TheDiddleyMan

This passage has long been debated between Christians. There is no *Christian* point of view. And it isn't mentionned in any of the major creeds, so most Christians debate but don't divide over it - at least from the perspective of saying the other side is damned to hell. Of course, some would see it that way (www.outsidethecamp.org ??? This is a freaky site)

When I was a Christian, I did believe this passage spoke of God predestining people to Heaven or to Hell. This is called the Calvinist viewpoint, which says that God specifically predestines people to Heaven or to Hell. Now, I should point out a couple of things: 1)Calvinists often view the means of predestination for both groups different. God *actively* predestines people to Heaven, that means he gives them the gift of faith and believing in Him, and therefore they come to know Christ as Savior. On the other hand, people are naturally born unable to believe in Christ as Savior (at least with true faith), and therefore God does not need to force them to sin against him in unbelief. Now, this begs the question of what the "hardening" is. Well, it is simply God removing grace from them, and they then naturally rebel against him even more.
2) Of course, there are Calvinists who think the above is hogwash. They believe God actively predestines some people to hell - he causes them *directly* to not belief. This is all simplified explanation - you will not hear it stated so directly.

Any how, I couldn't say which side has the majority vote of scholars. I also don't think it matters. . When it comes to interpretations of texts, the majority can be way off the mark quite easily. This simply because when it comes to theology, people use different methods of interpretation and your particular denominational background can affect the lens through which you view a particular passage.
I personally say that the free will side has the majority of Christians (scholar or non). That is not surprising. Most Christians would even consider the idea of predistination. They are taught "John 3:16" from the get-go and therefore it wouldn't cross many of their minds. I am not saying they are stupid. It never crossed my mind until I read a theology book.

Regarding Calvinism vs. Arminianism and so on, see:
http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu1w6.htm#a1

I don't think the above is the best link to explain the systems, but it is the simplest I could find in a couple of seconds.

Or see: http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/

If you go to www.aomin.org and go the real audio archives, in around July 1999, James White discusses Romans 9 and popular apologist Norman Geilser's (a free-willer) views on Romans nine. Geisler wrote a book called "Chosen but Free" and White wrote a response "The Potter's Freedom" which is excellent reading. White is a calvinist. You will get a sense of the debate that is going on.

For a simple explanation/discussion of this passage and how it relates to other doctrines, this is also helpful: http://www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-81.htm

I could post a lot more links, some of them much better than the ones above. There is a ton of stuff, and it is an on-going debate among Christians.

BTW, popular writer/theologian John Piper wrote a whole book on the subject (The Justification of God). I'm not a Christian anymore and don't want to get into polemics, but there has never been anything on the free will side of the debate that comes to close to this book as far as exegesis of chapter is.

Volker.Doormann

I have no position. I do not care about a recognition of biblical scholars. There is the reality and there are religious scriptures to understand. Religion is the inner way of the soul back home (Religion = 'back bonding'). What is the soul, that is searching in this spiritual area? One can measure and prove physical forces but in no way spiritual 'things'. If one is aware about himself and that he ask for questions, this is not to be shown physically. No one can show physically, that he has a spiritual consciousness, that exist. What is the difference of a living human body to a death human body? Physically? There is no difference.

There is a physical world containing biological life and this scenario is an endless cycle of birth, existence, and death. This life is constructed dynamically out of atoms and energies. Some plants or animals have to die that other life can live. The water one drinks to lunch is left some hours later outside the physical body. Each atom of a human body has exist prior to the birth of a human life and each atom is able to supply another human body after the death. Religion has in no way an interference with atoms, water, food, war on foods or the best way to preserve biological life. Never. Each biological life must die.

From this it is recognizable, that a guy as Paul, who is working in the physical area of life of a social group has no religious basis in his work. It is the impossible try to preserve physical life (of Christs), while pagans and other physical life can go to hell.

Religion is the understanding, that each created life is on a way back home to the home of the immaterial soul. Paul never has understand this, and my impression is, that Christ are satisfied by their social connections an leaders, that they see no need to care about a self consciousness and a freedom from social commandments.

As I have stated, a free will is impossible. Will is a bonding to something. Something, that is bond, never can be free. There is no (spiritual) need to have a will or to do something; there is only a need to find freedom from bonding. I understand your question in this way, that you have the very deep impression, that you are not a slave of a god, but the feeling, that those, who ask for this have a wrong understanding of the spiritual order and mixed this up with the hierarchical life of sheep's.

This awaking consciousness, to free from the physical and social bonding, is that, what is teached by Jesus and never was mentioned by Paul. Religious leaders in all religions are like Paul. Today no one can reject Christian claims as Christ; he then is banned from the social community. This shows that Christianity has not the target of the freedom of the individual spiritual soul as a part of god, but to preserve a social hierarchical structure in this world with Jesus as label. Jesus has rejected the false teachings of the Jewish scholars and it should be easy to reject false teachings of Paul and other guys in the religious isolated bible, if one is following the truth of the inner spiritual reference.

Volker

Sur-reality

So the natural asumption is that it was the bible that ripped off of other cultures or "used other cultures' mythology to show an allegory" if you will. What kind of faith is yours when you immediately assume that the bible is wrong?

Volker.Doormann

I think it is a very private assumption, not necessarily a natural. Religion does not deals with politic or books. Weather the bible nor the Qu'ran has any religious importance, the only religious importance is the respect to each creature as a part of god. If a creature would not be a holy part of god, there where never a spiritual consciousness in creatures, that is slightly aware about an ethical order. This is not done by a book. To claim, that a book should be holy, but pagans not, is a political claim, not a religious. And because religions and their leaders do claim this until today, they demonstrate with this, that they reject the nature of god in every individual creature, which do not follow their commandments.

I do astrology for more than 40 years like astrologers have studied this art and science since more then 4000 years. Astrology was a natural part of the religious life of the ancient cultures inclusive the Semitic culture. The spiritual twelve astrological houses were changed by the Jewish scholars for political reasons into a genealogy of physical tribes with the result, that this spiritual science and their masters was banned and stoned. But it can be shown, that the spiritual laws of astrology are the origin meaning of many biblical rituals. The position of the moon in relation to the sun is the basis of the spiritual Jewish Passah event known as the detachment of the awaking soul from the death physical (first born) body called 'Egypt' is processed exact at the time of spring equinox, if the moon has an angle of 180° to the sun. The first 14 days of the moving moon has the astrological meaning of growing physical life (until today) and the full moon event do change this to a decreasing physical life but therefore with the growing of the spiritual soul with it's twelve astrological attributes changed by the Jewish scholars into the twelve tribes of Isra'El. It was a spiritual and political crime to do this, and to claim, that astrologers must be stoned. This claim is taken into books and it is claimed, that this claim can not be discussed. Not the origin spiritual meaning of all that bible stories is wrong, but the political claim and the action out of this mistaken understanding. My aim is, to direct to the origin meaning of that spiritual laws as valid for every human soul living in a physical body in this world. Religious leaders never have spoken the truth about this and it is understandable because they never have studied this science. Only some Rabbis from the Jewish Mysticism have studied this old spiritual science and are aware about the spiritual meaning of the symbols in the Torah. Jesus has known that one can explain the signs of time; the jewish scholars were only able to explain the signs of the sky in relation to rain and storm.

I think it is time for the religions to acknowledge the truth of their own history. Books, also if one claims it should be holy, are of no meaning, if there truth is rejected. What is the reason for the religious polarity in this world? Truth? No. It is the political claim of the religions showing their books, that the 'other pagans' are wrong.

I have a great respect to the spiritual meaning of stories in the Torah and the teaching in the gospels. I do not follow any faith. I think there are only two attributes, which can be recognized individually as of an existing spiritual order - Truth and love.

Volker

BadBadBad

DiddlyMan, thanks. I'm going to follow up on your references.

Volker, you're way out there. You've posted pages, but you've said virtually nothing about this passage. You're full of fluffy personal opinions about religion. From what I can see, they're far removed from mainline christianity. I don't have a problem with that, but I have absolutely no interest in hashing through your personal belief systems.

BadBadBad

Ok, I read one of the links by DiddleyMan. Basically, it's a big long sermon saying that Romans 9 means exactly what it says. God makes decisions. God hates so that we all understand his love. God puts his glory on display by hardening our hearts and damning us to hell. God decides who he will have mercy on and who he will harden just like it says here and in Exodus. He hardens people's heart for exactly the reason it says here and in Exodus. He does it so that his glory and soveignty will be shown to all and we'll tell our kids and they their's. That's exactly what both of these passages say.

The tricky part though is how that fits with Free Will. Well, I can see from this explanation, it's just simple God's mysterious ways double speak. God decides who will be saved and who will be damned, but we are damned because of our choices. It's God's will, but God holds us responsible. The guy even stops to say "In fact it's so difficult to resolve I can't resolve it and neither can you, but God can. I'll tell you one thing, I'm not going to question Him."

You can't argue with the Bible. It says what it says, and in the eyes of reason and logic, it condemns itself. As embarassing as it is, the christians are stuck with it.

Volker.Doormann

OK. From what I can see, Christianty is far away from that, what is teached by Jesus and is discussing since 2000 years claims of Paul, which are in contradiction to the teaching of Jesus in the gospels. If Paul has need a scribe to write his letter to the Romans it is not out of a simple thinking, that he never has read a gospel, not to mention that he has grasp them. There is no hint that Paul ever had read the teaching of Jesus in the gospels. Christianity has anathemized a lot of people exept Paul and until today there are lamentations about that, what he has promoted from his personal belief system .
Thank you.

Volker

TheDiddleyMan

Originally posted by brettc
Brett: Ok, I read one of the links by DiddleyMan. Basically, it's a big long sermon saying that Romans 9 means exactly what it says. God makes decisions. God hates so that we all understand his love. God puts his glory on display by hardening our hearts and damning us to hell. God decides who he will have mercy on and who he will harden just like it says here and in Exodus. He hardens people's heart for exactly the reason it says here and in Exodus. He does it so that his glory and soveignty will be shown to all and we'll tell our kids and they their's. That's exactly what both of these passages say.

Me: Yes that is pretty much it. He created us to put his glory on display, and he has display himself in full, and therefore, that necessitates both displaying wrath and mercy. BTW, another good place to go is to John Piper's site - www.desiringgod.org I believe. He discusses some of these issues, in a pastoral fashion.

Brett: The tricky part though is how that fits with Free Will. Well, I can see from this explanation, it's just simple God's mysterious ways double speak. God decides who will be saved and who will be damned, but we are damned because of our choices. It's God's will, but God holds us responsible. The guy even stops to say "In fact it's so difficult to resolve I can't resolve it and neither can you, but God can. I'll tell you one thing, I'm not going to question Him."

Me: Well, you really can't fit it in with "free will". Actually, the proper way of phrasing the dilemna is how it fits in with *responsibility*. Calvinists will argue to the cows come home that we have no free will. We are still guilty before God, but we were born sinners and unable to believe in Christ. With Calvinism, it can get even worse: we are born with Adam's guilt. No, what I am not saying is that we are born sinful because of Adam, what I am actually saying is that the whole human race is *credited* with the guilt of Adam. They get this from Romans five, where it says that God credits us righteouss in Christ. We are not righteouss but God credits us with Christ rightoussness. But Paul gives a flipside - our sinfulness. God credits us with Adam's sin.
Anyhow, this is illogical in very big way. Calvinism is a much more logical system than the modern flipside (Arminianism) in many ways, but it also totally defies logic in many other ways.

Brett: You can't argue with the Bible. It says what it says, and in the eyes of reason and logic, it condemns itself. As embarassing as it is, the christians are stuck with it.

Well, they can just quote John 3:16 over and over :boohoo:

Diddley