Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Robert William, Feb 20, 2015.
Does God hate some babies and loves other babes before they do anything good or bad?
There are some that suggest he is speaking of nations and not individuals. However, nations are nothing more or less than MANY INDIVIDUALS within a definable border and so that does not help their argument but only complicates it, as they now have God hating MANY INDIVIDUALS instead of Just Esau.
I would suggest that this is hatred in respect to the purpose of election rather than to the cause of damnation. In Romans 9 the kind of clay that God sovereignly takes and molds into vessels of honor are explicitly identified as vessels of "mercy". By definition "mercy" has no existence apart from a previous just basis for condemnation because "mercy" only has meaning in relationship to what has been and is justly condemned. Hence, the nature of the clay is mankind already in a fallen state, thus election is "TO salvation" and NEVER to damnation.
However, the moderators will probably move this to the Calvinism debate site.
True Calvinism cannot escape reprobation.
And why are people 'reprobate'?
All true Christians, whether Calvinists or non-Calvinists will escape reprobation though.
You are looking at true Calvinism in the fatalistic approach. But that's not the correct view. When Adam fell, his progeny fell, we, all mankind, being his progeny. God did nothing to cause this, Adam did. Blame Adam, not God. Now, if God did nothing but set back and watch, everyone would die eternally lost. Their being lost was due to Adam and not God. However, God gave a multitude to His Son(election), He took their sins upon Himself, and nailed them to the cross(atonement). True predestination shows God dealing with His sheep, saving them from eternal torment.
All mankind by nature are reprobates. Election is NEVER to damnation - NEVER! Find me one text that says anyone was "chosen" or "elected" to damnation.
Romans 9:20-24 characterizes the elect as vessels of "mercy" which necessarily implies an already just condemned state or the word "mercy" is rendered worthless.
I agree with you...please calm down. I was asking JB a question to further the discussion. Please read my previous response in this thread ....
I thought I had quoted Jonathan rather than you. Getting feeble minded my old age.
Willis, that gave me a good Saturn Day morning chuckle
As long as I have been in the church and have been in the church many years. I have yet to hear a preacher and I heard many, preach a baby into hell. That being said we have a snake in California called the Diamond Back Rattle Snake and he is one poisonous critter. His bite is lethal. He reproduces babies just like him and they have the same venomous poison as their daddy. That is their nature. As is our nature in Adam and because of our parents transgression we all die. But because of the sacrifice of the Son Of God who paid for our sins with his life blood we shall live again eternally. He SHALL saved ALL the Father has given him and lose none... Brother Glen
A little bit of context on your scripture references might have carried you a long way. But as we have it.....
Infralapsarianism seems willing to go only halfway in respects to God's decree. If God has decreed that some will be saved, how is that not a decree to damnation for those who have not been so decreed?
The issue is justice as that is what "mercy" has reference to. Supralapsarian repudiates any just basis for condemnation of the non-elect but simply claims God can condemn them willy nilly as he pleases period thus repudiating the just and holy attribute of God. That is not what the scripture teaches. Reprobation is based upon the JUST condemnation rather than the abritrary will of God.
And short of he Arminian foreseen faith view, how would you defend justice in a lapsarian form from Scripture?
Can the supralapsarian view have the view of singular predestination, in regards to Him electing the elect to salvation and leaving the non-elect status quo?
Not in the least near. The clay in the potters hand is FALLEN mankind as that is the only possible way vessels to glory can be described as vessels of "mercy." Mercy by its very definition demands forgone just condemnation that deserves a just penalty. However, supra contradicts the concept of "mercy" and repudiates it as they are vessels chosen from an UNFALLEN and UNCONDEMNED state.
Election is TO salvation, rather than IS salvation. Election is based upon NOTHING GOOD OR EVIL performed in the future INDIVIDUALIZED life of the elect while still justly condemning him as ONE INSEPARABLE FALLEN HUMAN NATURE fallen in ONE MAN - Adam.
In Romans 9, clay and potter are mentioned in the same way as vessels of honor and dishonor.
See how Paul wrote of the vessels in 2Timothy 2, has nothing to do with being chosen to be saved from hell. It's an issue of how holy one conducts himself.
2Timothy 2 is a condensed version of what Paul wrote in Romans 8-10 - even in the same order:
Suffering, reigning with Christ, vessels, name the Name of the Lord