AWC refuted

[holdon]

Shaitinger,

I think I have shown how AWC was wrong grammatically:

Re. God hating Esaus before he was born: Scripture doesn't say that.
Re. God making vessels to dishonor: Scripture doesn't say that.
Re. All meaning not all: Scripture means what is says.
Re. Regeneration before faith: Scripture says we are born again by the Word of God.
Re. The spiritually dead who cannot hear: Scriptures says they can.
Re. Faith being the gift of God: Scripture does not say that.
Re. That the lost are lost because of God not saving them: Scripture does never say that.
Etc, Etc, Etc....

 

[JM]

Shaitinger,

I think I have shown how AWC was wrong grammatically:

Re. God hating Esaus before he was born: Scripture doesn't say that.
Re. God making vessels to dishonor: Scripture doesn't say that.
Re. All meaning not all: Scripture means what is says.
Re. Regeneration before faith: Scripture says we are born again by the Word of God.
Re. The spiritually dead who cannot hear: Scriptures says they can.
Re. Faith being the gift of God: Scripture does not say that.
Re. That the lost are lost because of God not saving them: Scripture does never say that.
Etc, Etc, Etc....

It does say, before having DONE anything good or bad...

 

[Markea]

It does say, before having DONE anything good or bad...

YES.. ELECTION (not salvation) was determined not only before they had done anything good or bad, but even from before the foundation of the world..

The elder (old man) shall serve the younger (new man)..

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Election is election TO salvation.

Sheesh.

 

[Markea]

According to the doctrines of men.. yes it is.. doctrines of dead men that is..

 

[JM]

Election is election TO salvation.

Sheesh.

And to what else?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Election is to Salvation, those of the unelect are left in their sin.

 

[Markea]

Election is election...

Salvation is salvation...

If they were the same thing there wouldn't be two separate words..

Romans 9 has been tortured to death by those who interpret it in the context of salvation, when it is stated to be God's purpose according to election..

Paul speaks of salvation in Romans 10 and it is simply whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be SAVED..

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Election is election...

Salvation is salvation...

If they were the same thing there wouldn't be two separate words..

SAVED..

LOL

 

[Markea]

Well you just keep torturing Romans 9 there calvin... it suits you nicely..

 

[holdon]

It does say, before having DONE anything good or bad...

No, it does NOT say that God hated Esau, before he was born of before he done anything good or bad.

W. Kelly wrote this:

"In this case how unbecoming the language of Israel: "Wherein hast thou loved us?" What was it for Israel to ask such a question of Jehovah? Yet He deigns to answer in grace: "I have loved you, saith Jehovah; yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?" Jehovah, as usual, rises up to the source of things. "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith Jehovah: yet I loved Jacob." Then He adds, "and I hated Esau." I do not think it would be true to draw this inference at the beginning of their history. But it is just an instance of what the best of men do in their haste. God withholds the sentence of hatred till it is evidently justified by the conduct and ways of Esau, more particularly towards Jacob, but indeed towards Himself. In short, it would be quite true to say that God loved Jacob from the first, but that He never pronounces hatred until that be manifest which utterly repels and rejects Himself with contempt, deliberately going on in pursuit of its own way and will in despisal of God. Then only does He say, "I hated Esau." Along with this He draws attention to the fact that He "laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." Thus, apart from such profanity, if God "despiseth not any," we may be perfectly sure He hates not any. Such an idea could not enter a mind which was nurtured in the word of God, apart from the reasonings of men. I say not this because of the smallest affinity with what is commonly called Arminianism; for I have just as little affinity with Calvinism. I believe the one to be as derogatory to God's glory as the other, though in very different ways — the one by exalting man most unduly, and the other by prescribing for God, and consequently not saying the thing that is right of Him.

..../....​

but the reprobation of the wicked which the Calvinist draws from it, as an equally sovereign decree, is in my judgment a grave error. I do not therefore scruple to say a word upon it now, inasmuch as it is an important thing in both doctrine and practice. The idea that, if God chooses one, He must reprobate another whom He does not choose, is a fallacy and without, yea against, scripture. This is exactly where human influence comes in; that is, the petty self-confidence of man's mind. Now I do not see why we as believers should be petty; there is every reason why we should gather what is great for God. To be simple is all well; but this too is a very different thing from being petty, and no reason why we should limit ourselves to ourselves; for what does God reveal His mind for? Surely that we should know Him, and be imitators of Him.
..../....
To my own mind then it is full of the deepest interest, that while God chose before the children were born, and decided what was to be the lot of the one relatively to the other, He never made any man to be a sinner.
..../....

When He says "Esau have I hated," He waits to the last moment, till Esau has shown what he is. The first book of the Bible lets us see His choice of Jacob. Only the last book tells us of His hatred of Esau. I do not say that we do not find His moral condemnation of Esau's spirit long before this, but He is patient in the execution of judgment. Long-suffering belongs to God, and is inseparable from His moral nature, while He delays to execute judgment on evil. All-powerful and good, He is nevertheless for that very reason perfect in patience. Now the sentence comes forth from His lips, and may well be felt to be a serious matter.​

 

[JM]

I love to read WK, but on this issue I'll quote the Bible.

9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.

9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

[JM]

Election is election...

Salvation is salvation...

If they were the same thing there wouldn't be two separate words..

Romans 9 has been tortured to death by those who interpret it in the context of salvation, when it is stated to be God's purpose according to election..

Paul speaks of salvation in Romans 10 and it is simply whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be SAVED..

It's times like these Markea, I'm forced to side with the Reformers and conclude you're using a false dichonomy on this issue.

 

[Markea]

It's times like these Markea, I'm forced to side with the Reformers and conclude you're using a false dichonomy on this issue.

Well, it's obviously simple to say what you just said SP.. although please back it up with the reason as to why..

Clearly that would help the conversation here..

 

[Markea]

I love to read WK, but on this issue I'll quote the Bible.

9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.

9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

By looking at what you have emboldened.. your emphasis is misplaced somewhat in my estimation... it's important to take note of everything here...

In verse 11, God's purpose is stated clearly.. that the purpose of God according to ELECTION (it doesn't say salvation) might stand.. and here's the kicker.....NOT OF WORKS..but of HIM that calleth...

Looking back in previous chapters of Romans.. how many will be justified by WORKS... that's right... ziltcho, notta, no flesh shall be justified by the works of the Law.. (Romans 3:20)

Then look at Romans 3:21.. it's saying that all can be justified freely by faith in Christ Jesus..UNTO ALL and UPON ALL that BELIEVE.. God called to Adam in the garden and He calls all in Adam to repentance through the Gospel of God concerning His Son..

In verse 13, again I see the emphasis misplaced... AS IT IS WRITTEN should stand out here... because it was written in MALACHI, hundreds of years after Jacob and Esau lived their lives..

IN VERSE 21 it's clear that we can not argue with the Potter who does have power over the clay.. and it's vital to consider this in the context with which we're presented.. ELECTION...

God has made both from the SAME LUMP it says... and we who have CHRIST IN US are the vessels of His mercy, for we have this treasure of His in these earthen vessels.. the SAME vessels which are FIT FOR DESTRUCTION who do NOT have CHRIST IN them...

This is God's purpose according to ELECTION and we can not argue with Him about it, He is not going to change His mind.. there is CONDEMNATION in ADAM and there is MERCY in CHRIST..

That's ELECTION...

SALVATION is stated in Romans 10... WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be SAVED...

 

[holdon]

I love to read WK, but on this issue I'll quote the Bible.

9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.

9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

You can quote the bible all you want, but you will NEVER find that God hates people before they are born or before they have done good or bad.
Romans 9:11 states that God chose before the children were born, but not that He hated Esau before He was born. You are not allowed to draw that conclusion from God's Word.

Nor is it true that the Potter ever makes vessels to dishonor. How could He? And Scripture doesn't say it either. Whereas from a mere Sovereign standpoint He would have the authority to do so, morally He could not. It is therefore quite telling that Romans 9 does teach that God prepared vessels to glory, it does not say that God fitted the vessels of wrath for destruction.

Calvinists have been twisting God's Word into something it does not say.

Again W. Kelly:

"

The absolute authority of God over the creature has been so laid down that none can fairly dispute it. But this is far from being the whole case: His power is unlimited, His title incontestable. "And if God, wishing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory, us whom he also called not from among Jews only but from Gentiles?" (Ver. 22-24.)​

The mind of God was to display His wrath in this evil world and to make known His power where men easily and willingly forget Himself. But the way adopted was admirable and worthy of His nature. Arbitrariness there was none, but "much long-suffering." So He bore long with the corruption and violence of guilty man. Could man then justly tax God either with lack of compassion for himself or with haste to mark his iniquities? Impossible that a holy God could have fellowship with evil or be indifferent to it! But instead of promptly blotting out of this life the rebellious creatures who make of the world a field for incessant warfare against what they know of God, or who at least live negligent of His will though He has revealed it fully, the history of the world since nations began is the fullest proof of endurance on God's part. He never made them as they are; but the sin of man now fallen He endured spite of countless and constant provocation. They sinned, they transgressed, they despised His mercy, they braved His wrath; but He endured with much long-suffering.



Sinful men thus living in enmity against God are here styled "vessels of wrath," on the one hand; as those who believe are designated "vessels of mercy" on the other. They are objects respectively of wrath and of mercy, and are figuratively supposed to contain each that quality which will issue in destruction or in glory.



But there is a shade of difference as distinct as it is refined and profoundly true which no reader should overlook. The vessels of wrath are said to be "fitted for destruction." But it is neither said nor implied here, or anywhere else, that God fitted them for it. They were fitted by their sins, and most of all by their unbelief and rebelliousness against God. But when we hear of the faithful, the phrase is altogether different, "vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory." The evil is man's, and in no case is it of God; the good is His and not our own. Not the saints, but God prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. More strictly He prepared them beforehand with a view to glory. That is, it was not their preparation while on earth, His only when the glory arrives. The apostle affirms here that God prepared them before unto glory. It was His doing. None doubts that they became by grace obedient, holy, and thus morally conformed to His nature; but it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to dwell here only on God's preparation of the vessels of mercy beforehand for glory. Thus the riches of His glory are made known upon the vessels of mercy, for so they are called, not vessels filled with these or those spiritual qualities, however true this might be, but vessels of mercy.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Well you just keep torturing Romans 9 there calvin... it suits you nicely..

Romans 9 is clear, ethnic Israel, the natural descendants of Abraham are not God's people. The spiritul descendants of Abraham are.

Since you reject the plain and clear meaning of Paul in Romans 9, you are left with perverting more Scripture to defend really bad theology called, dispnesationalism.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

SP, the false dichotomies don't stop with "Election and Salvation".

Scripture is clear that election is "unto salvation".

But you don't see Markea actually saying what "Election" is to.. No, he simply makes a dogmatic assertion and leaves it at that.

 

[Markea]

SP, the false dichotomies don't stop with "Election and Salvation".

Scripture is clear that election is "unto salvation".

But you don't see Markea actually saying what "Election" is to.. No, he simply makes a dogmatic assertion and leaves it at that.

You go ahead and keep torturing God's Word in Romans 9 AWC.. I wouldn't expect you to see it.. although I'm sure others will see that God's elective purposes are not doctrinally equal with salvation..

Salvation is simple.. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be SAVED."

It's also clear from your ignoring the mystery concerning Israel that you are unaware of God's purpose in election concerning them.. as they are enemies for our sakes concerning the gospel but beloved concerning election..

So you go ahead and keep torturing Election.. it's nothing new.. the doctrines of dead men like calvin have been exhalted above God's word for centuries now..

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

So then, you dispute Paul saying that the natural descendants of Abraham are not the children of God?