Christ died for the sin of unbelief, so it cant condemn the elect, as no sin can, Christ took them away and reconciled them to God.
I agree that the elect are born by nature sinners, worthy of wrath,no better naturally than the non elect, but nevertheless, they are born as vessels of mercy Rom 9:23
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory
So never born as the others vessels of wrath Rom 9:22
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction
I provided the information from scripture, and I provided the information from Calvin himself. I also explained how, theologically speaking, those God saves (the elect) are pulled from the pool of sinners that would otherwise be on their way to destruction.
cant be a vessel of mercy as a sinner and a vessel of wrath as a sinner at the same time.
Yes, but the Romans 9 text is being mishandled. The "clay" God made was good and sinless clay in the beginning (Gen. 1:31; Rom. 5:12) but the clay became adulterated, corrupted by sin. There was no more good and sinless clay after Genesis 3:7. It is from the entire pile of only-sinful clay that God fashioned some people for noble purposes and others to serve ignoble purposes. God did not actually have to do anything with the corrupted clay because it was corrupted and would, by nature of its corruption serve ignoble purpose inescapably. The is is the inherent but unstated presuppositional nature of the example given in Paul's narrative: Esau and Jacob. Both men were sinners and apart from God's grace would have both been destroyed in the fiery lake. Before Jacob was born, he was loved, but he was loved God knowing he was a sinner, going to be a sinner, going to be a particularly hard-headed, rebellious, bound-by-his-own particular sinfulness (imagine what it must be like growing up with the name "Grifter"), betraying his family, and getting conned himself).
Imagine finally realizing it was God's plane for all that to occur but he's still culpable for every choice and action he voluntarily made of his own sinful faculties.
Both men were sinfully sinners, and it was from that pool of two sinners God chose one for salvation and made him into an object of noble purpose...... before either man was born. God has mercy on who He has mercy, and it does not depend on how the man walks, or how the man wills, but on the will and purpose of God (alone).
As I pointed out
HERE, the number one problem in the Cal v Arm debate is that we get our own doctrines incorrect. Getting the other guy's doctrine incorrect is the second biggest problem. The second may occur more frequently but that is (potentially) an easier problem to solve. Getting Cals to see Calvinism correctly can be much more difficult than getting Arms to see it. Part of the reason the "
internal" straw man happens (as opposed to the "
external" straw man of outsiders misrepresenting Calvin) happens is because either we or our teachers have read particular theologians, so we learn
their version of Calvinism, not Calvin's Calvinism. It takes a certain amount of diverse reading to see that there exists a reasonable amount of diversity surrounding a core of orthodoxy. Reading Calvin, Pink, Knox, Spurgeon, Van Til, Vos, Sproul, Frame, White, Piper, and MacArthur is gonna do three things. It will lead the reader to understand they do not all teach identically and there is some diversity within our ranks, despite that diversity there is a solid core of shared foundational belief, and some of those guys held/hold some nutty views that are not consistent with the originator of our perspective. The reader will also learn some history and observe the evolution of thought in Calvinism (monergism). All the early Reformers on the monergist side of the equation were Augustinian. Even Arminius was Augustinian (most Arms with whom I've traded posts don't know that). This board separates Calvinism from Lutheranism, but the two theologies have a lot more in common than in difference (I'm kind of disappointed they aren't included).
The premise God made good people and bad people before any of them became sinners is more Pinkian than Calvin. Pink is on the deterministic end of the spectrum of Calvinism rather than the compatibilist end. Piper can be on that end, too (Ironically both men were Reformed Baptists, not Presbyterian, although I do not think a causal connection can be made between the denomination and their degree of determinism). There are hints of that in White and Frame but the more either guy is read the more consistency with Calvin is observed. And, as I said in the other thread, reading someone like the Dispensationalist-Reformed-soteriology MacArthur huge, irreconcilable conflict and inconsistencies are observed. Furthermore, Calvinism has evolved over the last five centuries
because of rigorous, prayerful debate.
1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
It's a good thing and the best internet forum discussions exemplify it. There is a fundamental difference between that kind of division and divisiveness (which is more a Gal. 5:19-21 condition that has nothing to do with Cal v Arm).
We must remember Calvin was Catholic and his early writings were intended solely to reform RCCism, not to start Protestantism. We now hold views that are different from Calvin's, such as his inherently RCC views of sacraments, the salvific nature of pedobaptism, and the tripartite view of man. That does not mean his monergistic soteriology was wrong. He was absolutely correct, and I completely affirm that point of view as the testimony of (correctly rendered) scripture.
At any rate, the salient point is that in Calvinism the inherent sinfulness of humanity, both individually and collectively, is affirmed, and it is from that pool that is 100% comprised of sinners that the elect are selected. It's not Calvinism to say God made good sinless people who are the elect and God made bad people who would never be elect. God made good people, they all became bad, and it's from the bad people God chose some to be saved..... and He decided that from eternity, before a single human had ever been formed. He ordained these things without causing any violence to the human will and not a fraction of a scintilla of it is dependent on the qualities, faculties, choices, or actions of the sinner being saved. Calvinist soteriology is 100% Theo-centric, not human-centric.
And when it comes to redemption securing regeneration (lest we forget and go far afield of this op
) both redemption (buying back the sinner) and the regeneration are accomplished by God without any consideration of the still-dead-in-sin, sinfully-enslaved, hostile-to-God, fleshly, God-denying, Christ-denying sinner's faculties, choices, or actions because all of it is tainted by sin and God wants nothing to do with it and has no need of any of it.