if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know. This is a former elder & seminarian's place to discuss theology & share posts from the blog
The Silent Planet
Joined September 2022
- Tweets17.2K
- Following609
- Followers427
- Likes10.6K
Pinned Tweet
Though we debate aspects of being in Christ, think we can all agree:
if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature
[having been]
created in Christ Jesus to do good works
[which we do with]
our liberty which we have in Christ
[so we]
do not turn [our] freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another
we receive the promise of the Spirit through faith
For all of you were baptized into Christ ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free[, whether Catholic or Protestant]
After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated: One Incarnate Nature of The Word
- Cyril of Alexandria
If Nicaea sought to insure that Jesus was fully divine, then Constantinople reinforced these points while affirming that Jesus must also be fully human.
These two councils shape what Christianity has historically sought to say about the Trinity and the Incarnation.
However, it should be clear that the terminology and the best way to describe the Trinity and Christ were evolving throughout the centuries.
deadheroesdontsave.com/2026/…
Part 2 is finally ready
xitter.gq/_DHDS/status/211543996…
Cyril, writing to Nestorius, urged him to consider “what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man.” The competing answers to that question drew in a vast array of characters, prompted the calling of synods and councils, and generated an exchange of numerous letters over the next two decades.
deadheroesdontsave.com/2026/…
Cyril, writing to Nestorius, urged him to consider “what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man.” The competing answers to that question drew in a vast array of characters, prompted the calling of synods and councils, and generated an exchange of numerous letters over the next two decades.
deadheroesdontsave.com/2026/…
The Bible is absolutely about Jesus. He said so Himself when He "explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."
From Genesis 3:15
to the Abrahamic covenant and a promise to bless all the families of the earth through Israel
to the David covenant and a King whose kingdom would never end
to the Suffering Servant who would heal by His wounds
to the promise of a new covenant
to John the Baptist pointing to one greater
to Jesus coming to die and be raised
to establishing a new group of Jews & Gentiles as His body
to His return and His judging the living and the dead
to His never-ending kingdom and a new creation
The story of the Bible from cover to cover is the story of Jesus as the climax to the story of Israel
Reformed and always reforming. This Reformation month let's not forget Jacobus Arminius who died on Oct 19, 1609
A theologian and professor he sought to reform the Dutch Reformed. He openly questioned the Calvinist soteriology of Beza and Gomarus sparking debate. This would lead to the synod of Dort, theological schism and provide the foundation for John Wesley's soteriology
Arminianism is compatible with both the early church views of God and man as well as key parts of the Reformed movement that split from the RCC. It holds that God is wise, powerful and able to bring about His redemptive plan in Christ while still allowing freedom within those created in His image to rebel and distort an otherwise good creation. It holds that Christ is good news for all people making salvation available to all not only a preselected few. Where Cassian and others required God work in and through us so we do good, either at the start or finish, it concludes that God, who desires all to be saved, must initiate and work in and through us so on one hand we can incline to what is good, on the other to reject what is good.
Jesus tells us: Repent and believe the Gospel
Paul tells us: Believe and you will be saved
It seems clear that repentance & belief precede and are the condition for salvation
Unfortunately, Jon seems to conflate regeneration, which in his view precedes faith and makes it possible, as being saved
Thus for Jon, salvation precedes faith and is what makes repentance and faith possible
In October 1529 Zwingli and Luther explored joining the Protestant movements into one at Marburg but ended up failing to do so over differences in the Eucharist
#ReformationMonth
Probably would have balked at 6 and 8 without some aspect of resistance regarding the creation of faith in our hearts
"the Holy Spirit gives and creates this faith in our heart"
The scribes and the Pharisees tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders
...
Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.
...
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ... Enter through the narrow gate
- Jesus
Zwingli sparked by Luther's success began preaching against the authority of the Pope and practices of the Church. It reached a head when he took 67 Articles to the Zurich city council in 1523 sparking the Swiss Reformation. This movement would provide a home for Calvin when he fled persecution in France as the Protestant movement spread
#ReformationMonth
The most famous event, the one that marks this as Reformation month, is Luther hanging his 95 theses on the door of the church on Oct 31, 1517
Numerous debates followed and during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519 Eck pressed Luther. When Luther rejected the authority of the Pope and coucils he was considered a Hussite heretic
The most famous event, the one that marks this as Reformation month, is Luther hanging his 95 theses on the door of the church on Oct 31, 1517
Numerous debates followed and during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519 Eck pressed Luther. When Luther rejected the authority of the Pope and coucils he was considered a Hussite heretic
Jesus casting out demons by the Spirit of God suggests a kenotic Christology where He depended on the Spirit instead of His own divine power
There are 5 things to remember, 6 things to keep in mind, when interpreting Romans 9
1) a major theme of Romans is what advantages does the Jew have if the Gentiles are grafted in
2) Paul shows that the Jews have had tremendous advantages over the Gentiles when it comes to understanding God's plan
3) the interlocutor is a Jew that has the mindset that if I'm not saved by Law or lineage God's word has failed especially if He extends mercy to the Gentile and hardens Jews
4) God's will which can't be resisted is His will to extend mercy & credit righteousness to those with the faith of Abraham. Further He is not unjust to withhold mercy from those who seek to attain righteousness by works or bloodline
5) God's will which can't be resisted is His will to harden those like Pharoah who continually suppress the truth rather than take advantage of the opportunity to repent
6) Paul's argument is meant to instill jealousy in the Jews so that some might be saved by faith in Jesus for they can be grafted in if they don't remain in unbelief
Romans 9:18-19 does NOT rule out LFW as necessary for moral responsibility to obtain. Why not? For starters this isn't a text trying to teach us a particular metaphysical theory about "free will". Anyone convinced of a particular theory will surely find room for it in this chapter
'So then IT does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. ... So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.'
The "it" here probably refers to obtaining mercy and compassion which likely is another way of saying "attaining righteousness" (9:15,30-32)
Then the question asked should be on whom does God have mercy? And whom does He harden?
If the interlocutor is the covenant Jew who doesn't believe (11:20) and refused to seek righteousness by faith, instead pursuing it by works (9:31-32; 10:3) then one can find in this room for an earlier refusal that does the moral work that justifies a later judicial hardening
And since Paul isn't writing for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy we should not expect him to provide a full metaphysical account of hardening based on a particular theory of "free will" when he is explaining why God's word has not failed when the Jewish people by blood are not being saved
Paul's point is that they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. It is those who pursue righteousness by faith, not working to create their own, that are the true Israel and upon whom God wills to have mercy
'For who resists His will?”'
Now we must ask what is His will regarding mercy and hardening. To that we can look to Romans 2:4 where He grants an opportunity to repent (cmp 10:21) and Romans 1 where continually repressing truth results in hardening. And while not in the passage, we can draw on Ezekiel 18:21-29 which show us the Jews were calling God unjust, as here in Romans 9, for holding people accountable for their actions and their repentance
"Not of the one willing or the one running"
This verse can refer to what Paul explains more fully in 9:30-32 as the pursuit of one's own righteousness by works (cmp 3:28). This passage need not remove any aspect of an agent willing to pursue righteousness by faith. After all, God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (3:26)
The reader can take all of that in and decide which model of freedom best allows for the data in this passage. Likely finding support for the theory they already find convincing
An argument for why no matter who the interlocutor is, the passage rules out LFW as necessary for moral responsibility to obtain.
Who the interlocutor is doesn’t matter for this point. Grant him. He’s the covenant Jew who already refused, was then hardened, and is now being used so the nations come in. Fine. That still doesn’t save the claim that LFW is required for moral responsibility.
Romans 9:19 is the direct consequence of 9:18: “He has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.” The objection that follows is “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” The problem being raised is exactly that combination, an unresisted will and fault still assigned. Naming the man a judicially hardened Jew after refusal simply has that same man asking the question. It restates the problem; it doesn’t solve it.
Paul doesn’t answer by restoring what LFW needs. He doesn’t say the will was resistible. He doesn’t say an earlier free refusal already did the moral work so that the later condition no longer requires alternative possibilities. He doesn’t put libertarian access back inside the deeds under discussion. He answers with the potter. Fault stands while the will in view is unresisted.
On the reading that wants to keep LFW necessary, the unrighteousness he’s blamed for is precisely the rejecting God is securing and using. They don’t see and they don’t turn because God has acted so that outcome holds. LFW does no work inside those deeds. A possible later grafting doesn’t put it there. Paul still finds fault and never offers the prior free refusal as the ground that makes the fault rational while the will remains unresisted.
So the identity tells you the occasion. It doesn’t put LFW back into the condition for which fault is assigned. You can keep the Jew. You cannot keep the rule that moral responsibility requires the ability to have done otherwise under the conditions in which the act occurs. The verse leaves responsibility standing where that ability is not present. That is why LFW is not necessary for moral responsibility to obtain.