• 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.

What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology?

Woke

Active Member
Site Supporter
Oct 8, 2019
239
82
73
California
✟83,620.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
G
If God ordains that men sin, then how is he not the ultimate author of man's sin? And keep in mind, in Calvinism, it's not due to his foreknowledge that he ordains things, but only due to his will.
Among other things God ordained free will, which simply means he gave his creation that is intelligent enough to know him choice in their moral decisions.

Yes God knew the result. And yes the result is working out God's will. He is separating these intelligent creatures by their choice. If you can understand that you will understand why God ordained it. Plus the allowance of sin has been teaching those who choose God how destructive sin is. Their knowing that is also God's purpose. So we can also say God ordained them gaining that knowledge through this process of allowing sin, that he realized would result in his creation.

But God doesn't make anyone sin. And sin did not originate with him. We can say God ordained a situation that resulted in sin arising out of choices made by some of his creatures.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,819
1,925
✟995,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
To be inclined to sin is a guarantee that human nature will be sinful. You must realize that you imply here that God is the author of sin, if He created Adam and Eve with the inclination to sin.
I am just repeating myself with you and you seem to be just repeating your same conclusions back to me, so I do not have the time to address this again.

I will address this sentence, which covers a lot of other conclusions you have:

To be inclined to sin...

The problem Adam and Eve had at their creation and we all have, which can only be resolved while on earth is the fact:

There are just somethings that are impossible to do and even God cannot do them like create another Christ, since Christ is not a created being. In our case God cannot instinctively place Godly type Love in us (this would make it a robotic type of love) and God cannot force Godly type Love on us, since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, so Godly type Love has to be the result of an autonomous free will choice by the person himself in accepting the gift with true likely alternatives (making it a real choice).

What we see with Adam and Eve is them being made as good as any being could be made (very good by God’s standard), but not perfect like Christ since Christ has always had Godly type Love, which Adam and Eve would lack at their creation. Prior to sinning Adam and Eve had no reason to humble themselves to the point of accepting charity, since all God’s gifts would be expected from a Loving Creator given to His obedient children. After sinning they had a huge need to be humble and it would be easy to perceive any of God’s gifts as charity.

The only way I see to obtain Godly type love is the way Jesus taught us: “…He who is forgiven much will Love much…”, so if we humbly accept God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt we will automatically receive from God an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). This world (like the world Adam and Eve ran into outside the Garden) become the very best world for willing (not unwilling) humans to humbly accept God’s charity in the form of forgiveness (since we all sin).

We do not “Love” God first or are we doing something righteous, since we are unrighteous, but even an unrighteous person can accepting charity.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,778
1,125
Houston, TX
✟210,903.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I am just repeating myself with you and you seem to be just repeating your same conclusions back to me, so I do not have the time to address this again.

I will address this sentence, which covers a lot of other conclusions you have:

To be inclined to sin...

The problem Adam and Eve had at their creation and we all have, which can only be resolved while on earth is the fact:

There are just somethings that are impossible to do and even God cannot do them like create another Christ, since Christ is not a created being. In our case God cannot instinctively place Godly type Love in us (this would make it a robotic type of love) and God cannot force Godly type Love on us, since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, so Godly type Love has to be the result of an autonomous free will choice by the person himself in accepting the gift with true likely alternatives (making it a real choice).
Like I said before, this is good humanistic philosophy, but is not Biblical. It is a straw man argument, because God does not force His love on us that way, but rather He changes the disposition of our heart from hostility to friendliness. And men by themselves (which autonomy is) will never accept God's love unless God changes the disposition of their heart, and that's an act of God. Man's autonomy is the problem, not the solution to rebellion against God. Therefore God has to act supernaturally on a person to change his will to decide favorably for the gospel message, and this is what Eph. 2 is all about.

What we see with Adam and Eve is them being made as good as any being could be made (very good by God’s standard), but not perfect like Christ since Christ has always had Godly type Love, which Adam and Eve would lack at their creation. Prior to sinning Adam and Eve had no reason to humble themselves to the point of accepting charity, since all God’s gifts would be expected from a Loving Creator given to His obedient children. After sinning they had a huge need to be humble and it would be easy to perceive any of God’s gifts as charity.
I see your reasoning, but again, there was a real spiritual change when Adam sinned, not merely the information that he was physically naked. He became aware of his nakedness because his spiritual covering was removed, and therefore his awareness became focused on the natural. "They knew they were naked" indicated a major change in their nature.

The only way I see to obtain Godly type love is the way Jesus taught us: “…He who is forgiven much will Love much…”, so if we humbly accept God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt we will automatically receive from God an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). This world (like the world Adam and Eve ran into outside the Garden) become the very best world for willing (not unwilling) humans to humbly accept God’s charity in the form of forgiveness (since we all sin).

We do not “Love” God first or are we doing something righteous, since we are unrighteous, but even an unrighteous person can accepting charity.

Humility is a righteous act, and requires faith in God to perform it, therefore your argument is contradictory. Humbling ourselves before God is an act of love for God, since it takes a hope of facing God in the right manner, in the way God requires. So for someone to humble themselves before God to accept His charity, they must already have faith in Christ's redemption, hope of reconciling to God, knowledge of God's love, and desire to please Him. This means they are already born again.
TD:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,819
1,925
✟995,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Like I said before, this is good humanistic philosophy, but is not Biblical. It is a straw man argument, because God does not force His love on us that way, but rather He changes the disposition of our heart from hostility to friendliness. And men by themselves (which autonomy is) will never accept God's love unless God changes the disposition of their heart, and that's an act of God. Man's autonomy is the problem, not the solution to rebellion against God. Therefore God has to act supernaturally on a person to change his will to decide favorably for the gospel message, and this is what Eph. 2 is all about.
It would be unloving on God’s part to “changes the disposition” of some when God could just as easily and safely change the disposition of everyone and leave it up to them.
I see your reasoning, but again, there was a real spiritual change when Adam sinned, not merely the information that he was physically naked. He became aware of his nakedness because his spiritual covering was removed, and therefore his awareness became focused on the natural. "They knew they were naked" indicated a major change in their nature.
It only takes information to realize you are naked and not some “major change in their nature”?

Humility is a righteous act, and requires faith in God to perform it, therefore your argument is contradictory. Humbling ourselves before God is an act of love for God, since it takes a hope of facing God in the right manner, in the way God requires. So for someone to humble themselves before God to accept His charity, they must already have faith in Christ's redemption, hope of reconciling to God, knowledge of God's love, and desire to please Him. This means they are already born again.
TD:)
Every bigtime sinner will eventually be humbled at the judgement if not before, so it is within us all to be humble.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,214
2,557
59
Home
Visit site
✟251,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Anecdotal evidence doesn't sway me. The only thing that does is what scripture actually teaches. "Let God be true, though every man be found a liar."
TD:)
I distinctly remember seeing this Scriptural excerpt, used in the same way that you're using it, in a Watchtower magazine article back when a Jehovah's Witness was subtly trying to convince me that their organization knew the Bible better than all of the other, apostate churches.

We both know Scripture. The question is: are our own interpretations being guided by God's grace working in us, or are they the products of our own fallen human reasoning? What we know of grace, is that God gives it to the humble, and the proud are almost certainly to be lacking in grace (James 4:6-7). We should therefor be aware that one afflicted with the passion of pride may be strongly inclined to trust in their own, fallen reasoning with regards to those things in Scripture which are difficult to understand, and to produce errant judgments which accord with their own spiritual flaws. It can't be denied that this indeed happens quite often, because we all see the evidence of the phenomena being played out in the religious landscape throughout history, and at present.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,214
2,557
59
Home
Visit site
✟251,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I can appreciate the feelings of those people. However, it is also true that Reformed Christianity produces in the convert that kind of reaction as well.

For such a person, accepting that God is in charge--as opposed to thinking that each of us must perform in a certain way sufficient to meet his expectations even though we don't know exactly what those expectations are--brings a sense of relief as well as a deeper sense of devotion.

So in different ways, I'd say that the observations about Orthodoxy and also about Reformed Christianity are both correct.
The problem I would have with their finding relief in God being in charge through reformed Christian philosophies of salvation, is that God is in charge for Orthodox believers, so it is not different for us where this is concerned. But, if we are His disciples we will deny ourselves, take up our own crosses, and follow Him. This doesn't have to be hard, because His "yoke is easy and" His "burden is light" to those who are meek, lowly, and humble by the Holy Spirit (Who communicates grace which heals our sinfulness and directly reveals the glory of God).

What a shame it is that so many become convinced that they need to be separated from the one, physical body of Christ; the one flock of the Good Shepherd, in order to be one of His sheep. It's not necessary, and it's harmful in ways; some ways that are obvious and some that are not so obvious. This is what those who manage, by God's grace, to find the "pearl of great price" within the holy Orthodox Church.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The problem I would have with their finding relief in God being in charge through reformed Christian philosophies of salvation, is that God is in charge for Orthodox believers, so it is not different for us where this is concerned.
I would have to disagree. Orthodoxy is devout and appreciates the majesty and love of God, but it's not the same. I also doubt very much that that sense of relief we've been talking about is present as it is in Reformed Christianity. To be sure, this is a generalization and different people will respond differently..

But, if we are His disciples we will deny ourselves, take up our own crosses, and follow Him. This doesn't have to be hard, because His "yoke is easy and" His "burden is light" to those who are meek, lowly, and humble by the Holy Spirit (Who communicates grace which heals our sinfulness and directly reveals the glory of God).
Yes, I get it.

What a shame it is that so many become convinced that they need to be separated from the one, physical body of Christ; the one flock of the Good Shepherd, in order to be one of His sheep.
I don't knw why you'd say that. It makes it sound as though those Christians who, in good conscience, have not chosen Orthodoxy are simply out to defy God and find, if possible, some sort of poor substitute for his church. That wouldn't be fair to say, not any more than if we reversed the roles.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,778
1,125
Houston, TX
✟210,903.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It would be unloving on God’s part to “changes the disposition” of some when God could just as easily and safely change the disposition of everyone and leave it up to them.
God doesn't love everyone the same, and you don't either. But here is an example of judging God, as you sit in judgment of Him, saying "in my assessment, if You predestine some and not others, then you're unloving". I just see that as arrogance, since Paul clearly teaches that God predestined some.

It only takes information to realize you are naked and not some “major change in their nature”?
Not true. They already had the information, since they had eyes. They only realized it after a serious mental change happened to them.


Every bigtime sinner will eventually be humbled at the judgement if not before, so it is within us all to be humble.
To "be humbled" and to "humble oneself" are entirely different matters.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,778
1,125
Houston, TX
✟210,903.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I distinctly remember seeing this Scriptural excerpt, used in the same way that you're using it, in a Watchtower magazine article back when a Jehovah's Witness was subtly trying to convince me that their organization knew the Bible better than all of the other, apostate churches.

We both know Scripture. The question is: are our own interpretations being guided by God's grace working in us, or are they the products of our own fallen human reasoning? What we know of grace, is that God gives it to the humble, and the proud are almost certainly to be lacking in grace (James 4:6-7). We should therefor be aware that one afflicted with the passion of pride may be strongly inclined to trust in their own, fallen reasoning with regards to those things in Scripture which are difficult to understand, and to produce errant judgments which accord with their own spiritual flaws. It can't be denied that this indeed happens quite often, because we all see the evidence of the phenomena being played out in the religious landscape throughout history, and at present.
Your rebuke and comparison doesn't negate my point, which is the fact that someone's experience, and their assessment of that experience, doesn't negate the truth that the Bible teaches. This is the same point that the apostle Paul was making. Just because some cultist uses it their way doesn't put me in the same category.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,819
1,925
✟995,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God doesn't love everyone the same, and you don't either. But here is an example of judging God, as you sit in judgment of Him, saying "in my assessment, if You predestine some and not others, then you're unloving". I just see that as arrogance, since Paul clearly teaches that God predestined some.
Paul does not teach "predestination" the way you are using it.
Not true. They already had the information, since they had eyes. They only realized it after a serious mental change happened to them.
They did not have the information that their nakedness was a issue until after getting knowledge.

To "be humbled" and to "humble oneself" are entirely different matters.
TD:)
I can use either definition, if you want humble oneself or become humbled no issue?
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,778
1,125
Houston, TX
✟210,903.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Paul does not teach "predestination" the way you are using it.
I've already proven that he does.

They did not have the information that their nakedness was a issue until after getting knowledge.
Please explain exactly how their "getting knowledge" as you say makes their nakedness an issue (of course, without a major change in their psyche).


I can use either definition, if you want humble oneself or become humbled no issue?
Not if you want to convey what each one means as used in its context. To humble oneself is to recognize God's sovereignty as well as one's own humble position, and this requires faith, because it is an appeal to please God to be blessed by Him. To "be humbled" as you said in the context you said it, means that a person does not recognize God's sovereignty, remains a rebel, and is merely humiliated by the reality that he can't do anything about being judged by God.

It's the same difference between a sinner's remorse which Paul says leads to death, in which the sinner regrets getting caught. Whereas the righteous person's remorse leads to repentance because they recognize how evil and hurtful what they did was, and desires to change for godly behavior. There is a huge difference.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,214
2,557
59
Home
Visit site
✟251,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I would have to disagree. Orthodoxy is devout and appreciates the majesty and love of God, but it's not the same. I also doubt very much that that sense of relief we've been talking about is present as it is in Reformed Christianity. To be sure, this is a generalization and different people will respond differently..


Yes, I get it.


I don't knw why you'd say that. It makes it sound as though those Christians who, in good conscience, have not chosen Orthodoxy are simply out to defy God and find, if possible, some sort of poor substitute for his church. That wouldn't be fair to say, not any more than if we reversed the roles.
There is a fullness here that is lacking elsewhere, to varying degrees. This is an understanding that is well established in those who, by God's grace, are blessed to be here in the Holy Spirit. This is true even if God's grace is at work beyond the physical boundaries of the Orthodox Communion. We would say that the heterodox aren't out to defy God, nor are they lacking in their own convictions regarding their personal choice of belief system or denomination.

If it can be said of me that I probably just don't really understand reformed soteriology, then it can all the more be said that many outside of the holy Orthodox Tradition lack experience of the mysterious pearl of great price that the parable points toward. Rational philosophies about salvation can be learned and taught easily enough, even by the most woefully, spiritually depraved people. To enter into the great mystery of Salvation, however, is only by way of dying (the cross) and rising to newness of Life in the Risen Savior. There is great liberation in the Cross, but only for those who take up their own cross and follow Him Who the knowledge of is Eternal Life. That is the glorious liberation of the children of God, in the fullness of joy.

A reformed believer has the impression that he has been freed from the burden of a false belief that he has to do things to be worthy of salvation. What we experience, however, is vastly different from what a reformed believer is, in most cases, fleeing from. If we, by God's grace, through our faith, deny ourselves and take up our crosses and follow Jesus Christ, then we are free, because we die with Him and so we rise again with Him. We are altogether liberated from the tyranny that the fear of death could have over us, and delivered from slavery in sin by the power (grace) of the Holy Spirit, freely poured out upon us by God. We can truly say, as did Paul, that "it is no longer I who live, but Christ Who lives in me", because we did as our Master told us to do. We denied ourselves and took up our crosses and followed Him.

Why does anyone need to do anything but what He wills us to do? The Master does not say "believe this way or that way", or "think this way or that about salvation" and you are saved. He does say, however, that if we would be His disciple, we will deny ourselves, take up our own crosses, and follow Him. He also says that if we ask for the Holy Spirit (Who dispenses grace according to our need) then the Father will by no means withhold Him. So it is, that by God's grace we can and must live lives that follow Christ through His death and resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,214
2,557
59
Home
Visit site
✟251,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Your rebuke and comparison doesn't negate my point, which is the fact that someone's experience, and their assessment of that experience, doesn't negate the truth that the Bible teaches. This is the same point that the apostle Paul was making. Just because some cultist uses it their way doesn't put me in the same category.
TD:)
I believe that the readily observable existence of the phenomena of massive diversity in Biblical interpretations with contradictory conclusions gives great strength to my argument. Luther said one thing, Calvin another, which contradicted Luther, Wesley had yet other ideas, as did Zwingli, and then the Anabaptist movement threw in their two cents worth, and on and on until it is so unclear as to who is representing God in truth that a person gets the impression that one must therefor find their own truth, so they will search Scripture and interpret it in their own way and whatever they can figure out is their truth.

You are claiming that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one, just as do the Jehovah's Witnesses anyone else whose conclusions are at odds with yours. Scripture does not interpret itself. Their are human psyches and passion afflicted, imperfect minds that serve as the interpretive lens through which one understands what they are reading in God's Word. God's Word is perfect, but most men are not. Therefor, their conclusions base on their personal readings are quite questionable.

The existence of the original Church (once its existence is realized and accepted) can be truly liberating, and is a great gift of God, preserved for us by His grace, till Christ's return. It is likely for this reason, but also for other reasons, that the Word of God refers to the Church as "pillar and foundation of truth".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,778
1,125
Houston, TX
✟210,903.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I believe that the readily observable existence of the phenomena of massive diversity in Biblical interpretations with contradictory conclusions gives great strength to my argument. Luther said one thing, Calvin another, which contradicted Luther, Wesley had yet other ideas, as did Zwingli, and then the Anabaptist movement threw in their two cents worth, and on and on until it is so unclear as to who is representing God in truth that a person gets the impression that one must therefor find their own truth, so they will search Scripture and interpret it in their own way and whatever they can figure out is their truth.

You are claiming that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one, just as do the Jehovah's Witnesses anyone else whose conclusions are at odds with yours. Scripture does not interpret itself. Their are human psyches and passion afflicted, imperfect minds that serve as the interpretive lens through which one understands what they are reading in God's Word. God's Word is perfect, but most men are not. Therefor, their conclusions base on their personal readings are quite questionable.

The existence of the original Church (once its existence is realized and accepted) can be truly liberating, and is a great gift of God, preserved for us by His grace, till Christ's return. It is likely for this reason, but also for other reasons, that the Word of God refers to the Church as "pillar and foundation of truth".
Everyone makes the same claim, so that's just a straw man. My point is that I hear peoples' conclusions about their experiences with a grain of salt. For me, the scripture is the standard by which to measure everything. And correct interpretation is a matter of familiarity with scripture rather than with men's opinions about it.

And if your claim is that you're in "the original church," that's a vain claim, since the original church in Jerusalem was scattered by AD 70. I'm sure you realize that Rome also lays claim to apostolic succession, as well as being the "true church."
TD:)
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,214
2,557
59
Home
Visit site
✟251,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Everyone makes the same claim, so that's just a straw man. My point is that I hear peoples' conclusions about their experiences with a grain of salt. For me, the scripture is the standard by which to measure everything. And correct interpretation is a matter of familiarity with scripture rather than with men's opinions about it.

And if your claim is that you're in "the original church," that's a vain claim, since the original church in Jerusalem was scattered by AD 70. I'm sure you realize that Rome also lays claim to apostolic succession, as well as being the "true church."
TD:)
Rome broke with Holy Tradition in certain ways, so while they do have apostolic succession, there the Holy Tradition is not kept in accord with the faith once delivered to the saints. Christendom has suffered in various ways on account of it. The great schism affects all.

Familiarity with Scripture is not necessarily the same thing as familiarity with God. One can read God's Word and reflect upon it rationally, and even receive grace through the reading of it because of it's power to communicate grace. But the Holy Spirit reveals Christ, Who reveals the Father. It is therefore incumbent upon us, if we are to come to the knowledge of God more perfectly, to acquire the Holy Spirit (or to acquire more of God's grace, in other words). This is the aim of the Christian life and this aim is preserved and practiced within the holy body of Christ, the head of which is Christ Himself. This Way has been given to us and is kept until His glorious second coming at the end of the ages. Thus, our perception of God's Word is received through the lens of the illuminating light of God's grace, and not through the muddied lens of sin polluted souls and intellects of men. Holy Tradition is not any "traditions of men", rather, it is a Way of acquiring God's grace, passed on by the Apostles and preserved by their successors, as the means by which we come into and remain in Communion with God in the Holy Spirit. It is by this knowledge of God, Communicated directly by his Grace, that we understand Scripture -- even those difficult things to understand, because we are not "spiritually unstable".
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,819
1,925
✟995,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I've already proven that he does.
I explained Ro. 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
Please explain exactly how their "getting knowledge" as you say makes their nakedness an issue (of course, without a major change in their psyche).
From the tree of knowledge, they would realize it was wrong to run around naked.

Not if you want to convey what each one means as used in its context. To humble oneself is to recognize God's sovereignty as well as one's own humble position, and this requires faith, because it is an appeal to please God to be blessed by Him. To "be humbled" as you said in the context you said it, means that a person does not recognize God's sovereignty, remains a rebel, and is merely humiliated by the reality that he can't do anything about being judged by God.

It's the same difference between a sinner's remorse which Paul says leads to death, in which the sinner regrets getting caught. Whereas the righteous person's remorse leads to repentance because they recognize how evil and hurtful what they did was, and desires to change for godly behavior. There is a huge difference.
TD
:)

No, it is not. Sorry for being caught doing wrong does not mean you are humbled, there is no emotional coming to your knees. Luke 14: 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,778
1,125
Houston, TX
✟210,903.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Rome broke with Holy Tradition in certain ways, so while they do have apostolic succession, there the Holy Tradition is not kept in accord with the faith once delivered to the saints. Christendom has suffered in various ways on account of it. The great schism affects all.

Familiarity with Scripture is not necessarily the same thing as familiarity with God. One can read God's Word and reflect upon it rationally, and even receive grace through the reading of it because of it's power to communicate grace. But the Holy Spirit reveals Christ, Who reveals the Father. It is therefore incumbent upon us, if we are to come to the knowledge of God more perfectly, to acquire the Holy Spirit (or to acquire more of God's grace, in other words). This is the aim of the Christian life and this aim is preserved and practiced within the holy body of Christ, the head of which is Christ Himself. This Way has been given to us and is kept until His glorious second coming at the end of the ages. Thus, our perception of God's Word is received through the lens of the illuminating light of God's grace, and not through the muddied lens of sin polluted souls and intellects of men. Holy Tradition is not any "traditions of men", rather, it is a Way of acquiring God's grace, passed on by the Apostles and preserved by their successors, as the means by which we come into and remain in Communion with God in the Holy Spirit. It is by this knowledge of God, Communicated directly by his Grace, that we understand Scripture -- even those difficult things to understand, because we are not "spiritually unstable".
Ok, there is nothing you say here that I disagree with, except you seem to think that my relationship with God is intellect only. But that's merely part of the whole picture. Paul wrote "be transformed by the renewing of your minds..." so the cleansing of the intellect is certainly a big part of the apostles' tradition.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,214
2,557
59
Home
Visit site
✟251,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Ok, there is nothing you say here that I disagree with, except you seem to think that my relationship with God is intellect only. But that's merely part of the whole picture. Paul wrote "be transformed by the renewing of your minds..." so the cleansing of the intellect is certainly a big part of the apostles' tradition.
TD:)
Fair enough, as the intellect is obviously a big part of holy Tradition of the Church which is always engaged in the life and death struggle against false doctrine from the beginning til now. But what about the mystical vision of God that is the shared experience of the Apostles and of many of the saints; that vision of God which enabled them to know if someone is lying about God, or about the nature of the relationships between the Divine Persons, or the nature of God's relationship with man, or about the essence of the salvation that is coming from God through the redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in accordance with the will of the Father. What about the fact that no one but Christ has yet achieved perfection in their knowledge of God, on account of our fallen nature, so that no saint's sole ideas or personally held beliefs are above question, but all ideas are ultimately subject to testing within the body of Christ, of which Christ Himself is the Head and the Holy Spirit the Breath (and yes, the Church has almost exclusively resorted to the proper understanding of holy Scripture when testing various controversial ideas)?

Our argument would be as follows: Holy Scripture is produced from within Life lived in Communion with God, by the Holy Spirit, which is Holy Tradition. Therefore it follows that the proper understanding of holy Scripture is that which is acquired by those who are the participants of that Life lived in Communion with God, by the Holy Spirit, which is Holy Tradition. Hence, that which is born of Holy Tradition properly belongs within Holy Tradition, and should serve to lead those outside of Holy Tradition into Holy Tradition. In many cases the holy Word of God does exactly that, whenever this is in accordance with the will of God. And that is why so many who are led by the Holy Spirit in accordance with the will of the Father and decree of His Word are relieved when they discover the existence of the priceless gift of Holy Tradition.
 
Upvote 0

ICONO'CLAST

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2005
1,902
781
new york
✟93,319.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We are all sinful. The difference between those who are saved and those who aren't, is a personal choice.
The Bible didn't teach us any complicated stuff that God made the choice for those He choose to redeem --- and Jesus didn't teach anything to this effect at all.

Unless, of course, people choose to interpret verses out of context. Without context, even a universalist can quote John 3:16 to claim that believing in Jesus' existence, without having to repent, is sufficient dor redemption.
People do not get saved by what they do or choose.
They are born choosing to rebel against God.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,214
2,557
59
Home
Visit site
✟251,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
People do not get saved by what they do or choose.
They are born choosing to rebel against God.
The newly born choose nothing, and of little children the Lord Jesus Christ says, "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:14).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0