Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Paul said that God creates from the same lump vessels for glory and for damnation.
Have you had any discussions with them of the Hebrew thinking on the potter and the clay in Rom 9:21 and the parable of the potter and clay in Jeremiah 18?Been going around with Calvinist for almost 3 decades regarding Rom.9:21. They assert the sovereignty which from the same fallen lump of humanity decreed and shaped some to salvation and decreed and shaped some to damnation where I assert such a sovereignty which is contrary to God's very nature as agape does not exist.
Just ol' old agaping Jack
Have you had any discussions with them of the Hebrew thinking on the potter and the clay in Rom 9:21 and the parable of the potter and clay in Jeremiah 18?
Oz
Conclusion: If God raised up Pharaoh in order to harden him, why does God still blame Pharaoh? The whole blame rests on God who determined that counsel.
No... I'm sorry but you keep removing the passage from its context. There is no injustice with God (v14). God is the potter (vv20-21) and is free to make whatever He wishes from His clay (v21), some for honorable use and some for dishonorable use (vv21-23). He is righteous and just and holy no matter what He creates, for He is God, and He has the right to do whatever He so wills (vv 15,16,18). There is no blame on God. The objections in v14 and v19 are unfounded and rejected by the author as being credible.
"Injustice" = / = "Judicial justice" What you folks are really missing is not only God's "judicial justice," but God's very nature through His agape.
Just ol' old Jack
James E. G. Dunn said:ὃν δὲ θέλει σκληρύνει, but whom he wills he hardensharden in the obvious sense of make unresponsive, unyielding (see also on 11:7), make stubborn (NEB). In drawing this conclusion from Exod 9:16 Paul shows very clearly that he is conscious of its context, since that word (harden) is particularly prominent in that section of the Exodus narrative (Exod 4:21; 7:3, 22; 8:15[LXX 11]; 9:12, 35; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 13:15; 14:4, 8, 17). Whether or not a case can be made for a distinction in the Exodus narrative between a self-hardening on the part of Pharaoh (Exod 7:22; 8:15; 9:35; 13:15) and a hardening inflicted by God (the latter is obviously the dominant thought), Paul for his part clearly has in view the divine initiative (Kuss, 72324; Piper, 13952). So to look for reasons for Gods hardening in Pharaohs evil disposition or previous self-hardening is a rationalizing expediency. Such a thought clearly has no place in Pauls exposition and in fact contradicts what Paul has been so careful to stress in vv 11 and 16. It is to his credit that Paul himself does not resort to such expedients, or interpose a demonic intermediary (as in Jub 48.17; TSol 25.3), but faces up to the clear indications of the Exodus narrative without flinching.
You just preach it as the fisherman would cast his net into the sea. It is NOT the intention of the fisherman to catch bad fish when he casts his net. His sole intent is to catch good edible fish with it. The fact that bad fish are present it totally incidental to the fisherman's purpose.Pragmatically, how are you to preach the Gospel then? Who can you preach it to?
You just preach it as the fisherman would cast his net into the sea. It is NOT the intention of the fisherman to catch bad fish when he casts his net. His sole intent is to catch good edible fish with it. The fact that bad fish are present it totally incidental to the fisherman's purpose.
Likewise, our intent when preaching the gospel is to gather in God's elect. That the non-elect are present is incidental.
How am I advocating a general call? I am calling only those who believe and the proclamation is only to those who believe. Those who believe are not all men. They are the Elect.I agree with that. But I find it inconsistent with your position that you are advocating a general call, not necessarily for all without equivocation to repent... But the proclamation itself is to all people, which is what makes it general.
How am I advocating a general call? I am calling only those who believe and the proclamation is only to those who believe. Those who believe are not all men. They are the Elect.
The "general call" doctrine teaches that God calls all men to salvation. He does not. Calvin himself did not teach this.
"Whom He [God] called, them He ALSO justified."
Louis Berkhof said:2. The characteristics of external calling.
a. It is general or universal. This is not to be understood in the sense in which it was maintained by some of the old Lutheran theologians, namely, that that call actually came to all the living more than once in the past, as, for instance, in the time of Adam, in that of Noah, and in the days of the apostles. McPherson correctly says: “A universal call of this kind is not a fact, but a mere theory invented for a purpose.”243 In this representation the terms “general” or “universal” are not used in the sense in which they are intended, when it is said that the gospel call is general or universal. Moreover, the representation is at least in part contrary to fact. External calling is general only in the sense that it comes to all men to whom the gospel is preached, indiscriminately. It is not confined to any age or nation or class of men. It comes to both the just and the unjust, the elect and the reprobate. The following passages testify to the general nature of this call: Isa. 55:1, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; some ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price,” cf. also verses 6,7. In connection with this passage one might conceivably say that only spiritually qualified sinners are called; but this certainly cannot be said of Isa. 45:22, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.” Some also interpret the familiar invitation of Jesus in Matt. 11:28, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” as limited to such as are truly concerned about their sins and really repentant; but there is no warrant for such a limitation. The last book of the Bible concludes with a beautiful general invitation: “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take of the water of life freely,” Rev. 22:17. That the gospel invitation is not limited to the elect, as some hold, is quite evident from such passages as Ps. 81:11-13; Prov. 1:24-26; Ezek. 3:19; Matt. 22:2-8,14; Luke 14:16-24.
The general character of this calling is also taught in the Canons of Dort.244 Yet this doctrine repeatedly met with opposition by individuals and groups in the Reformed Churches. In the Scottish Church of the seventeenth century some denied the indiscriminate invitation and offer of salvation altogether, while others wanted to limit it to the confines of the visible Church. Over against these the Marrow men, such as Boston and the Erskines, defended it. In the Netherlands this point was disputed especially in the eighteenth century. They who maintained the universal offer were called preachers of the new light, while they who defended the particular offer, the offer to those who already gave evidence of a measure of special grace and could therefore be reckoned as among the elect, were known as the preachers of the old light. Even in the present day we occasionally meet with opposition on this point. It is said that such a general invitation and offer is inconsistent with the doctrine of predestination and of particular atonement, doctrines in which, it is thought, the preacher should take his starting point. But the Bible does not teach that the preacher of the gospel should take his starting point in these doctrines, however important they may be. His starting point and warrant lie in the commission of his King: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:15,16. Moreover, it is an utter impossibility that anyone, in preaching the gospel, should limit himself to the elect, as some would have us do, since he does not know who they are. Jesus did know them, but He did not so limit the offer of salvation, Matt. 22:3-8,14; Luke 14:16-21; John 5:38-40. There would be a real contradiction between the Reformed doctrines of predestination and particular atonement on the one hand, and the universal offer of salvation on the other hand, if this offer included the declaration that God purposed to save every individual hearer of the gospel, and that Christ really atoned for the sins of each one of them. But the gospel invitation involves no such declaration. It is a gracious calling to accept Christ by faith, and a conditional promise of salvation. The condition is fulfilled only in the elect, and therefore they only obtain eternal life.
b. It is a bona fide calling. The external calling is a calling in good faith, a calling that is seriously meant. It is not an invitation coupled with the hope that it will not be accepted. When God calls the sinner to accept Christ by faith, He earnestly desires this; and when He promises those who repent and believe eternal life, His promise is dependable. This follows from the very nature, from the veracity, of God. It is blasphemous to think that God would be guilty of equivocation and deception, that He would say one thing and mean another, that He would earnestly plead with the sinner to repent and believe unto salvation, and at the same time not desire it in any sense of the word. The bona fide character of the external call is proved by the following passages of Scripture: Num. 23:19; Ps. 81:13-16; Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18-20; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Matt. 21:37; II Tim. 2:13. The Canons of Dort also assert it explicitly in III and IV, 8. Several objections have been offered to the idea of such a bona fide offer of salvation. (1) One objection is derived from the veracity of God. It is said that, according to this doctrine, He offers the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to those for whom He has not intended these gifts. It need not be denied that there is a real difficulty at this point, but this is the difficulty with which we are always confronted, when we seek to harmonize the decretive and the preceptive will of God, a difficulty which even the objectors cannot solve and often simply ignore. Yet we may not assume that the two are really contradictory. The decretive will of God determines what will most certainly come to pass (without necessarily implying that God really takes delight in all of it, as, for instance, in all kinds of sin), while the preceptive will is man’s rule of life, informing him as to what is well pleasing in the sight of God. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that God does not offer sinners the forgiveness of sins and eternal life unconditionally, but only in the way of faith and conversion; and that the righteousness of Christ, though not intended for all, is yet sufficient for all. (2) A second objection is derived from the spiritual inability of man. Man, as he is by nature, cannot believe and repent, and therefore it looks like mockery to ask this of him. But in connection with this objection we should remember that in the last analysis man’s inability in spiritual things is rooted in his unwillingness to serve God. The actual condition of things is not such that many would like to repent and believe in Christ, if they only could. All those who do not believe are not willing to believe, John 5:40. Moreover, it is no more unreasonable to require repentance and faith in Christ of men than it is to demand of them that they keep the law. Very inconsistently some of those who oppose the general offer of salvation on the basis of man’s spiritual inability, do not hesitate to place the sinner before the demands of the law and even insist on doing this.
3. The significance of external calling. The question may be asked, why God comes to all men indiscriminately, including even the reprobate, with the offer of salvation. This external calling answers more than one purpose.
a. In it God maintains His claim on the sinner. As the sovereign Ruler of the universe He is entitled — and this is a matter of absolute right — to the service of man. And though man tore away from God in sin and is now incapable of rendering spiritual obedience to his rightful Sovereign, his wilful transgression did not abrogate the claim of God on the service of His rational creatures. The right of God to demand absolute obedience remains, and He asserts this right in both the law and the gospel. His claim on man also finds expression in the call to faith and repentance. And if man does not heed this call, he disregards and slights the just claim of God and thereby increases his guilt.
b. It is the divinely appointed means of bringing sinners to conversion. In other words, it is the means by which God gathers the elect out of the nations of the earth. As such it must necessarily be general or universal, since no man can point out the elect. The final result is, of course, that the elect, and they only, accept Christ by faith. This does not mean that missionaries can go out and give their hearers the assurance that Christ died for each one of them and that God intends to save each one; but it does mean that they can bring the joyful tidings that Christ died for sinners, that He invites them to come unto Him, and that He offers salvation to all those who truly repent of their sins and accept him with a living faith.
c. It is also a revelation of God’s holiness, goodness, and compassion. In virtue of His holiness God dissuades sinners everywhere from sin, and in virtue of His goodness and mercy He warns them against self-destruction, postpones the execution of the sentence of death, and blesses them with the offer of salvation. There is no doubt about it that this gracious offer is in itself a blessing and not, as some would have it, a curse for sinners. It clearly reveals the divine compassion for them, and is so represented in the Word of God, Ps. 81:13; Prov. 1:24; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Amos 8:11; Matt. 11:20-24; 23:37. At the same time it is true that man by his opposition to it may turn even this blessing into a curse. It naturally heightens the responsibility of the sinner, and, if not accepted and improved, will increase his judgment.
d. Finally, it clearly accentuates the righteousness of God. If even the revelation of God in nature serves the purpose of forestalling any excuse which sinners might be inclined to make, Rom. 1:20, this is all the more true of the special revelation of the way of salvation. When sinners despise the forbearance of God and reject His gracious offer of salvation, the greatness of their corruption and guilt, and the justice of God in their condemnation, stands out in the clearest light.
Actually you are just missing the contextual point. If it was judicial, then:
1. The objection and answer of v18-19 make no sense in light of the example of Pharaoh.
2. v11 and Exodus 4:21 show that both the election of Jacob and the hardening of Pharaoh both took place before any judicial election/punishing was possible.
In the first case, Jacob and Esau had not yet been born (v11) and had not done anything good or bad in order to merit some type of blessing/punishment. In the same manner, before Moses ever entered into Egypt, God told him that He would harden Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 4:21), which Paul is clearly referencing in Romans 9:18.
If I may quote:
I am using the Boxers definition he provided:You just sidestepped his point. God cannot choose arbitrarily. For God to make a choice necessitates that it has purpose. You responded with God again arbitrarily choosing people.
But the general call doctrine teaches that GOD calls all men to salvation. Calvin himself did not teach this. His "general call" doctrine consisted of God calling the non-elect by the gospel to a severer punishment.The physical proclamation cannot only be to the elect. That is pragmatically impossible to be consistent on, because you do not know who the elect are.
btwwith the name "Jesusfreak"! I'm one tooooo!
'Rom.9:18, 19 again, "judicial" in the sense of the hardening that is effected by God. The only objects of this hardening are men who have first hardened themselves. Ie, voluntas antecedens.
"Judicial justice," ie, "punishing" wasn't even the exception, but the rule when self-will and sin, and the consequence of the former wayyy backkkk, showed their ugly faces.
The Pharoah would not bend his self-will to the will of God, ie, sin against God. The hardening was a fruit of sin, a consequence of that self-will, high-mindedness, and pride which flow from sin, and a continuous and ever increasing abuse of an enslaved-will which is innate in man, and which involves the possiblility of obstinate resistance to the word and chastisement of God even until one's death, ie, sorry, was on a Lutheran rollll.
Just ol' old Jack
I am using the Boxers definition he provided:
arbitrarily: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
Having purpose does not mean: by necessity, reason or principle.
The selection could still be arbitrary and fulfill a purpose. You use necessitates, but that is not the same thing as saying: It was necessary for God to select these individuals over other individuals.
The selection of some arbitrary group of individuals might be necessary, but that is not make the selection: not arbitrary.
What necessitates the selection of these individuals?
What principle is being observed in the selection of these individuals?
What is the reason these individuals were selected over other individuals?
You need to go back and read my posts to janxharris explaining Romans 9.Paul is anticipating his reader to cry injustice upon hearing that God chooses to have mercy on whomever He wants and harden whomever He wants, to serve his own plans and purposes.
Consequently, when Calvinists present their understanding of divine election, we get the same objections that Paul knew we would get, which proves to us that we are understanding election the way Paul intended us to.
In other words, the only proper understanding of election is one that causes objections of injustice, just like Paul anticipated. If Paul had presented a form of conditional election, he would have never had to stop and interject a response to an anticipated objection of injustice, because nobody would ever accuse conditional election of being unjust.
Because God foreknew them, Romans 8:29.
But the general call doctrine teaches that GOD calls all men to salvation. Calvin himself did not teach this. His "general call" doctrine consisted of God calling the non-elect by the gospel to a severer punishment.
You are correct that we do not know who the Elect are. But this is irrelevant. Our intent is to gather God's Elect into salvation. The fisherman does not know the good fish from the bad until he draws his net. Then he goes to shore and puts the good fish into vessels (salvation) and burns the bad fish.
But the fisherman has no intention of gathering bad fish when he casts his net. The presence of bad fish are incidental. Likewise, we preach the gospel with the intent of saving the Elect. The presence of the non-elect are incidental.
Study John Owen. He was a renowned Calvinist who rejected the general call doctrine. And Calvin did not teach it either.
Look up "reprobation" also. This is a Calvinist teaching. The doctrine of reprobation teaches that God leaves men to themselves.
Reprobation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On reprobation the Westminster Confession says th that God "passes by" the non-elect.
The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the inscrutable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
God does not "call" the non-elect or even bother with them at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?