SIN IS NO CAUSE OF REPROBATION - John Bunyan

People who disagree with limited atonement/reprobation are accused of going by "their own" sense of justice or "fairness", "emotive arguments" etc. but it is based on the idea, presented in scripture of God's justice. Scriptural principle shows that punishing someone eternally because of nothing they themselves did, but only because of who they are, is just not the way God will judge, and it is not accepted in civil human societies (e.g. racism). And the same argument used to show God could do this because of His "rights" could also be extended to say that He could lie if He decided to, and still be just. (e.g. "You're saying that He CANNOT do things? That destroys His 'sovereignty'!"). I don't know how Calvinists can so boldly claim He cannot lie, then turn around and use "He does as He pleases" to justify another act which is just as much contrary to His revealed will as lying. It's an endless round of conjectural assertions. If we insist on God doing whatever He will, just because He can, because He owes nobody anything, then how do we know that God hasn't been telling us all this time that we are going to Heaven, and then send us to Hell anyway? Remember, He doesn't OWE us anything. He would still be right and just because of who He is. "But He promised us...". So? He isn't bound by any promise. Remember, He's sovereign. "But, He said He wouldn't lie...". Oh, who are you O man, to charge God with "lying"? Your limited mind is judging by your fallible notion of "truth". I repeat, God owes you nothing!

So you see here, that this hypothetical logic's natural conclusion completely erodes away not only "our limited sense of justice", but also our eternal security, God's trustworthiness, and the entire Gospel message. There are scriptures that seem to lead to one teaching, and there are others that seem to lead the other way. To resolve this, we must take the scriptures as a whole, and God gives us our rationality to comprehend scriptures, so just snatching up one or two chapters and then doing away with all human reason is setting us up for any heresy to charge into our midst and reign unchallengeable.

Even though God "has the right to do whatever He wants", He is still revealed as one who does not do harm to anyone unless they are sinning against Him. That is the only thing that ever brings His wrath, and He does not conceive of a person from eternity and charge him with sin just so the person could "condemn himself", which is basically sheer entrapment. This is what people oppose, and it becomes more a defensive argument about what scripture does not teach, than about what it does teach. This is then interpreted as simply a human objection of "that is not fair".

"God is love" means that God's primary moves are of benevolence, in creating, and to Creation. He created a beautiful realm for us to enjoy, and I've always said that He could have created a colorless stick figure world, and we would have had to appreciate that and try to make the best use of it we could, and still praise Him for creating it. But instead, it seems He went if it were possible, "out of His way" to provide a magnificent universe for us. Yet Calvinists consistently fail to see where their opponents get their idea that "God wouldn't do that" [i.e. trap people with preterition] from; as if we just made it all up off the top of our heads out of pure "emotional sentiment", based on "the way we think God should be", in total contrast to scripture!

Furthermore, just think about how relatively safe we have been kept from all of the dangers in the universe. How more than half of His Laws protect us from the sin of other humans so we can live together with some semblance of peace. When someone steals from another, or hurts another, God is just as offended as we are, or as He is of someone worshipping other gods. When the Israelites worshipped other gods such as Molech, God was just as upset that they were making their children pass through the fire as He was at the fact that it was another god. He forbade copying the practice even if they were using it to worship Him. (Deut 12:30-31), which He probably wouldn't have done if receiving undivided worship was all He cared about. He is not selfish like we are, but it appears that this is what Calvinists are projecting onto Him under the premise of "sovereignty". Imagine if He only gave the first four commandments, because our worship of Him was all He was concerned about! The whole point of the Christian life is for us to "become like Christ"; to "develop God's character", etc.; and what are we always commanded? Goodness, peaceableness to others, etc. No one is encouraged to raise children badly, so they can bring wrath on themselves and thus "deserve" it. God may exercise the right to do things He has commands us not to (such as taking a life), because of His supreme wisdom, but still, in general, the principles we see Him working in us are a far cry from what Calvinism attributes to Him. Calvinists point out, "no all of this goodness to man is only for His glory", but His glory obviously is beneficial to us. Once again, His glory, or "love for Himself" is not in opposition to our well-being or pleasure. You could say, He has tuned our senses to perceive the wonders of His creation pleasurably. He most certainly did not have to do this. Yet because of sin, it's man (and certain angels) who have set themselves in opposition to God. Calvinists try to argue that "if God allowed sin and the Fall, and foreknew that people would end up in Hell, then you are in the same predicament you say we are in". But not really. The difference is in the orientation. That is not the same thing as Him unconditionally hating people, and then fixing life so that they would be born in sin, die in sin, and go to Hell for that sin.

Calvinism assumes Hell is some sort of desired goal of God, just like Heaven. But like here on earth, jail and other forms of punishment aren't desired by anyone. They are necessary accommodations for people who will not obey the law, not ends in themselves. Likewise, Hell was not a desired end in itself, but was first created for rebellious angels. Then when man fell, those who refused to repent would also end up there. The Calvinist will argue that if He didn't decree all of this, then He was "helpless" as sin crept in and "took Him by surprise". But this is when we confess "our inability to comprehend the infinite perfection of God". [note how this concept is used when convenient to silence the other side, while the ones using it has been using their "reasoning" (based on misinterpretations of scripture) all along]

http://members.aol.com/etb700/predestination.html

 

johnp,

You see what I mean? You are not far from this truth. The concept seems to be supported? It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus... 1 Cor 1:30.
...They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. 1 Peter 2:8. </font>[/QUOTE]My comment is not a personal one. I’m attempting to put on the Calvinist eyeglasses so to speak. I have my own ideas about God and they are not in agreement with the Calvinist theories (nor do I consider them Arminian I might add). My point is this; I find the premise, God predestined some to Hell, a false one. You might claim that the scriptures support this and continue to reference various ones, but I do not interpret those scriptures the same as you. Why? Because I’m not convinced of the premise itself.

I don’t think any of us can convincingly say that we are unbiased. We all have presumptions about God by which we see scripture in a certain way. So we’re not going to get anywhere talking about scripture. We have to talk about the presumptions themselves. That’s all I’ve been trying to do; question the premise. We either believe the premise to have some merit and decide if the scriptures support it or we doubt the premise all together regardless of what some suggest the scriptures say. In other words, you can say Rom. 9 means “this” or “that”, but it doesn’t do me any good until I am convinced the premise itself is believable.

 

Hello Eric B.

It would not destroy His Sovereignty if He said He will not lie and does not but He does get others to do it for Him. 1 KI 22:23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

You do indeed go by man's sense of justice because you ignore the obvious, Rom 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
Is that unjust? Does the scripture say that He is not unjust and isn't the reason given why He is not unjust? Isn't the reason because that's what He told Moses? "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." That is not man's sense of justice is it? So if you oppose this then you are predisposed that's all. That's scripture that is not mere opinion. Where's your scripture? You talk about scripture without scripture?

I have no idea what you are saying but I guess it is that we should take the bible as a whole and in your so doing so you will make scripture say Jacob I loved Esau I also loved?

Romans 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

You are opposing scripture. I like this game.

You have missed the point.

john.

 

Hello 4study.

That's cool. So how do you interpret, Rom 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

Oh no we don't, scripture alone not opinion counts. I don't know about premise but my conclusion comes with scripture.

And that is the wrong way around to be sure.

You won't believe scripture because you don't like what it says?

john.

 

johnp,

Ok then, I’ll give in to your invitation. Rom 9 has nothing to do with being born again. It has to do with covenant relationship. Who are the children of promise? It’s not by birth, not by desire, and not by labor. It’s by faith. And I suppose that opens another can of worms; the faith issue. Round and round in circles we will go until we focus on the premise itself.

Basically, I think this issue of predestination with Calvinism is a confusion between “person” and “office”.

How do we understand scripture? Is it not by interpretation? What about preconceived ideas, bias, and prejudices? None of us is free from these things when we approach verses of the Bible. As much as we would like to think scripture provides our conclusions on these matters, the truth is, we often decide their outcome beforehand or try to make them fit our preconceived ideas.

And that is the wrong way around to be sure.</font>[/QUOTE]Whether wrong or right, it’s reality.

Oh I certainly believe the scriptures. I just don’t agree with the Calvinist interpretations.

 

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning,

The same pattern of days described for the world beginning is also the same pattern described for the "END".



But God "RESTED" on the "Seventh day", he was "FINISHED",

All "SIX" days had a "Evening and Morning", Beginning/end, except the "Seventh day",

The "EIGHTH DAY" came into existence when ADAM sin, a "CHOICE" Adam/eve made, NOT GOD

He must be He is Sovereign.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]Being made in "GOD'S IMAGE", we are also "GODS", with "SOVEREIGN CHOICES".

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

We can be "GOD OVER OUR LIFE", or allow Jesus to be "GOD OVER OUR LIFE", and we have the "SOVEREIGN RIGHT" to make that "CHOICE", (Knowing Good/Evil) and we're "JUDGED" according to that "CHOICE".

One other thing, God only Chastises "HIS OWN", as the "POTTER", he does attempt to "MAKE" any of "SATAN'S VESSELS" (sinners) into "ANYTHING", only "HIS OWN", so you can forget "Roman 9".

 

Hello Me4Him.

as the "POTTER", he does attempt to "MAKE" any of "SATAN'S VESSELS"... Are you using HanSola's keyboard? I'll take that to mean 'doesn't' ok? 'he doesn't attempt to "MAKE"'
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
I shall remember Romans nine if you don't mind.

Works in progress. You know it still comes as a shock that anyone would claim to be sovereign in this world. Many sovereigns? Unless a man is born again He cannot enter the Republic of Heaven is it?

We are not created in the image of God but in the image of Adam we are.

But what God can say, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing." Shall I forget Romans seven as well?

Thanks for the answer to the 8th day. Maybe you could send me the web address where I can read up further on this. I won't say anything about it now maybe a future event.

john.

 

Ro 6:13 Neither..."YIELD"...ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:

but..."YIELD"... yourselves unto God,

as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not,

that to whom.."YE YIELD"...yourselves servants to obey,

"HIS SERVANTS YE ARE TO WHOM YE OBEY";

whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

That's the "CHOICE" us "GODS" have to make.

The "wages of sin is death", making a "CHOICE" won't save a person, only "DEATH" pays the wages of sin, and only Jesus's death can save.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3398.html

 

I guess the point was missed when I didn't include the responses to this common misuse of Rom.9 (I didn;t want to make it too long). Others have touched upon it, but here is why we interpret it differently:

Romans chapter 9 is the number one proof-text for the doctrine, since it discusses "vessels of wrath" (people made for "destruction"), and that God "has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will harden". Then, anyone who questions why God would even create such a person, for instance, are blasted away with a quote of verse 20: "O man, who are you that replies against God?" In other words, this is the "truth" of God's sovereignty, so nobody has the right to question it, not even the poor "vessel of wrath" himself! James White, in the typical "rub it in" type of emphasis states "The Potter's Freedom pulses through these verses, flowing inexorably into the sea of sovereignty, rushing any would be proponent of free-will out of its path. God has has the perfect right to do with His creation (including men) as He wishes... [These 'vessels of wrath'] are said to have been specifically 'prepared for destruction'. That is their purpose." (The Potter's Freedom, p.213,4) But people don't even bother to check the CONTEXT. This passage is discussing Israel, a nation of people God was judging as opposed to Gentiles whom He was spreading His grace to, not individual people or everyone in a particular group being predestined for wrath as opposed to other individual people being elected for grace. (Obviously, many Israelites have gotten saved, so this can't be treating individuals as vessels of wrath). The passage also mentions God's hardening of Pharaoh, but this is still not talking about salvation or ETERNAL punishment. Paul uses the example of Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh to show how the people were chosen ("elected") by God for His purpose and not by their own will in the first place, and how God raised them up to show his power, and then hardens, all according to His will, and chooses others (and once again, individual salvation is not even mentioned. The very context of Jacob and Esau from Malachi 1:1-4, 3:6, and even the original Genesis 25:12 account is discussing nations!). With both the Jews, as well as in later racism, people thought that their group was "chosen" by God over others because of some type of "superiority" they had within themselves, whether moral, intellectual, genetic, or otherwise. This is precisely what Paul is debunking, as the Gospel tells us there is no such superiority; for all have sinned and are under the same condemnation. Therefore, salvation must be purely by God's grace. The Jews, of course, would be offended by this, and one of them might ask "why does He find fault" [i.e., with the people], and then Paul says "Who are you O man, to reply against God"? The Jews had been opposing the Gospel and the apostles all along, for among other things, criticizing the Jews for their hardness in rejecting Christ, as well as opening up to the gentiles; yet, possessing the Law (v.4), they should have known better, so this is why Jesus and the apostles were often harsh to them, criticizing their "stubbornness". They had no right to question why God would find fault with the people as a whole, but as an individual, that person could still forsake his part of the national sin and repent. Think about it: who would ask Paul such a question in the first place? One of the "non-elect"? But who could know now that they are ultimately non-elect? Or is it just any arbitrary listener who happens not to like God's election process? Do you think the Jews would really care if all unbelieving Gentiles and apostate Jews were preordained to destruction? They probably already believed that. Would Gentiles care whether individual Jews were "vessels of wrath"? If anything, some may have hastily presumed something like that, but then Paul corrects them, as we will see shortly. But otherwise; 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. A first century reader who just grasped the context regarding Israel and inheritance versus faith would get the point and have no reason to be so offended. But an Israelite in the Church who still had not fully submitted to the Gospel (as we see in the Gospels, Galatians and elsewhere), was another story. The Jews saw their national identity (physical inheritance) as an extension of themselves. It was everything to them, including their salvation. So to suggest they were no longer "chosen" in the sense they were used to was a great affront to them. But the entire Gospel is showing that "chosen" groups one had no choice belonging to did not solve the problem of sin, and thus could not save. Many such people did not even really love God. He was just their mascot and the doorman to Heaven (or national supremacy on earth) if they paid Him with their works, done purely in "the letter" in order to get themselves over. It was their stubborness that prevented them from admitting this (which meant that they too were sinners as much as they tried to keep the Law), so then they were hardened along with the rest of them, just like Romans 1:24 and 2 Thess.2:10-12. (not because God "decreed" the individuals to be initially stubborn in the first place).
Calvinists argue that the entire book of Romans is a "long argument on [individual] salvation, so why would he now be discussing groups?" Let's review the context by further examining the "why does He yet find fault; for who has resisted His will?" question. WHAT is really being asked here? "Yet" find "fault" for what? "Why would God unconditionally choose someone else and not me/[others], and save them by 'enabling' them to repent, yet leave me/[others] in this helpless state, dead in sin, unable to repent, yet still hold me/[them] responsible [i.e. 'find fault'] for my sin, and send me/[them] to Hell when I/[they] couldn't even 'resist His will' to place me/[them] in this state (before I[/they] were born, even) in the first place?". This is what people are asking Calvinists today, who then in turn simply project this into the text. But is it in the context of what the hypothetical person was asking Paul? It looks like it at first glance, and Calvinists assume so, so everytime someone questions or challenges "God holding helpless, 'totally unable' sinners responsible for their sin they couldn't repent of", the Calvinists just throw up the next verse as the quick magical answer. But "ability to repent" is not being discussed here. Neither is any inescapable state or fate. Paul had just mentioned Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh, These may be individuals, but what were they being used to illustrate? Step back another few verses: "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8) Paul argues that simply being "Abraham's children" does not make one a child of promise, because for one thing, Abraham had other children beside just the Jews. But God had declared that "In Isaac shall your Seed be called." (v.7) Being from Isaac also wasn't enough, because Esau also was his child. But God had still unconditionally chosen Jacob (v.12, 13), not because of any righteousness of his (Jews thought that their forefathers must have been chosen because of being more righteous, thus "works" rather than "Him that calleth"), for they were not even yet born when God made this decision.(v.11) So the whole point here is that it must be more than physical lineage from Abraham. The next step is that even being of Jacob's physical lineage is not enough.
To further demonstrate God's choice of men for these purposes was not "unjust" (v.14) Paul goes into the whole story of Pharaoh. No Jew thought of what God did to Pharaoh as being "unjust" (after all, it was for their sake, and that's what mattered to them!) So then what Paul is getting to nobody also should think is unjust. The whole context is two groups "the Children of the flesh", and "the children of promise". It says nothing about the individuals in either group being unconditionally elected or preteritioned into those groups. It just assumes two groups, and emphasizes that what many thought was the class that mattered (Jew as opposed to Gentile) was actually not the right one. Before one jumps to the clay "vessels", let's for once look more at the second part of v.20 (the beginning of Paul's answer to this question): "Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why have you made me this way'?". Made them what way? Predestined to Hell? Sinners who "chose to sin in Adam" (legally charged with the choice of a 'federal head') and are "allowed to go the way their 'totally depraved' nature takes them"? Helplessly unable to repent, yet "held responsible" to repent and left in that state? Passed over for "saving grace" and therefore doomed to suffer the eternal "justice" for their sins? Most Calvinists I argued with deny with a passion that God "makes" anybody that way (since they, through their federal head, really did it to themselves somehow); and if one of us even addresses that, they claim we are misrepresenting their position and don't know a thing about it. Yet the next verse clearly does credit God as "making" these "vessels" the way they are. And even to those who do confess God "makes" the reprobates that way, still, once again, none of the above concepts are what was being discussed! (A reader would have no reason to even assume they were any of those things in the first place!). So you just can't say "Paul was answering the objection to God's unconditional election and preterition process"!
The focus is on "children of promise" as opposed to "children of the flesh". Calvinists also take these two groups of "children" as classes of predetermined individuals. (For instance, the "seed of Satan" or the "tares" of Matt.13 are assumed to be an unconditionally reprobated class of "non-elect". Right away, if you are going to take it this way, then did Satan create them (since he is said to "sow" them)? No, he is the instigator of sin, and whoever continues to follow him makes themselves "tares") According to Ephesians 2:3, we all started out as "children of wrath" (which would be synonymous with "vessels of wrath", "sons of disobedience"(Col.3:6), "seed of Satan" (Matt.13) and also "children of the flesh" for the Jews), and John clearly defines "children of the devil" and "children of God" as "he that commits..." or "...does not commit [practice] sin" (1 John 3:8-10). Thanks to our "depravity" (sin from Adam), nobody is born in the latter state, and so the former, as an eternal state of condemnation, is not what God unconditionally "makes" anybody. This should prove once and for all that the question and Paul's answer have nothing to do with Calvinistic reprobation or preterition. God has declared that there are two groups: Physical Israel (which is in the same spiritual status as the rest of humanity) and spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28, 29). "Why did God make us physical Israel only if that doesn't make us the true children of promise? As much as we try so hard to keep the Law He gave us, why is he still finding fault or not accepting us as we are? Didn't He create us as His people? Could we have resisted His will to create us this way, if this is not what He counts?" THIS is what is being asked! HERE is where Paul says "who are you to reply back to God?" He as "the Potter" sovereignly laid out a plan, involving two categories of people; the first had a purpose, but this purpose is not the salvation of the individuals in the group, but to pave the way for the second. It's this second group one must be apart of, and who are we to question this plan? (This still says nothing about a person's inability to cross from one group to the other. The people were stubborn and refused to give up their notion of inheritance, which they would have to do to become apart of the children of promise. This also would be analogous to modern unbelievers saying "Why are you saying one has to be a born-again Christian to be saved?". "Why does God find fault with me as I am? I'm a good person! I am a 'child' of his since he created me! He made me this way (by his own will), so he should understand!" But to them too, it's not "children of the flesh" who are counted, and neither by our own self-justification!). All of this is apart of the theme or "long argument" Paul is making throughout the whole book of Romans.

Oh, so that means that God can send the Holy Spirit to lie to us, that we are "sealed" then, or maybe it's really a different spirit (since the Holy Spirit is still God), and hence the predicament I mentioned. This, the same God who says that sin is in the heart, by which principle a person who got someone else to lie for him is still guilty of the lie! I'll have to study the context of that some more, but suffice it to say for now, the spirit approached Him with the idea, and the "lie" seems to be persuasion to go to that place, not some mistruth.

Once again, your ideas really call into question God's trutworthiness, all in the name of "sovereignty". You guys like to talk about "tensions", but this here is one of those divine tensions. His sovereignty and other attributes work together, even though you think sovereignty apparently overrides everything else.