Reformed Brethren

That begs the question by presuming the point up for debate, now doesn't it?

Paul's rebuke is not to my objection, but to the objection of a Jew chosen for the common/ignoble use of being a hardened pot, while Paul (of the same clay, Israel) was chosen for the noble purpose of being an apostle to take the message of redemption to unclean barbarians instead of the CHOSEN ISRAELITES. What you seem to miss is that those spoken of being hardened in Romans 9 are spoken of being provoked to envy and saved in Romans 11, so they can't be the non-elect hopeless reprobates Calvinists think they are.

Where? I know that is not what you believe and I never even implied it. I know the irresistible work of regeneration changes man's desire so that they willingly come in the Calvinistic system. It may help to quote exact phrases when making claims like this so I can see where the misinterpretation took place.

Right, notice the order. Life doesn't come before the willing... The Pharisees of his day were being hardened/blinded in their unbelief....

Did God have to make them want to crucify Jesus or was that desire innate?

God judicially hardened or blinded them from the truth so that they would do what they ALREADY wanted to do. He didn't make them sin. He simply blinded them from the truth like a cop hiding himself from the speeder.

And there is the difference. You seem to imply God predestined/cause/determined those who sinned by crucifying Christ, but God doesn't even tempt men to sin. You seem to equate God's causing that with this causing someone to reject the gospel, but that is a non sequitur for two reasons. 1. God didn't CAUSE them to crucify Christ (as explained) and 2. there is nothing to equate God's work to judicially hardened the Jews with your accusation of God hardening all men from birth so as to make them unable to respond to his appeal for reconciliation.

 

'But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to Him who formed it, "Why have you made me thus?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honour and another for dishonour?'

The immediate context of these verses is Pharaoh, not the Jews, and its stricture applies to anyone who contests the fairness of God.

You are quite wrong. You are pretending that if only these people could hear, they would turn and repent. The reverse is true. God declares, 'All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people' (Rom 10:21). Men will not hear the word of God because their hearts are wicked, sinful and stubborn.

You are dodging the issue. Whether you like it or not, our Lord was crucified 'by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God.' Yet God still justly held the Jewish leaders responsible.

God 'works all things according to the counsel of His will' (Eph 1:11), but the Jewish leaders were still responsible for their sin. You need to come to terms with these two facts before the discussion can progress.

God does not cause men to do wicked deeds; their hearts are wicked from birth and they follow their own instincts to sin (Mark 7:21ff).

I'm sorry but I find your notion of God being a Calvinist to the Jews and an Arminian to the Gentiles quite ridiculous. God hardens or 'gives over' men as they reject His Gospel (cf. Prov 1:24ff; Rom 1:18ff), which all men will do naturally because their hearts are wicked and sinful and they will not voluntarily submit themselves to God (Luke 19:14 etc., etc.). 'Unless the LORD of hosts had given us a very small remnant, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been made like Gomorrah' (Isaiah 1:9).

There is a paradox at the heart of God's salvific dealings with man, and unless we accept and embrase it we shall never understand His gracious purposes. It is encapsulated in John 6:37 which couples the absolute predestination of God with the responsibility of man. I have drawn attention to it several times on this forum. Please consider it gain.

 

Its called foreshadowing:

Moses is the redeemer just as Jesus is the redeemer.
Israel is being exiled from slavery in Egypt just as the world is being exiled from the slavery of sin.
Pharaoh is hardened to accomplish the passover just as the Jews are hardened to accomplish the Passover.

Ok, but the issue is WHY are they contesting His fairness?

Option 1: Because God chose to punish all mankind for the sin of Adam by condemning them all to a totally depraved nature from birth and only choosing to effectually save a preselect few.

Option 2: Because God chose to temporarily harden his elect people due to their continued rebellion, so as to accomplish redemption for the world.

Either option would cause the reader to protest, so the question is which option is supported in the text. So, to assume my protest is the same one Paul is anticipating is question begging, because it could be option 2 since it also affords a protest.

No, I'm saying they COULD, not that they WOULD. And actually I'm not the one saying it, Jesus did:

"to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

Had Jesus not hardened them through speaking in parables and sending them a Spirit of stupor they "might turn and be forgiven," and then they wouldn't have crucified Him. So, God blinded them in their rebellious state for a time and THIS is what they are protesting.

Correct. He has been patient with Israel, despite their rebellion and deserving of punishment, for a very long time. Why? To show the riches of mercy to those who are now being saved, for "the Gentiles will listen." (Rom 9, Acts 28)

Actually, as I just quoted above, Paul says the Gentiles, unlike the hardened Jews, will listen. Read Acts 28.

What issue am I dodging. I agree with this point. But my point was to show that God didn't cause them to sin. He simply allowed them to do what they already wanted to do. He ensured it by blinding them from the truth. If you would have answered my question I think you would have had to admit that, which is probably why you didn't bother to answer it.

Again, I agree with those two statements, but our point of contention is about what it means when it says God is working all things out. Does it mean God caused these men to sin? Heaven forbid. God doesn't even tempt men to sin, much less make them sin.

So, what does God do to 'work it out?" He blinds rebellious people (Jews) from the truth so that they will do what they already want to do (crucify anyone claiming to be God for blasphemy). And after they crucify Him what happens? The resurrection, the Holy Spirit comes and Peter preaches. Many of these same hardened folks who yelled 'crucify him' come to faith in Acts 2. Why? Because the enabling/drawing power has now come as the Holy Spirit wrought Gospel is preached.

We agree. But if confronted by a powerful revelation they might believe, so God must blind them from this powerful truth temporarily.

Clearly you have not studied any scholarly Arminians. May I suggest you do so and then come back for us to discuss these matters more in-depth and with clear understanding of what each view actually believes.

 

IF one is presented the Gospel, without ANY other influence/act/work done by God, is that sufficient/enough to get someone saved who was lost?

And who you suggest as being scholars in Arminian theology circles?

 

This is a wretched caricature of God's dealings with man which I utterly reject. It is the very argument that the Apostle is tackling in 9:14ff.

This is obviously not the Apostle's meaning since he gives has his opponents asking, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (v19). The Jews had been absolutely resisting His will by rejecting the Messiah, so your argument falls to the ground at once.

It is clear that the objection is God's sovereign choice. Paul has explained (vs 6-13) that not all of Israel is the true Israel and has touched upon God's rejection of Esau and election of Jacob while the two had not yet been born. Forseeing the objections of those who hate God's sovereignty, he asks, 'What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!' He goes on to say that God has the absolute right to do whatever He wants with His creation. The arguments that Paul puts into the mouths of his opponents are very similar to the complaints of Job, and the answer is basically the same that God gives to Job in Job 38-41.

The Jewish leaders had already rejected our Lord (eg. Mark 2-3) before He started speaking in parables. What you are seeing is the 'giving over' of those leaders to their own wicked rejection. Jewish people did not always reject the Gospel (Acts 17:10-12; Col 4:10-11). Nor do they always do so today. The fact is that no one will receive the Gospel unless God the Holy Spirit will do a work on their hearts (1 Cor 2:14).

Again, the context of Rom 9:22-23 is not 1st Century Israel, but God's utter sovereignty over all mankind. Yes, some of the Gentiles will listen, but not all of them as centuries of persecution by the Romans and others have shown.

That's as far as I can go now, and I think I will leave the matter there. I broke my own rule by participating in an Arm/Cal discussion; they always generate more heat than light, but thank you any way.

Steve

 

How is that so called "caricature" misrepresentative of Calvinistic doctrine?

In your view did God not make the choice to condemn all mankind due to the Fall? Did He not choose to punish mankind by making everyone born with a Totally Depraved nature? Did He not chose to effectually save a preselected group called the 'elect?' Again, you haven't told us what is wrong about this statement.

And how is this option a caricature and also addressed in Romans 9? That didn't make sense?

They aren't talking about resisting His desire to gather/save them (i.e. Matt. 22:37; Rom 10:21). They are talking about his will to hardened them in that rebellion. Even you believe the Jews were resisting his desire to gather them, don't you? So, what other will of God would the apostle be addressing here if not his will to harden them?

I agree. His sovereign choice to harden some Jews in their rebellion versus his choice to select Paul for the noble purpose of apostleship. And, of course, His choice to graft in the Barbarians who aren't even a nation! That would cause much objection and it has nothing to do with God preselecting certain individuals to the neglect of all the rest.

I would have continued as well but just saw this and I'm not going to waste my time responding to all your points if you aren't going to stick around to engage them....

I'm more than willing to stick to the topic alone. Things don't have to be personally 'heated.'

 

Oh yea....I was once apon a time very PO' ed at it too, that is before I changed my prospective....or was it God changed it for me....

 

Well said Steve! :thumbs: