YOU cannot keep God's commands, He does it through you

[Pinkman]

Because to suggest a person's will isn't so injured by Adam's transgression that he can make an act of faith (choose to love God), is contradictory to 1Cor2:14 & implies imho that God doesn't in fact save, our decision to "accept" or "receive" His gift is (to put it pointedly) the deciding factor.
So that ipso facto makes that specific, indispensible piece of glory our own doing.
Doesn't it?

So the Bible is wrong when it says "according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."

Shulamite was in agreement with this a few posts back. Has that all changed now ?

 

[Pinkman]

Pinkman, I believe the following scriptures will answer this for you: (by the way, I am not listing these as though they are easy to read or with a heartless attitude, but because these scriptures say what they say).

Romans 9:22..."What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?

[/B]

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul offers God showing His wrath so that we may understand His glory and mercy as one good reason for His hardening men's hearts while patiently bearing with them a long time despite their sentence of destruction. It would indeed be hard for finite beings who don't understand what wrath is to truly understand what mercy is. The author repeats a similar sentiment in chapter 11,

"Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22)

Where the unbelieving are concerned, as in the case of Joseph's brothers, God finds a way to turn even the wickedness of men to His own ends (e.g. Genesis 50:20). Our being "prepared beforehand" refers to God's working of election and predestination through His power, wisdom, and foreknowledge (which he mentions in 8:29, compare to 1 Peter 1:2) among both the Jewish remnant and Gentile believers.

25 As He says also in Hosea: "I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved."[quoting Hosea 2:23]
26 "And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, "You are not My people,' There they shall be called sons of the living God." [quoting Hosea 1:10]

These verses are quoted primarily in reference to the Gentiles, who were formerly excluded from God's promises, and reckoned by the Jews as little more than dogs. Despite such lowly birth, God's ultimate plan of mercy towards the Gentiles is hinted at in the dialogue between Christ and the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark 7:26-29, heavily implied in Jesus' sermon to His fellow Jews about mercy shown in Sidon and Syria rather than in Israel (Luke 4:24-27), and concluded by Peter and the Jerusalem council (Acts 11:17-18). This is not to say that God has totally forsaken the nation of Israel.

27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.
28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness[h], Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth." [quoting Isaiah 10:22-23]

Paul quotes these passages as prophetic authority that the salvation of the Gentiles as well as a remnant of the Jews has been God's plan all along, as He'd declared through the prophets of old. He continues with this idea into chapters 10 and 11, referencing God's declaration in Deuteronomy 32:21 that He will provoke the Jews to jealousy by foreign peoples who don't know His law. Note that the word for "short" and "cut short" (syntemno) in verse 28 can also imply something done hastily or expediently. Given the quote's source (Isaiah 10:22-23), the rendering that the NIV and some other versions employ, "For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality", is likely more accurate.

The conclusion to the chapter, besides smoothly transitioning into Paul's discussion on the Jews in chapters 10 and 11, is key to understanding Romans 9. Faith in Christ is in fact what differentiates the children of promise from the natural children of bondage. This was brought out in chapter 4 of Romans when Paul explained who the true children of Abraham are:

Author Unknown

 

[Pinkman]

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, states: “But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it.”

Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

At least not all Calvinists agree.

 

[Pinkman]

Also


Calvinist, John MacArthur, comments: “The Greek verb rendered prepared is passive. God is not the subject doing the preparing. There is the very clear sense in this use of the passive voice to relive God of the responsibility and to put it fully on the shoulders of those who refuse to heed His Word and believe in His Son. They are prepared by their own rejection for a place (hell) prepared by God, not originally for them but ‘for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41).” (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 9-16, p.40, )

 

[Pinkman]

Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, comments: “It sounds like God is actively making people sinners. But that is not required by the text. He does make vessels of wrath and vessels of honor from the same lump of clay. But if we look closely at the text we will see that the clay with which the potter works is ‘fallen’ clay. One batch of clay receives mercy in order to become vessels of honor. That mercy presupposes a clay that is already guilty. Likewise God must ‘endure’ the vessels of wrath that are fit for destruction because they are guilty vessels of wrath.” (Chosen By God, p. 153,

More of R C Sproul

..his distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin
who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.”

 

[Pinkman]

In conclusion I disagree with Calvinists on this thread and agree with other Calvinist who it seems also would also reject the position of this thread.

 

[bling]

"God commands men everywhere to repent"... Acts 17:30

None of us can obey any of God's commands in and of ourselves. If we can choose to obey His commands, apart from His enabling, then we get the credit.

Let's put it another way:
Can we keep every letter of the Law? Can we keep the 10 commandments? If we break one of these commandments or one letter of the Law, we are in sin of tresspassing against the entire Law!

Why then does God give commands we are unable to keep in our own strength? Some would argue that since God gave the command, then "man" must be able to make a free-will choice to obey that command. However, we see that the Command was given to SHOW we need Him to bring us to repentance. Just as the Law was given to SHOW us sin! Paul said that "I would not know sin unless it was for the Law." We couldn't keep the Law anymore than we can obey the command to repent!

Every command God gives is to show us that only He can fulfill that Law/Command IN US. His Spirit carries out His own commands in and through us and He gets the credit.

With all respect, Arminians argue that if God commands it, then logic dictates that we must be "able" to carry it out. This is not true. If this line of reasoning is true, then why don't we ALL obey the Law in it's entirety? The Law/Commands were given to SHOW sin and the need of God to "Work and will in us to accomplish His good pleasure."

"Apart from Me, you can do nothing, the flesh profits nothing."

If we can repent, which is a command given by God to His own, then we don't need the work of the Spirit to enable this. We can do this by ourselves, which gives us the credit for repentance. Repentance is a gift of God.

Again, God commands us things we cannot keep in order to show us that He is the One living in us to accomplish that very "will" He commanded.

"Unless I wash you, you have no part with Me." He must do the washing, He must enable us to repent, we cannot do either ourselves. It's all His work IN us.

You make “repentance” out to be some great achievement. Repenting is what the young son did in the pigsty and resulted in his returning home (Luke 15). I do not see any “glory” in anything the young son did and it is not because it is suggested the father (God) caused it (made it) to happen in the young son. The Bibles says while the son was in a dead state he came to his senses. Coming to your “senses” is nothing more than reviewing the reality of what you have done, where you have gotten yourself to, where you are going and what the alternatives are.

 

[Eleiou]

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, states: “But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it.”

Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

At least not all Calvinists agree.

Quite right........ as you've shown by pitting Rick's supralapsarian leaning view (Gill - who holds to double predestination) against a infralapsarian leaning view (Spurgeon........ who holds to the single predestination view).

Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, comments: “It sounds like God is actively making people sinners. But that is not required by the text. He does make vessels of wrath and vessels of honor from the same lump of clay. But if we look closely at the text we will see that the clay with which the potter works is ‘fallen’ clay. One batch of clay receives mercy in order to become vessels of honor. That mercy presupposes a clay that is already guilty. Likewise God must ‘endure’ the vessels of wrath that are fit for destruction because they are guilty vessels of wrath.” (Chosen By God, p. 153,

More of R C Sproul

..his distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin
who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.”

More from Sproul on the infralapsarian & supralapsarian understanding of God's decrees and double predestination Sproul

 

[heymikey80]

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, states: “But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it.”

Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

At least not all Calvinists agree.

Spurgeon's middle voice interpretation ("they fitted themselves") is easily refuted when given the context of the potter and the clay as well as upon examining the lexical issue. Does clay form itself? No. This sermon, however, is a good example of a five-point Calvinist that shys away from the harsher elements of biblical theology, exegetical precision, and consistent theism.

 

[Shulamite]

Spurgeon's middle voice interpretation ("they fitted themselves") is easily refuted when given the context of the potter and the clay as well as upon examining the lexical issue. Does clay form itself? No. This sermon, however, is a good example of a five-point Calvinist that shys away from the harsher elements of biblical theology, exegetical precision, and consistent theism.

Precisely.!

I have yet to see a lump of clay on the potter's wheel yelling up at the potter and saying, "I insist that You make me a cup or a bowl or tray"... the clay is totally powerless in the hands of the Potter. Clay does not "fit themselves" for anything. We are jars of clay in His hand.

 

[Pinkman]

Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

Still stands

 

[cygnusx1]

Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

Still stands

Spurgeon must be read in context.

This truth of God slaying men still stands ;

Rom.13

[1] Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
[2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
[4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
[5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

 

[Eleiou]

Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

Still stands

Spurgeon must be read in context.

Quite right, a problem of quote mining. From Spurgeon's Jacob and Esau sermon

The fact is, God loved Jacob, and he did not love Esau; he did choose Jacob, but he did not choose Esau; he did bless Jacob, but he never blessed Esau; his mercy followed Jacob all the way of his life, even to the last, but his mercy never followed Esau; he permitted him still to go on in his sins, and to prove that dreadful truth, "Esau have I hated."

AND

Now, the next question is a different one: Why did God hate Esau? I am not going to mix this question up with the other, they are entirely distinct, and I intend to keep them so, one answer will not do for two questions, they must be taken separately, and then can be answered satisfactorily. Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly—it is the same thing—created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man deserves all he gets. In hell there will not be a solitary soul that will say to God, O Lord, thou hast treated me worse than I deserve! But every lost spirit will be made to feel that he has got his deserts, that his destruction lies at his own door and not at the door of God; that God had nothing to do with his condemnation, except as the Judge condemns the criminal, but that he himself brought damnation upon his own head, as the result of his own evil works.

From where I sit, the Pinkman is implying in this thread and others (through the "puppet" theory caricature) that the Reformed folk in Soteriology are "hyper" Calvinists.


Sproul-Double Predestination

 

[Eleiou]

Spurgeon's middle voice interpretation ("they fitted themselves") is easily refuted when given the context of the potter and the clay as well as upon examining the lexical issue. Does clay form itself? ......

Precisely.!

I have yet to see a lump of clay on the potter's wheel yelling up at the potter and saying, "I insist that You make me a cup or a bowl or tray"... the clay is totally powerless in the hands of the Potter. Clay does not "fit themselves" for anything. We are jars of clay in His hand.

I'd say it'd be beneficial to ponder whether the entire "lump" of clay on the Potter's wheel is fallen mankind as a whole? or is the lump in some other condition?

 

[cygnusx1]

I'd say it'd be beneficial to ponder whether the entire "lump" of clay on the Potter's wheel is fallen mankind as a whole? or is the lump in some other condition?

Supra meet Infra

 

[Shulamite]

I'd say it'd be beneficial to ponder whether the entire "lump" of clay on the Potter's wheel is fallen mankind as a whole? or is the lump in some other condition?

We are the clay on the Potter's wheel. Vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath are ALL taken from the same lump of clay, according to the Word of God. We have all fallen short of the glory of God. Yet, out of the one lump, the Potter takes a few, remnant pieces of clay and molds them, redeems them as vessels of mercy, containing His own Spirit. The other lumps of clay are vessels prepared in advance for the day of wrath. Romans 9 makes this clear. We, as clay, how no choice how the Potter will decide to mold us. We cannot, as clay, speak to the Potter and tell Him what to make us or how. We are powerless in His hand.

I have molded clay before and the clay (or playdough with my boys) and the playdough could not TELL me anything or make a choice as to what it wanted to be! My boys would take some of it and make it into a bowl or a french fry or a ball! and out of the same lump of playdough, they'd make something entirely different. The playdough had no "say" at all.

How are we any different? We are the clay of this earth and the fear of the Lord comes over us in a whole new light when we realize we are unworthy, sinful, fallen lumps of clay that God decided to have mercy on and make us into a vessel that contains His own Spirit. We had nothing to do with it.
He chooses what the clay is, the clay does not choose anything. To say that the clay has the power to choose anything is beyond me! Until God breathed into Adam the breath of life, Adam's lifeless clay body could not "will" itself to live! He would have just laid there, a lump of clay, until the Lord breathed into him.

So is the whole lump of clay fallen? Yes, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Election simply states that God chose to have mercy on some out of the same lump and we have no right to ask "why?" or "that's not fair"... who are we to argue with God??? Just fall on your face in fear and thank Him that He had mercy on you.

 

[heymikey80]

Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

Still stands

The point being that Calvinism places the hardening of man as a knowledgeable accountability of the person, making them "without excuse". Romans starts there, and it's no different in Romans 9 than in Romans 1.

Accountability for sin is still set to the one committing sin. Calvinism is no different. Only a libertarian free-will assumption would force the conclusion of unaccountability. And that would be begging the question.

 

[Pinkman]

Originally Posted by Pinkman
Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

Heymikey80
The point being that Calvinism places the hardening of man as a knowledgeable accountability of the person, making them "without excuse". Romans starts there, and it's no different in Romans 9 than in Romans 1.

I will stick with Spurgeon. If the reprobate had no choice to be created the way he was then he had no choice. Saying God did id is the essence of Calvinism. Which not just posters here object to but Agustine, Spurgeon and many more.

 

[Eleiou]

Originally Posted by Pinkman
Spurgeon adds: “My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that.”

Heymikey80
The point being that Calvinism places the hardening of man as a knowledgeable accountability of the person, making them "without excuse". Romans starts there, and it's no different in Romans 9 than in Romans 1.

I will stick with Spurgeon. If the reprobate had no choice to be created the way he was then he had no choice. Saying God did id is the essence of Calvinism. Which not just posters here object to but Agustine, Spurgeon and many more.

I'll stick with the comprehension of the WHOLE sermon