Predestination and Election

[Ben johnson]

Quoted:
Don't get too busy with too many questions, please. It simply distracts & confuses issues, thanks.​

 

[Rick Otto]

God did not choose for their hands to be wicked;

Sure He did. Everything that is, He chose to be, or it wouldn't be.
You said "God exploited". My point was that God was not improvising.
You asked how character value can be assigned to predestined people.
My answer is that God created them that way.

It's the same perspective as in John20:29; how can "unseen faith" be better than "seen faith", if both faiths are God's sovereign choice?

The same way good can be better than evil -by God's sovereign choice.
Anything God makes can be called what God makes it.

How do you take 1Pet1:9 ("receiving as the OUTCOME of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls"), and change it into "faith is God's choice, not yours"?

I don't say it wasn't your choice. I say God made it your choice.
I don't mean to be rude, I just don't have a lot of time.

Please tell us how a man WHO believes can be called "wise" (if it's God's sovereign choice), while another man who will NOT believe can be called "foolish" (if that is also God's sovereign choice)?

That is basicaly the same question as:
"Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? "

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RickOtto:
Sure He did. Everything that is, He chose to be, or it wouldn't be.
You said "God exploited". My point was that God was not improvising.
You asked how character value can be assigned to predestined people.
My answer is that God created them that way.​

God created people sinful and to BE condemned??? Please tell me how that is "JUST"?

How can a perfect God, who is ultimately righteous, can create/cause SIN?
Jesus came to DESTROY sin; in Him there is no sin at all.

Jesus was placed where He would be crucified; but the cause of the crucifiers' actions, was not God.

Quoted by Ben:
It's the same perspective as in John20:29; how can "unseen faith" be better than "seen faith", if both faiths are God's sovereign choice?

Quoted by Rick:
The same way good can be better than evil -by God's sovereign choice.
Anything God makes can be called what God makes it.​

Noooo --- first, "because", includes the word "CAUSE" in it. Thomas believed BE-CAUSE he saw --- not because God decreed it. Jesus said, "Be not unbelieving."

In response to Thomas' shallow faith (requiring SEEING), Jesus asserted that UNSEEING faith is better than SEEING faith.

Look at the rest of Scripture, Rick --- specifically, Matt11:21-24 --- three entire cities were condemned for having SEEN Jesus' works, but REFUSING to believe. This connects to John10:38, where Jesus says essentially "You can BELIEVE in Me, just by looking at what I've DONE!"

Impossible of "belief", is "predestined"...

Quote:
I don't say it wasn't your choice. I say God made it your choice.
I don't mean to be rude, I just don't have a lot of time.​

Then please tell us how, if 100% of those whom God DECREES be saved, and if 100% of those God DECREES perish, all live and die according to His decree, how is that OUR CHOICE?

Quote:
That is basicaly the same question as:
"Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? "​

You understand that you just quoted a hypothetical DETRACTOR, who is protesting the idea of GENTILES ALSO BEING SAVED? And you understand that the word for "will" in that verse (Rm9:19), is "boulema", which is the same word as in 2Pet3:9 where "God does not DECREE ANY to perish"?

Thanx very much for your time, Rick. It's always a pleasure to read your posts.

 

[bleitzel]

Sure He did. Everything that is, He chose to be, or it wouldn't be.
You said "God exploited". My point was that God was not improvising.
You asked how character value can be assigned to predestined people.
My answer is that God created them that way.

Dear Rick,

In all sincerity, you can't believe that "Everything that is, He chose to be, or it wouldn't be." Don't you believe that He created man and gave MAN the choice to act? Because if you don't, you're making God the author of sin. The author of evil. The Muslims do believe that. Of course they say that Allah's will is much higher than man's will and Allah's ways are much higher than man's ways and we can't understand it, but so it must be...!

And you can't think God predestined some people to Heaven and some to Hell. But you said "My answer is that God created them that way." Come on.

 

[bleitzel]

...All the linguistic legerdemain can't change the facts of nature and the clear understanding the original audience (and anyone with a shred of understanding about agriculture) would have of the nature of the soil in relation to the fruit it produces.

Ben, your position on this is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. You are claiming that the fruit confers the nature upon the soil rather than revealing it. Such violates common sense and plain logic.

Fru, actually I think we should continue the discussion on this topic. You and NBF continue to site Jesus' audience's vast agricultural understanding and use it to posit that they wuold clearly understand that soil can't condition itself and trees can't determine their own roots. Whil Ben and I storngly disagree with you two.

Let's pick another one of Jesus' agrarian analogies in Matt. 7. And I'm going there because I don't think you're seeing the parable of the sower in chapter 13 in the context that Jesus used it in and in the context of all of Jesus' teachings in the Bible.

Matthew 7:15-27 (New International Version)

A Tree and Its Fruit


15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' The Wise and Foolish Builders

24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

​

Fru, as I understand your thinking, the tree(s) of 17-20 are created either to bear good fruit or bad fruit. And you cement this further by arguing that Jesus could not have intended this or any other of His agrarian parables to imply that soil or trees could condition themselves. It's curious then that immediately following Jesus goes on to say that there will be those who seem to bear good fruit, but Jesus will say 'I never knew you!' I think I could argue successfully that verses 21-23 directly oppose your understanding of verse 17-20, that if a tree as you say cannot set its own roots and can only bear the fruit for which the maker intended it then certainly the maker would not reject the trees who bore the good fruit! But I don't think I'll use those verses because Jesus does it better than I could in the very next parable, verses 24-27.

Jesus gives the analogy of two builders, one who built his house on rock and one who built his house on sand. Now, it doesn't say God only gave one man rock and only gave the other man sand! And Jesus, in talking with His audience, wuold never have thought that the current carpenters of that day would not be able to pick their own foundations! Yet one man's house fell while the ohter's stood. And right before this Jesus says that everyoine who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. His words are the knowledge and ability to build a house. We must choose whether to use His words on a sandy foundation, or to pick a better site.

And any city slicker will tell you a skyscraper built on rock is better than a barn built on sand! (Oh, I couldn't resist)

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=bleitzel;Dear Rick,

In all sincerity, you can't believe that "Everything that is, He chose to be, or it wouldn't be." Don't you believe that He created man and gave MAN the choice to act?

Yes, He predestined that as well.

Because if you don't, you're making God the author of sin.
The author of evil. The Muslims do believe that. Of course they say that Allah's will is much higher than man's will and Allah's ways are much higher than man's ways and we can't understand it, but so it must be...!

He "creates" evil, He doesn't "author" evil or sin, in the sense those two words are used in scripture.
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

And you can't think God predestined some people to Heaven and some to Hell. But you said "My answer is that God created them that way." Come on.

Romans 9:14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Ben johnson;

Quoted by RickOtto:
Sure He did. Everything that is, He chose to be, or it wouldn't be.
You said "God exploited". My point was that God was not improvising.
You asked how character value can be assigned to predestined people.
My answer is that God created them that way.
​

God created people sinful and to BE condemned??? Please tell me how that is "JUST"?

Who are you to question your Creator's right to create whatever He wants however He wants? Justice is about jurisdiction, not "fairness".

How can a perfect God, who is ultimately righteous, can create/cause SIN?

By doing it with good reason.

Jesus was placed where He would be crucified; but the cause of the crucifiers' actions, was not God.

God is the 1st cause. All consequences in creation flow from His causitive act.

Quoted by Ben:
It's the same perspective as in John20:29; how can "unseen faith" be better than "seen faith", if both faiths are God's sovereign choice?

Quoted by Rick:
The same way good can be better than evil -by God's sovereign choice.
Anything God makes can be called what God makes it.
​

Noooo --- first, "because", includes the word "CAUSE" in it. Thomas believed BE-CAUSE he saw --- not because God decreed it. Jesus said, "Be not unbelieving."

Thomas saw be CAUSE God allowed him to.
No one can see anything except what God allows.

In response to Thomas' shallow faith (requiring SEEING), Jesus asserted that UNSEEING faith is better than SEEING faith.

Sensory discerned proof is inferior to spiritualy discerned truth, that's how God ordered things.

Look at the rest of Scripture, Rick --- specifically, Matt11:21-24 --- three entire cities were condemned for having SEEN Jesus' works, but REFUSING to believe. This connects to John10:38, where Jesus says essentially "You can BELIEVE in Me, just by looking at what I've DONE!"

Don't put words in His mouth. Just because predestination isn't invoked every time someone asks why about anything doesn't mean it isn't a factor.

Impossible of "belief", is "predestined"...

Quote:
I don't say it wasn't your choice. I say God made it your choice.
I don't mean to be rude, I just don't have a lot of time.
​

Then please tell us how, if 100% of those whom God DECREES be saved, and if 100% of those God DECREES perish, all live and die according to His decree, how is that OUR CHOICE?

Simple. Our choice is predestined.

Quote:
That is basicaly the same question as:
"Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? "
​

You understand that you just quoted a hypothetical DETRACTOR, who is protesting the idea of GENTILES ALSO BEING SAVED? And you understand that the word for "will" in that verse (Rm9:19), is "boulema", which is the same word as in 2Pet3:9 where "God does not DECREE ANY to perish"?

Those incidentals are beside the larger point. The hypothetical detractor is protesting being held responsible for being a vessel of wrath. The "any" Peter is refering to isn't refering to all of mankind, he is referring to "us", "meaning us believers":
9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any {[(of us)]}should perish, but that all {[(of us)]}should come to repentance

Thanx very much for your time, Rick. It's always a pleasure to read your posts.

Glad you think so. I just got blessed with some slack right after I whined about it (sorry)

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RickOtto:
He "creates" evil, He doesn't "author" evil or sin, in the sense those two words are used in scripture.
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.​

The word translates to "calamity", more than "evil". You should try the NASV, it's closer to the original...

Quote:
Romans 9:14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.​

As we've discussed, this is saying "If God wants to have mercy also on the Gentiles, deal with it." In no way does it conflict Rm11:32, "God has mercy on ALL".

That's the meaning for Acts17:20, "God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent."

Quote:
16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.​

This only works in a "predestinary" sense, if God has mercy on only a FEW.

He doesn't.

Quote:
18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.​

If it is GOD who hardens men to unbelief, then why does Heb3:6-14 warn against "do not harden YOUR hearts ...to falling away from God?"

QUote:
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,​

He prepared for glory, vessels of mercy; did He CHOOSE them to BE "vessels of mercy"? No. Likewise, He did not CHOOSE "vessels of wrath" to BE "vessels of wrath".

Two lumps of clay are ON the potter's wheel, one prepared for HONOR (time) the other prepared for COMMON use (atimia). You should really get a New American Standard; it's closer to Greek and Hebrew...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Who are you to question your Creator's right to create whatever He wants however He wants? Justice is about jurisdiction, not "fairness".​

God's nature is perfect. Jesus came to destroy sin, in Him there is no sin.

God cannot go against His nature; He cannot cause/decree/ordain sin, because His perfect nature prohibits Him from doing so. Besides, Scripture says that man receives the consequences of his own actions. In Rom2:6-8, men WHO by doing good seek for glory honor and immortality, receive eternal life; but those who are selfishly ambitious and do not do good but pursue evil, receive God's wrath.

God's wrath is poured out on those WHO do wickedness, not vice-versa.

Quote:
By doing it with good reason.​

No. His nature prevents Him from having any part of sin.

QUote:
God is the 1st cause. All consequences in creation flow from His causitive act.​

But He doesn't cause sin. Nor does He harden hearts to "falling away from the living God" --- per Heb3:6-14, men do that themselves.

Quoted by Ben:
It's the same perspective as in John20:29; how can "unseen faith" be better than "seen faith", if both faiths are God's sovereign choice?

Quoted by Rick:
The same way good can be better than evil -by God's sovereign choice.
Anything God makes can be called what God makes it.​

That doesn't make sense. What you're saying is that God chooses who will have WEAK faith (as Thomas --- had to SEE to believe), and who would have STRONG faith (unseen faith); yet God still calls one faith BETTER than the other. If both are chosen by God, then both are the same. What point is there in saying "ONE faith is GREATER than the other"? The point of saying that, is to communicate something USEFUL to the listener --- and if it's all GOD'S choice, then those words are useless.

Quote:
No one can see anything except what God allows.​

What do you think Jesus was saying in Matt11:21-24, when He condemned Bethsaida, Capernaum and CHorazin for having SEEN, but refusing to believe? Don't you think this connects to John10:38, where Jesus says essentially "You can BELIEVE in Me just by looking at what I've DONE"?

Quote:
Don't put words in His mouth. Just because predestination isn't invoked every time someone asks why about anything doesn't mean it isn't a factor.​

The context of that (Matt11:21-24), is "If Tyre and Sidon had seen the miracles YOU have seen, they would have BELIEVED. Even SODOM would have remained until this day if they had seen what I've done here. It will go better for THEM in the Judgment, than for YOU!"

Tell me why Jesus isn't "blasting" them for conscious, willful unbelief. Tell me why this doesn't connect to John10:38...

Quote
Those incidentals are beside the larger point. The hypothetical detractor is protesting being held responsible for being a vessel of wrath.​

No, they're not --- they're protesting "Also-Gentiles". In no way can "MERCY on ALL MEN" be denied, from Rm11:32.

QUote:
The "any" Peter is refering to isn't refering to all of mankind, he is referring to "us", "meaning us believers":
9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any {[(of us)]}should perish, but that all {[(of us)]}should come to repentance​

Here is how you're proposing this:

"God does not decree any to perish whom He has predestined for salvation,
but patiently waits that all He has decreed-to-repentance, to come to repentance."

God has not decreed-perish those He has not decreed-perish.
God patiently waits for those to come to repentance those He has predestined to repentance.

Why does that make sense? Why would God have to WAIT for repentance, those He has DECREED to repent? Isn't God sovereign enough?

Clearly, you're misunderstanding Paul; God doesn't decree ANY to perish, but patiently waits for men to DECIDE repentance. There is no "waiting" for those He has SOVEREIGNLY-PREDESTINED...

Quote:

Glad you think so. I just got blessed with some slack right after I whined about it (sorry)​

"Slack" is good; unless you're being towed, and slack means that the towing-car will suddenly snap the rope tight...

 

[bleitzel]

Ok Rick Otto. To review, I said:

In all sincerity, you can't believe that "Everything that is, He chose to be, or it wouldn't be." Don't you believe that He created man and gave MAN the choice to act? Because if you don't, you're making God the author of sin. The author of evil. The Muslims do believe that. Of course they say that Allah's will is much higher than man's will and Allah's ways are much higher than man's ways and we can't understand it, but so it must be...!

and you said:

He "creates" evil, He doesn't "author" evil or sin, in the sense those two words are used in scripture.
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

And I think there could be no other understanding from what you've posted THAT YOU DO AGREE WITH MUSLIMS. [long drawn out pause] You should have your head examined. And when that's done you should probably go get a book on refuting Isalm from a Christian perspective. Because I'm hoping that from this excercise, you might learn a little bit about what Christians believe.

And I also said

And you can't think God predestined some people to Heaven and some to Hell. But you said "My answer is that God created them that way." Come on.

And as a response you posted these verses:

Romans 9:14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

I'm not sure you copied them so great, but more importantly, do you get from these scriptures that God is saying He predestined some to Heaven and some to Hell? Cause it's not there. Now if you wanted to go get a different set of scriptures that actually says that I would listen. (Eph 1 might work for you better for example) but the truth is it's not there either. No, if you read the passages you quoted from Romans above you'll find that God is saying He has the right and the power to do whatever He wants! And this is all coming in a very long argument Paul is making (get this) that the Gentiles were included in God's plan for the redemption of man. Not that some were saved and some were not. Actually, in the preceding chapters of Romans and here in CH.9 Paul is proving to the Jews that God indeed has every right to include Gentiles into the fold.

But you would only get this if you go back and read the whole book. Don't just start at chapter 9. In fact don't just start at Romans even. Read Galations, and Ephesians, and Hebrews, and the Gospels, and the OT even. Because you're not going to find a story line about God's predestining some Christians to Heaven and everyone else to Hell. Actually what you're going to find is a cover-to-cover story that talks about God choosing Israel to show His power and mercy to the whole of mankind, Israel misunderstanding God's intention, and taking His mercy to mean that all of a sudden they had special favor in His eyes and all others were damned, of God's messiah coming first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, the Jews crucifying Him, and then the Apostles spreading the word about God's love for ALL mankind. NOT JUST THE JEWS!

So in a way, your posts here show that you have fallen right back into the same heresy that the Jews have succumbed to for thousands of years. Calvinists believe that God has set them apart, saved them out of all the Earth, and the rest are damned. And just because God said so. But He didn't say so. It's not in those scriptures.

 

[Rick Otto]

​

The word translates to "calamity", more than "evil". You should try the NASV, it's closer to the original...

Calamity is still evil. It sounds less sinister, but it is still evil.

Quote:
Romans 9:14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.​

As we've discussed, this is saying "If God wants to have mercy also on the Gentiles, deal with it." In no way does it conflict Rm11:32, "God has mercy on ALL".

Even if you want to narrow the context, the principle of it still applies in the broader sense. And it also "is saying" "If God doesn't want to have mercy on someone He won't, deal with it." So the will of man is not the cause of God's predetermined actions.
Quote:
16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

This only works in a "predestinary" sense, if God has mercy on only a FEW.

And such is the case. Many are called, few are chosen.
He doesn't.

Quote:
18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.​

If it is GOD who hardens men to unbelief, then why does Heb3:6-14 warn against "do not harden YOUR hearts ...to falling away from God?"

It says right there "whom he will he hardeneth." How can you even ask "If it is God who hardens"???

QUote:
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,​

He prepared for glory, vessels of mercy; did He CHOOSE them to BE "vessels of mercy"? No. Likewise, He did not CHOOSE "vessels of wrath" to BE "vessels of wrath".

Twice in a row now you ask us not to believe what is in black & white before our very eyes;"to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

Two lumps of clay are ON the potter's wheel, one prepared for HONOR (time) the other prepared for COMMON use (atimia). You should really get a New American Standard; it's closer to Greek and Hebrew...

You should realy believe what it says regardless of the softened-up nouns ("calamity" & "common".

 

[bleitzel]

Twice in a row now you ask us not to believe what is in black & white before our very eyes;"to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
You should realy believe what it says regardless of the softened-up nouns

And Rick, maybe you should read the whole chapter, maybe even the whole book. (No this isn't heresy) Because what is in black and white, before our very eyes is an objection to the Gospel, presumably from the Jews, that Paul is overcoming. The Gospel that Paul preaches includes Gentiles along with Jews. The Jews were incredulous at this, so much so that they went so far as to ask if the Jews were even included in the plan then, were all of God's promises to them idle? The Jews felt like Paul was preaching that they had fallen from God's grace, that the Gentiles had taken their place. That they were common vessels and God had destined the Gentiles to be vessels of honor. But that is not what Pauls says happened. He argues, what then if that were the case? God can do as He wishes. But what He wishes is to include both types of vessels in the plan of redemption.

The last hing Paul is saying is that some were included and some were not included. You can't get that from reading the preceeding chapters. You can only get that by reading a really bad book called Institutes.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hey, this is just you & me, bro. Let's forget Institutes & everybody except us, amen?
I mean, I never realy read Institutes. I looked at it enough to know I didn't realy want to,...yet. I think my wife may have bought me a copy & it's on a shelf in my bedroom. I got some other interesting books I've read though...
I've only managed to read the Bible cover to cover 7 out of the ten times I thought I should. I do more readin' of scripture while studying about it.
Anyway...
I part ways with Calvin on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline, but I think those people that put together the Canons of Dordt got it right as rain, not that that that makes them any spiritualy more worthy than anyone else like you or me.

Another angle to look at this from is, referring again to scripture, how it fulfills prophecies.
You're absolutely right that the entirety of scripture is important to get a perspective on, sort of the "outer envelope" of revelation; we unite on it more than anything else. I believe it is less argued about than any other topic (a sad way of gauging inter-congregational unity - reminiscent of the 'least corrupt politician'), but then all we need to worry about at the moment is how we treat each other in that regard.

That they were common vessels and God had destined the Gentiles to be vessels of honor. But that is not what Pauls says happened.

Assuming what the Jews were thinkin' can be confusing sometimes, don't you think? Paul addressed that question too, bro:
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect . For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

 

[bleitzel]

Rick, your last post is a little confusing. So then are you reversing your position and agreeing with me?

Assuming what the Jews were thinkin' can be confusing sometimes, don't you think? Paul addressed that question too, bro:
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect . For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

That's actually the part of Romans I was referring to when I argued that your take on Paul's potter analogy being a case for predestination is false.

 

[Rick Otto]

Sorry, no... I'm sayin' that even while it is true that the Jews were havin' a problem giving up the exclusive claim on salvation, Paul is explaining being Jewish was never the guarantee of salvation they had taken for granted that it was. Paul, by saying not every Israelite was "of Israel", was pointing out that not every Jew gets saved - obviating that being a "child of promise" (a descendant of the man Israel) meant more than having Israeli genes or Jewish blood in your veins so to speak. He was distinguishing between spiritual Israel & ethnic Israel.
Basicaly, God has mercy upon whom He will & we have no grounds to presume who that might be by any type of pedigree they may have.
It was equal to the trauma of Jews having to accept that complete fulfillment of the law was never humanly possible, that a dissident man named Jesus had done it, claimed to be The Messiah, and that we are saved by mercifuly applied grace - not by anything we do or think, or who our ancestors are.
I think it's pretty cool.

 

[bleitzel]

Sorry, no... I'm sayin' that even while it is true that the Jews were havin' a problem giving up the exclusive claim on salvation, Paul is explaining being Jewish was never the guarantee of salvation they had taken for granted that it was. Paul, by saying not every Israelite was "of Israel", was pointing out that not every Jew gets saved - obviating that being a "child of promise" (a descendant of the man Israel) meant more than having Israeli genes or Jewish blood in your veins so to speak. He was distinguishing between spiritual Israel & ethnic Israel.

Yep definitely, so far so good.

Basicaly, God has mercy upon whom He will & we have no grounds to presume who that might be by any type of pedigree they may have.

Well, I think we can presume to know who that is, Paul is making it pretty clear. God will have mercy on whoever He so wills. And now we know that that is everybody, not just a select few. Not just the Jews. God is having mercy on all of mankind, His son died for all mankind. It is true, only Israel will receive eternal life but it is the spiritual Israel, those who have accepted Christ's death on the cross as the propitiation for their sins who will receive it. Those who have faith will have it credited to them as righteousness.

Now you may look at the words "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." and see that Paul is saying God has mercy on some and not on others, but I see Paul saying God can choose to include the Gentiles or not, if He so desires, because He is God. And I see it that way because that is what Paul has been talking about for several chapters.

 

[Rick Otto]

And now we know that that is everybody, not just a select few

Rather, we know that the few chosen of the many called were selected by God, not by their own wills.

Now you may look at the words "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." and see that Paul is saying God has mercy on some and not on others, but I see Paul saying God can choose to include the Gentiles or not, if He so desires, because He is God.

It's saying both & his point in saying it is to point out that our salvation is entirely a matter of God's will & not in any way our own.

And I see it that way because that is what Paul has been talking about for several chapters.

On one level

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RickOtto:
Rather, we know that the few chosen of the many called were selected by God, not by their own wills.​

Where do you find that? The parable of Matt22:2-14 (to which you were referring), casts "God" as "the King"; who at the feast, did not will to come?

And who (that were "not chosen"), did not voluntarily refuse?

The man who refused, preferring farming, exercised his own will --- the king did not decide.
The man who refused, preferring business, exercised his own will; the king did not decide.
The man who refused clean clothes, also exercised his own will; the king did not decide.

Show me anywhere that men do not choose by their own wills.

Look at Jn5:39-47 --- those too, were un-WILLING to come to Jesus that they might have life. And Jesus even tells us why --- they wanted MEN'S glory, rather than GOD'S.

The very phrase, "If you believed Moses, then you would believe Me; HOW can you believe Me, WHEN you do not believe Moses?" --- clearly presents "belief", as a choice...

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Ben johnson;

Quoted by RickOtto:
Rather, we know that the few chosen of the many called were selected by God, not by their own wills.
​

Where do you find that? The parable of Matt22:2-14 (to which you were referring), casts "God" as "the King"; who at the feast, did not will to come?

I don't understand what you mean. Why would they attend a feast unwillingly unless coerced?

And who (that were "not chosen"), did not voluntarily refuse?

Those who were unwilling to accept the invitation didn't show up.
The guy who came in the filthy rags of his own righteousness was thrown out - not chosen.

The man who refused, preferring farming, exercised his own will --- the king did not decide.
The man who refused, preferring business, exercised his own will; the king did not decide.
The man who refused clean clothes, also exercised his own will; the king did not decide.

Show me anywhere that men do not choose by their own wills.

Show me where I say they don't.

Look at Jn5:39-47 --- those too, were un-WILLING to come to Jesus that they might have life. And Jesus even tells us why --- they wanted MEN'S glory, rather than GOD'S.

The very phrase, "If you believed Moses, then you would believe Me; HOW can you believe Me, WHEN you do not believe Moses?" --- clearly presents "belief", as a choice...

I never denied that.
Your mistake is in thinking that if a choice is predestined, it isn't realy a choice.

 

[heymikey80]

Heymikey, God is the tiller, and the tilling represents His redemption of our sins. But we are the soil, we can either accept the seed and produce good fruit or reject the seed and bear bad fruit.

Quoted by heymikey80:
... indicating the prior condition of the soil.​

How? ONE tilled soil, can yield EITHER thorns or fruit. Zero "prior-condition".

Theologically, it is perfectly sound to understand Luk38:13-15 as saying "they are CALLED 'good soil' BECAUSE of their faithful perseverance, and the others are CALLED 'bad soil' BECAUSE they fell".

Theologically, it is not sound to impose a DISPOSITION by the tiller of the soil towards "fruit-producing" or "thorn-producing".

The FRUIT, determines the RESPONSE --- cursing or blessing.

The only possible response towards keeping "predestination", is to assert "Heb6:7-8 does not apply to Jesus' parable"; which has been tried, but no grounds have ever been presented.

Give us the grounds, Mike --- tell us why and how we can scratch-out Heb6:7-8....

You guys ... even the thorns and thistles, they indicate the prior condition of the soil. Turn over bad soil all you want, and it won't get better.

It's actually critical to the Apostle's argumentin Heb 6:7-8. It's critical. Why? Because the Apostle is arguing to them to stop tilling bad soil!

What's his reasoning? That the soil will get better if they till it more?

Please. His argument accurately points out that these things are indicators of the soil, the tilling simply reveals what's already there.

So back at you: "tell us why and how we can scratch-out Heb6:7-8...." You're scratching away at its reasoning, at its analogy. Accept the analogy and the Apostle's argument works. Reject the analogy and you'll keep on chasing after those recrucifying Christ.