Consider the Potters Pots

Let’s say that a potter had formed some pots in a specific fashion to serve a specific purpose. It could be properly stated that the potter was the sole cause of the shape and destiny of the pots that were formed. Could the man justly blame and punish the clay he had not used for making pots for failure to become pots as well? Could he praise the clay the pots were made of for being the pots they were formed by him to be?

Could one deny that only a certain number of pots were made, and that limited number was in fact the direct results of the cause that made them? Would it be logial to conclude that although the potter was indeed the cause of the pots formed, that no way limited the amount or the shape of the pots made?

 

Here is the response I could justly assume that some men on this list as well as others mentioned lately would claim. “ Now I believe that the potter is the sole determining cause of the pots that were shaped, and the pots have absolutely nothing to do with their being pots or remaining as pots, but I cannot accept the idea of the potter only allowing a limited amount of the clay to end up as pots. The potter desired for all the clay to have the opportunity to become pots!”

Sound familiar to anyone? How about the logic employed by some possibly on this list? Is it flawed? If so why?

 

HP: If a man states that God is completely sovereign and man is completely impotent, God controlling the entire process of salvation and man a passive participant, and this Sovereign God honestly desires to save all, if all are not saved it must be that for some reason He is incapable of fulfilling His own desires. God, as seen in this scenario, could not be seen as all powerful, for there would be some things that for whatever reason, God is limited and cannot seemingly accomplish.

This would lead to the conclusion that if all are not saved, either God does NOT desire to save all or He is unable to save all. He is either not all powerful or He does not really to desire to save all as Scripture states He does. If all are not saved, following the logic of those that say salvation is all of God, it forces a conclusion that it is absolutely impossible to avoid a limited atonement coming from a literal payment perspective.

Three point Calvinism is simply a chimera, for if you hold to TUP you of logical necessity must agree to and hold to L and I. A three point Calvinist must basically feel, I want to be seen as orthodox to some degree so I will say I agree with three of the five points………when in reality those points he agrees with logically force the agreement of the undesirable points he is trying to escape. If man is passive in salvation, and one wishes to avoid universalism, how can salvation not be irresistible and limited?

 

HP: Sorry Amy I believe I misread your post. I cut my former response. “His desire” I believe, must be referring to the one rejecting, not God.

OK, now that I believe I am on track I will try again. First, men sin due to selfishness. We are given at least two clear accounts in Scripture as to why men sin. First, Scripture tells us that Eve, “Ge 3:6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

The next place is found in James. “Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

Man’s desire is first to please himself when sin is involved. The rejection of the cure is not the cause of the malady of sin, but indeed does seal ones fate.

Secondly, your suggested response does not eliminate any of the problems we are speaking about. What do you mean by ‘allow?” According to the theology I am referring to man is completely incapable, yea he is created by God in such a state as to make any other choice impossible for him to make other than to sin. That speaks not of ‘allowance’ but of coercion. That coercion can be laid at the doorstep of the Creator that creates man if indeed He creates him as a sinner. I do not believe that to be the truth.

 

HP: Have what? Have you ever thought about what might happen if you stop fighting windmills for just a moment and tried to add something constructive to a discussion?

 

HP: Again I apologize. I simply misunderstood you. I edited my response to you. You can go back one page and pick it up. Thanks!!

 

HP: That is a great starting point for ones theology! No man need to wait around on God to give them an ability to seek Him. God has indeed granted that to all men, IF they only have the oportunity to hear and respond with their whole heart in repentance and faith.

It is true that as a sinner, there is nothing in and of himself that could serve to motivate him to proper behavior, and no man comes to God without God drawing him, but that does not indicate in the least that God has not done just as you say, and granted to all men the necessary abilities to seek God, IF they only would. “Seek and ye shall find!!”

It is NOT abilities that the sinner needs to seek God, but rather they only need to hear and respond in willing obedience to the gospel message, utilizing the abilities God already gave them to place their faith and trust in Him.

 

HP: Indeed we did agree. Just the same, rejoice not in the fact that we agree on something, but rather rejoice that our names are written in the Lambs Book of Life!

PS It is still nice to find agreement!