answer my questions, Jesus was the creator of all things, what did He not see? Scripture says He is the express image of the invisible God, what then would He need to hope for?

Jesus wasn't slain before Adam was created, that is an expression.Scripture says that Christ died once, that was at Calvary. The phrase 'the lamb slain from the foundation of the world' speaks of God plan being before the foundation of the world.

You are correct it was the plan but not if something went wrong but because something was going to go wrong. The answer is in the questions and the long paragraph. Phil. 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. However. 14 The Word was made flesh. YNG - Phl 2:7 - But did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger. Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.

He was like you and me, like the first man Adam. The Holy Spirit no longer came from him. He no longer had creative power within himself. He no longer had life within himself. He was dependent on another he called the Father. He said, of myself I can do nothing. From the moment the breath of life left him he was dead separated from God the Father until The Father raised him back to life. Christ died for us.

This part of this verse is what Jesus did and received and by witch we will be saved. by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; This is pictured in his water baprism. Put under the water, shed blood through death: came up out of the water, resurrection to life, regeneration: the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him, renewing of the Holy Spirit.

The last Adam. This is the image we want to be born again into. Mark 10:39 Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: Matt.19:28 That ye which have followed me in the regeneration, Matt. 3:11 he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost

I would like to point out a mysterious verse: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (Gal 2:20 ESV)."

What is the meaning of this verse? Doesn't this mean we don't have free will? :confused

You only have the freedom to do your will, when you are not forced to do something against your will. If you surrender your will to Jesus, then you have none unless you take it back. It is not your will but his.

You have to pay for the choices you make. So is it free?

I would like to point out a mysterious verse: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (Gal 2:20 ESV)."

What is the meaning of this verse? Doesn't this mean we don't have free will? :confusedHers is my take on it. "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Believers participate to the efficacy of Christ's death as well in the expiation of our sins, and in the gift of His Spirit, which mortifies in us the strength of sins, and engenders a new life in us, of this new life Christ is the root and spring. And by virtue of the communion we believers have with Him as a member of His body, the band and tie in this life is faith.

Eph 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

You only have the freedom to do your will, when you are not forced to do something against your will. If you surrender your will to Jesus, then you have none unless you take it back. It is not your will but his.

Doesn't taking it back require you to have a will of your own?

If one had no will of their own after they received Jesus, why does one still sin? Surely that is not the will of Jesus.

Doesn't taking it back require you to have a will of your own?

If one had no will of their own after they received Jesus, why does one still sin? Surely that is not the will of Jesus.That would be free agency.

That would be free agency.

Doesn't it require a will to be a free agent?

Doesn't it require a will to be a free agent?
Yes.

But humans having a free will and being a free agent are different.

Yes.

But humans having a free will and being a free agent are different.

But one is has a will, no???