RomOne16,
'Who made the soil?' {in connection with Matthew 13:3-9}
My sincere answer is that God has created us at birth on an equal basis. We all have the proclivity toward evil because of a common depravity which theologians called, 'the Adamic nature.' [Psalm 58:3]
Having been born equally with no standing with God, our circumstances of life and/or our environment have a part to play in our decision to either respond to God or to continue on our downward trek. [Romans 1:24-25-32] Thank God, even for those who, as sinners, have gone the furthest away from the Lord, still can be reached by His matchless grace. Sinning has a way of taking us further away from Him and it also has a hardening affect on sinners as well as called, saints. The 'shopping list' of sins and continued rebellion against God makes for the different kinds of 'soil' meaning different kinds of sinners from the most vile to those who might have lived, by human standard, a moral life. Before someone corrects me, I also want to say that even the smallest sin, humanly speaking, still makes us guilty before the God of holiness that we have come to know. Just having the nature of 'Adam' makes us guilty before the Lord God.
Is this the Arminian Stumper?
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Skandelon, Jan 20, 2003.
Page 6 of 8
-
-
Samuel,
2 Cor. 4:7 is a different context than Romans 9. I do not carry the meaning of “earthen vessels” (KJV) over to the same meaning of Romans 9. Why do you?
Be mindful that I am not arguing in defense of an Arminian position. Just discussing scripture. -
Eric,
-
What are Earthen Vessels? Clay pots. Right?
Vs. 20-21 speaks of a potter making pottery for noble purposes and others for common use. CONTEXT IS KEY. Follow Paul thoughts from vs. 21 all the way through to 24 and you will see it is all connected.
If Paul followed "Choice theology" he would not have needed to explain God's fairness. Choice theology doesn't make anyone say, "What shall we say? Is God unjust?" Choice theology explains divine election in such a way that God's justice is not brought into question.
Paul anticipates the same arguements that are so often laid at the feet of Calvinists today. "That makes God unfair!" "Why are we still to blame?" and "Why did God allow sin into the world in the first place if it wasn't to allow mankind a free will." All of these arguements are one's that Arminians throw at Calvinists. Well, guess what--Paul must have been "Calvinistic" because he anticipates all three of these arguements. (vs.14, 19, 22-23)
Why would Paul anticipate the same arguments that the Calvinistic doctrine anticipates, unless he was "Calvinistic" himself? -
I see no Calvinists bit on the hook dated January 21 3:48 pg. 6. {Stumper}
Avoidance is a poor excuse for not having the answers. -
Samuel,
I use the KJV and the translaion there is "children of wrath". I'm not sure what version you're using but I'd be interested in the Greek term used there so we can find out why there is such a descrepancy between the KJV and your version. Perhaps your's is more correct.
I understand why you make the transition from 2 Cor. to Romans 9, however, the context in 2 Cor. is different from Romans 9. Yes, the metaphor of a potter is used in Romans, but the question is, what is being fashioned? The person or the office? Since 2 Cor. seems to be talking about pserson, is it safe to say Romans 9 is talking about person also?
The thrust of this context is not about why God selects to have mercy on some and not others, it's about "the true Israel". Paul says, "they are not all Israel which are of Israel". In other words, being an Israelite by birth does not obligate God to have mercy on that individual. Also, and I think primarily, since the majority of Israelites reject God, does not make the promises of God void. Because who is an Israelite? Not one by birth, but one by faith. And those who are "of faith" are those whom God has mercy upon. Since God chose Israel, does his mercy upon those other than Isreal make Him unjust? No. Because God had revealed through Moses, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy". So it's not of those who are in a particular postion by a will of the flesh (those who are Israelites by birth) but of those whom God will have mercy upon regardless of birthright but rather of faith. Those who are "of faith" are also considered "vessels of honour", not in person, but in office. So this is about "who is Israel" or as the KJV says, "the children of promise". The "children of promise" are not whom they are as a result of personal election. If they were, then Israelites by birth would have a very good argument before God. They are whom they are as a result of God's promise to those who are of faith which is a description of the office of "vessels of honour".
I'd like to take this opportunity to make a point about opinion. Do you think either one of us is able to approach Romans 9 and intepret it without any preconcieved ideas? I don't. I think both of us have presumptions about God, Adam, and The Fall, that take part in our understanding of the words, phrases, and context of Romans 9. -
Deuteronomy 30:19 is referring to temporal salvation. This is very clear from the context. Their choosing life was to have effects upon their seed. Now, if by "life" is meant eternal life, by their choice their seed was also going to inherit eternal life. All the other verses are referring to the same thing Ray. Read them.
-
I agree with all of this that I have left in the quote, but notice I pulled out a couple of lines with which I disagree.
You're exactly right, the Jews would have a reason to question God's justice. The line of Abraham (Jews) would be ticked that God would elect people outside of their lineage. It is for this reason that I believe that is exactly what Paul is saying God did. Paul is saying, God's election is based upon his own pleasure, he can have mercy on whomever he wants!
The fact that Paul anticipates the Jews cry, "God this is unjust!" Proves all the more that personal election is Paul's message in this chapter. He even clarifies in verse 16 saying, "It does not, therefore, depend upon man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."
You were right in asserting that it does not depend on their birth right, it doesn't. But it also doesn't depend on their will, which is why he continues to give a defense by appealing to God's dealings with Pharoah and his analogy of the clay in the potters hand.
Now, if your interpretation is accurate. Jews would not be calling God unjust. Afterall, they would only have to choose him by their own free will if they desired mercy--What is "unjust" in their eyes about that?
Even more convincing is Paul's next anticipated arguement: "Then why does God still blame us. For who resists His will?" Your interpretation of personal choice (as opposed to mine of divine election) does not afford this complaint from the Jew. Afterall, your interpretation leaves no one to blame except your own free will.
See, it just doen't make since to anticipate the arguement of human responsiblity if he is in support of it himself. Does that make since? If Paul believed as you do he would have said, "One of you might say to me: "They why does God still blame us? For who resist's His will? Don't blame God! You are the only one to blame because God gives you the freedom to resist His will. You can choose whether or not to have faith in Christ and be saved. There is no one to blame but yourselves for rejecting His offer of grace."
Of course, that's not what he says. Not even close! He doesn't try to remove the responsiblity of God's election by explaining it away (as Choice theologians do). He accepts it as being God's responsibility and gives us reasons why it is like that.
One other point. You speak of the "Children of the promise" as being in the office of faith. We obviously disagree with how one obtains faith. I believe it is a fruit of God's grace in his election. Faith is from God (Eph.2:8; Rom. 12:3; Jn 6:29; John 10:25-26; Acts 13:48--just to name a few) Which is why I don't disagree with much of you interpretation. The issue all goes back to my original question, "Why do you beleive?" at the start of this posted topic. -
I answered your Acts verses but time did not permit me to handle all of the verses you threw out. Which by the way, there are several I've thrown out to you, that you haven't answered either (at least I think it was you)
Anyway, I've now read through them and I don't see your arguement. Are you saying these verses some how prove that people have the ability to refuse the gospel? Because you do know that Calvinists don't disagree with that, Right? What is your beef? -
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
That is a good point Primitive Baptist... Scripture does not contradict scripture... If you think it does you are using the wrong application... btw there are more salvations in the scripture than just eternal!... You just need to open up your spiritual eyes and look!... The Primitive Baptist believe in two that I can name... What is called timely or temporal... then there is eternal. Many times in the scriptures there are two of everything and maybe more. There is natural death and spiritual death... Light and dark... Good and evil... Just to name a few... Salvation is not that the Lord did his part when he died on the tree for the sins of all his children now it is up to you to do your part!... Show me how a dead man can have a part?... And you were dead! Brother Glen
-
Samuel,
My concern is that some Christians believe in 'the bondage of the will.' This means that the majority of people in the world cannot desire or come to Christ. In Isaiah 66:3 we find the Jews chosing their own ways and delighting in horrendous evil. If they were bound to do these things then God gave them a free choice in these matters. Isaiah said, ' . . . and they chose that in which I {meaning God} delighted not.'
I God forced them to commit such terrible sins, {after all He is allegedly in charge of everything} then why at the close of verse four did He dislike their behavior and send delusions of fear on His people? -
Calvinist don't disagree that men choose to follow their delusions. And we don't disagree that men left to their own nature will resist and refuse the things of God. People refuse the gospel message all the time. That is not where we disagree. We disagree at another point. Let's debate that point please, and stop restating what we all already agree with.
This is where we disagree: Man cannot resist the effectual calling of God. They can and do, by their nature, resist everything else about God and his Word. But they cannot keep from being born again, if God, their father so desires for them to be born. (just like natural birth) The verses that you choose are merely examples of people acting in their fallen nature as Romans 3:10-12 explains, "No one seeks...understands...all turn away" Your verses are examples of men turning away thus proving our point of Total Depravity, not your point of Resistable Grace.
Nice try, please play again soon.
-
Samuel,
I think we've reached the bottom line on our Romans 9:22,23 discussion; election. We both see the concpet of election differently. Regarding Romans 9 I see it as "office" and you see it as "person". Yet doesn't our concept of this go back to what we believe about God, Adam, and The Fall?
Going further on the concept of office, Jeremiah 18:1-6 is a good place to go. There, God says He will form a nation based upon their choice to obey or disobey. In fact, it says, if a nation turns from their wickedness (primarily Israel) that He will "at that instant" form them for good. The opposite is stated as well. I think this goes right along with Romans 9 and the potter. The potter has authority over THE SAME LUMP to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. How/why does this occur? Jeremiah 18 is the answer. God will refashion/reform towards the office of honor or dishonor based upon choices made.
By the way, I looked up the Ephesians 2 verse you used earlier mentioning "OBJECTS". The Greek word there is teknon usually translated "child" or "children" in the KJV. So it's not the same word used in Romans 9 for "vessels".
Thank you for your time. -
Yes, 4study thank you for your time as well.
Just a note: you never answered my arguement concerning Paul's use of Diatribe (anticipating arguements that are common to Calvinistic teaching). I think that is crucial to understanding this passage. It just doesn't make since to anticipate these types of arguements if he truely holds to your position.
Can someone else address this? -
to answer your question, maybe you should consider the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit, and that grace is NOT actually irresistible. that is, it might be the case that two persons were convicted of the Holy Spirit for salvation however one might have accepted salvation while the other did not.
well, i plan not to join "play" deeply with this particular topic but i thought of being a help for your thesis.
having said that, it might help you to consider my question that i've posted on another thread with this link: To My Calvinist Bretheren
happy thesis writing ;) -
-
But I won't argue. Everyone else uses that verse, and insists on "single predestination", so I guess you believe like them. I did say I apologize if I was wrong.
Latreia:
Samuel again:
Do you think the Jews would really care if individuals (such as the unbelieving) were preordained to destruction? They probably already believed that. Would Gentiles care whether individual Jews were "vessels of wrath"? No; what would that have to do with them? People back then were concerned primarily about themselves and their own group. No one thought about such questions like this as we do. The whole notion of the "dignity and worth of human beings" that makes people so offended at this doctrine now is more a modern Western mindset.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ] -
"Christ says they're different states of the heart. Different reasons people do not come to Him (or stay) not simply because of the one cause of being passed over."
This does not contradict me in the least. I agree that they are different states of the heart, but they are all states of an unelect heart, ones that occur in real life. So it is simply not true, as you asserted, that to have the question about election makes it meaningless to have more than two soils mentioned. The other three soils, or heart types, are all unelect. All three give eivdence of heir unelect status by virtue of thier lack of producing frit. They do so in accordance with thier nature. Exactly the Calvanist thought.
And I note that you are rading in a double predestinarian idea again. As I said, it is not relevant. Whether some arghue for it or not, the question does not materially affect the real issue of election. For double rpedestinarians would say those predestined to hell are not elct for heaven anyway. it does not impact the differnece between calvanist and armninian ideas of election.
Sop if you have that axe to grind, please start another thread. -
What you are arguing against are the explicit statements of Scripture.
-
The point is that Christ used parables to hide truth from people so that they would not believe.
[ January 23, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Page 6 of 8