Potter's Freedom!

[Vic C.]

How are we saved Vic? Through the blood of Christ. No matter which way we define the word elect, the elect need the love of God thru the blood of Christ...both Calvinist and Arminians declare it so. We are saved by the blood of Christ which was shed for many [not all].

Amen to the first part. To the second part:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Emphesis is on "whosoever", not a narrow definition of the word "world" like some Calvinists teach. I have heard some say that world may not mean all the world. That's a bit of a stretch if we are to read that literally.

2 Cor 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Can you show me the writings of a Calvinist that would deny the need for the blood atonement of Christ?

Honestly, I can't, but the implications seem obvious to me. God allowed HIS Son to be sacrificed for sin, but just the sins of those who were predetermined. Seems like a rather illogical solution for the very logical Almighty to make.

Did Christ die for all then not supply a way for all to hear the Gospel? There are millions of people who have died that have never had the chance to hear the Gospel.

This has been brought up numerous times. That has been my agrument all the while. When I point to the solution, it goes mostly ignored. Romans 2 with emphesis on Romans 2:14-16

Simple. The justification of the elect is grounded in the death of Christ. “Historically  in time  on the cross at the atonement Christ was atoning for us. He propitiated. Romans 3:25, “[Jesus] whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation.†Christ took away the indictment; it was nailed to the cross.†Vic, that’d be like saying why do we need to vote when the powers that be are ordained [Romans 13:1 ], or why do we need to pray when God already knows what we need [Matthew 6:8 ], or why do we try to eat and remain healthy when the day of our death is already appointed [Hebrews 9:27 ]!

I asked, "On what basis are these few chosen?" I don't understand how this answers my question. Maybe I just don't understand what you are tryomg to convey. I was sure you'd say, " Foreknowledge". I would have agreed with that.

The preaching of the Gospel is God’s plan to fulfill His decree. When you share the Gospel Vic are you hoping to save that person or that God will save that person?

Agreed.

I have no power whatsoever to save anyone. I am just a tool in which God uses to spread HIS Good News. I pray that those who hear, bear the fruit of the seed God asked me to sow. I pray none would reject HIS word.


Jason, I did some reading tonight and would like to share some of what I read. I don't want to disrupt this thred, so I will start a new one. I'd "love" for you to chime in. I also have a commentary from Clarke on the Potter analogy I'd like to share. My notes are at work, I will post it tomorrow.

Peace,
Vic

 

[JM]

Amen to the first part. To the second part:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Emphesis is on "whosoever", not a narrow definition of the word "world" like some Calvinists teach. I have heard some say that world may not mean all the world. That's a bit of a stretch if we are to read that literally.

Vic, we need to allow the context to speak for the meaning of the word “all.†In the greater context of scripture we know that Christ’s blood was shed for many [Matt. 26:28]. The problem I have is with the assumption that man is honestly trying to please God, giving the “whosoever will†the ability to come when ability isn’t even mentioned. We are given an illustration of the natural man in Romans we see what man is really like, we are also told that man hates God [natural mind is enmity against God].

I fail to see how man is willing to believe but that’s not really the point of the passage.

The Greek reads “pas ho pisteuon†means “those who are believing†not “hos tis†which means whosoever. This indicates that belief is the emphasis in this passage and it’s past tense. A more literal and older reading of John 3:16 goes like this, “in order that everyone who believes in him should not perish." [see Wycliff, Tyndale, Geneva, Rheims {gag, gag}, NRSV. {gag, gag}]

2 Cor 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

We need to differentiate the meaning of the words being used, consider Luke 2:1 which reads, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.†If we read “all†without giving context to the word then we must read this text as stating the Japanese, Chinese, Africans, etc. are then included in this statement. If all means every single person in the world as you suggest, every time we read it, then everyone in the world was taxed by Caesar Augustus.


The way in which I understand 2 Cor. 5:
v.1 “we knowâ€Â
v.2 “we groan… earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heavenâ€Â
v. 3 “weâ€Â
v. 4 “God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spiritâ€Â
v. 5 “we are always confidentâ€Â
v. 6 “(For we walk by faith, not by sightâ€Â
etc.

I don’t want to go on but you see my point? The “we know†in verse 1 are believers for Paul marks himself in the group he is talking to. Unbelievers are not the “we†and they have not been “given…the earnest of the Spirit.†Only believers are “confident†to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Only believers walk by faith [v. 6]. This continues on and in v. 14 we see “us†being used by the Holy Spirit, once again marking Paul as a member and THEN we read v. 15 in context, “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.†Who are the all that Christ died for? It’s the people Paul has been talking to this whole chapter, telling them that Christ died so you should not live like you did in the past and is a new creation [v. 18].

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The context is all kinds of men as we see from reading the whole chapter, the subject of that prayer is mentioned in v. 1 (kings and those in authority). This same idea is upheld by Titus 2:11 where we see that the Grace of God has appeared to all men, but this can’t mean everyone that has ever lived has heard the Gospel, the meaning is, God’s Grace has appeared to all kinds of men regardless of their station in life. If you view Titus 2 and 3, you’ll soon see my point. God is no respecter of persons.

1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

In the broader context of atonement passages, this is easy to explain, but those who believe in unlimited atonement want to isolate this passage. Where the rubber hits the road…if Christ wants all to be saved and is a ransom for all (meaning every single person in the whole world) then Christ must be the mediator of every single person in the whole world. We know this because of Hebrews 10 “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.†If unbelievers reject the Gospel offer then Christ’s work as mediator fails and the “will†of God spoken of in 1 Tim. 2:4 is over ruled by fallen sinful man with natural unregenerate mind. This robs God of His status as “saviour†and turns Him into the “great assister.†This cannot be true if Heb. 10:14 means what it says, simply this, the offering ALWAYS RESULTS IN THE PERFECTION OF THOSE WHO THE OFFERING WAS MADE.

If Christ is the mediator for the whole world (because He’d have to be if His offering was made on behalf of the whole world) then why doesn’t He pray for them? “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.†That’s interesting to know, Christ isn’t praying for everyone, just those who the Father has given Him. Did the Father give the Son ALL men? No, if so then all are going to be raised up on the last day as we read in John 6:39 and the context is to everlasting life in v. 40.

Reformed exegesis is the only true exegesis of scripture and the only possible way to make sense of scripture.

Honestly, I can't, but the implications seem obvious to me. God allowed HIS Son to be sacrificed for sin, but just the sins of those who were predetermined. Seems like a rather illogical solution for the very logical Almighty to make.

Vic, for the elect to be saved the blood of Christ was needed, it was shed for many and He bore the penalty of the elect. That’s part of God’s plan of redemption, the atonement as well as election.

This has been brought up numerous times. That has been my agrument all the while. When I point to the solution, it goes mostly ignored. Romans 2 with emphesis on Romans 2:14-16

With respect, you need to clarify what you’re implying. Romans 2 is about proving the sinfulness of man. Are you suggesting “the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness†is equal to the Gospel offering of Christ and can save the pagan without the preaching of the word? If that’s what you’re saying I’ll post on that latter, if I’m off base, forgive me but I’ll need more information before I respond.

I asked, "On what basis are these few chosen?" I don't understand how this answers my question. Maybe I just don't understand what you are tryomg to convey. I was sure you'd say, " Foreknowledge". I would have agreed with that.

Paul already answered this, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand.†That’s why Jacob was chosen and Esau was not. There is nothing inhereiteny good in man to make a perfect God choose one over the other. A lady once said to C.H. Spurgeon, “I don’t understand how God could hate Esau.†Spurgeon replied with something along the lines of, “that’s your problem. I can’t understand how God loved Jacob.â€Â

Agreed.

I have no power whatsoever to save anyone. I am just a tool in which God uses to spread HIS Good News. I pray that those who hear, bear the fruit of the seed God asked me to sow. I pray none would reject HIS word.

Amen. The Gospel is the means in which God brings men to Himself. But if Christ died for all [meaning every single one] and they have total freewill to choose, then you do have the power to sway a sinner. You can woo them with fancy preaching, convince them with proof and hoodwinked them if you must to get them to believe.

I’m sorry for not being able to communicate my beliefs in a better, more clear way. The fault is mine, forgive me.

Jason, I did some reading tonight and would like to share some of what I read. I don't want to disrupt this thred, so I will start a new one. I'd "love" for you to chime in. I also have a commentary from Clarke on the Potter analogy I'd like to share. My notes are at work, I will post it tomorrow.

Peace,
Vic

As you can imagine I found a few problems with the article, which I’ll post in the next few days. You will notice that I’m limited in the amount of time I can spend posting but I’ll get around to it. I’ve found two factual problems, one logical issue and one philosophical vs. Biblical issue and that’s just from scanning the quotes you listed!

Peace,

~JM~
PS: What about the potter's freedom to do what He wants? Where's His freewill?

 

[Vic C.]

I understand what you are saying about "all" and "world". We both know that the context talks to those who already believe or are "believing".

When I really think about it without preconceived ideas about Jesus and what He taught and who He was teaching, this passage comes back to "haunt" me:

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs.
Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

One of the first things I learned when coming here was that "dogs" was an idiom for gentiles. Jesus was sent for His lost sheep of Israel. Any reference to an elect in His teachings lead me to believe He was referring to OT elect. But this woman was a gentile! She wasn't chosen; Jesus actually rejected har at first. What changed His mind, for lack of a better way to put it?

Her persistance... and her faith! Also, there was a hint of wit and wisdom in her words:

Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

Reminds me of this:

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Eating is hearing, the crumbs are the word and the master is God. This passage in Matthew seems to contradict the Total depravity of man. If this woman, who is a gentile, was depraved, how is it she came by Faith to worship Jesus? She wasn't part of the elect, yet Jesus accepted her as she was, because of her faith.

Reformed exegesis is the only true exegesis of scripture and the only possible way to make sense of scripture.

That is the opinion of those who follow Calvin. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I really didn't know much about him until recently. Much of what I did learn, I did not like at all. I do not want to attack his character, that wouldn't be Christlike of me, but if I did expound on what I learned, you know where I'd go. The Reformation was great for Christianity; it put the Bible in our hands, but the some of the methods used to advance the Reformation was detestable and I don't see how it could have pleaced God. No better than what Rome did, I guess.

About the Potter analogy. I am still convinced it was directed at the Jews. God was tired of their constant apostasy and questioning HIM. HE told them HE would turn them into unworthy vessels and made them the object of HIS Wrath. The only place in the NT where this analogy is used is in the passage that started this thread. Paul was speaking about the "fate" of Israel. I'm not inclined to think he was suggesting God uses this Potter scenario for all Mankind.

In the Clarke commentary, they quoted John Goodwin. You pronbably know him and ig you do, you probably don't care for him much. 8-) He was an ornery old man for sure and thought the Potter analogy passage in Romans 9 was misunderstood. Abused was the word he used. I won't post it, but you can read it at:

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerom9.htm

I will quote Clarke's commentary on verse 20. Find that on the link and Goodwin's notes are right below it.

Verse 20. Nay but, O man, who art thou] As if he had said: Weak, ignorant man, darest thou retort on the infinitely good and righteous GOD? Reflect on thyself; and tell me, after thou hast abused the grace of God, and transgressed his laws, wilt thou cavil at his dispensations? God hath made, created, formed the Jewish nation; and shall the thing formed, when it hath corrupted itself, pretend to correct the wise and gracious Author of its being, and say, Why hast thou made me thus? Why hast thou constituted me in this manner? Thou hast done me wrong in giving me my being under such and such conditions.

 

[JM]

Matt. 15

Eating is hearing, the crumbs are the word and the master is God. This passage in Matthew seems to contradict the Total depravity of man. If this woman, who is a gentile, was depraved, how is it she came by Faith to worship Jesus? She wasn't part of the elect, yet Jesus accepted her as she was, because of her faith.

You assuming she had the ability within her self to accept the Gospel offer, but Paul tells us what man is like in there natural state:

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, THERE IS NONE THAT SEEKETH AFTER GOD.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Not a pretty picture. When I read Matt. 15 I see a women as being already saved which allows for harmony between the two passages. Clarke wrote, “The hinderances thrown in this woman’s way only tended to increase her faith.†I agree. This is in tune with the potters freedom who is “increasing her faith.†This would seem to indicate that faith already existed for it to increase. Just like Lydia in Acts 16 who had her “heart opened by God†to believe, so did this women and all other believers.

The women obviously understood who and what Jesus was doing and teaching, right?

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

There’s no way around it brother, those who hear the words of God are of God already.

That is the opinion of those who follow Calvin. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I really didn't know much about him until recently. Much of what I did learn, I did not like at all. I do not want to attack his character, that wouldn't be Christlike of me, but if I did expound on what I learned, you know where I'd go. The Reformation was great for Christianity; it put the Bible in our hands, but the some of the methods used to advance the Reformation was detestable and I don't see how it could have pleaced God. No better than what Rome did, I guess.

You’ve probably been reading the works of non-Calvinists who maybe biased to John Calvin and his work. He was just a man who systemized theology, that’s it. I was a Calvinist for 3 or 4 years before I ever read anything he wrote. To this day I have yet to consult his commentaries, but what come out of the Reformation and his theology is truly amazing. It’s the Church Reformed.

John Goodwin

Wasn’t John Goodwin a state Church guy? Pro King and Anglican?

Peace,

~JM~

 

[Vic C.]

Not a pretty picture. When I read Matt. 15 I see a women as being already saved which allows for harmony between the two passages. Clarke wrote, “The hinderances thrown in this woman’s way only tended to increase her faith.†I agree. This is in tune with the potters freedom who is “increasing her faith.†This would seem to indicate that faith already existed for it to increase. Just like Lydia in Acts 16 who had her “heart opened by God†to believe, so did this women and all other believers.

The women obviously understood who and what Jesus was doing and teaching, right?

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

There’s no way around it brother, those who hear the words of God are of God already.

I understand what you are trying to convey. I also believe the words of Jesus when he said He was not sent for the gentile. I'm positive she knew who Jesus was, she called Him Lord and worshipped Him. She heard and believed and from that came her faith and for her faith, she was rewarded. The corporate and individual election of Israel was still in effect, wes it not?

You’ve probably been reading the works of non-Calvinists who maybe biased to John Calvin and his work. He was just a man who systemized theology, that’s it. I was a Calvinist for 3 or 4 years before I ever read anything he wrote. To this day I have yet to consult his commentaries, but what come out of the Reformation and his theology is truly amazing. It’s the Church Reformed.

Yes, the Protestant Reformation was amazing; great was the word I used. I don't know if amazing is how I would describe Calvin. I don't actually dislike him; he brought a lot to the table. I do have reservations about some of his theology though. Again, I will refrain from posting the negative, so as not to bear false witness, but hostory is history. Hey, he was called "the Pope of Geneva". 8-)

Wasn’t John Goodwin a state Church guy? Pro King and Anglican?

He was a Puritan. It's tough to find a whole lot on him though. I searched and searched and came up with... well, not much. : Jey, see what you came find on him... just for our information.

 

[JM]

I understand what you are trying to convey. I also believe the words of Jesus when he said He was not sent for the gentile. I'm positive she knew who Jesus was, she called Him Lord and worshipped Him. She heard and believed and from that came her faith and for her faith, she was rewarded. The corporate and individual election of Israel was still in effect, wes it not?

Some would argue that gentile is the unbeliever, it's a modern dispey thing to have such a strict divison.

I wrote :
You’ve probably been reading the works of non-Calvinists who maybe biased to John Calvin and his work. He was just a man who systemized theology, that’s it. I was a Calvinist for 3 or 4 years before I ever read anything he wrote. To this day I have yet to consult his commentaries, but what come out of the Reformation and his theology is truly amazing. It’s the Church Reformed.[/end]

Yes, the Protestant Reformation was amazing; great was the word I used. I don't know if amazing is how I would describe Calvin. I don't actually dislike him; he brought a lot to the table. I do have reservations about some of his theology though. Again, I will refrain from posting the negative, so as not to bear false witness, but hostory is history. Hey, he was called "the Pope of Geneva".

I wouldn't describe Calvin the person as amazing, just his theological insight, Calvin was just a man and like all men he was a terrible sinner. As for disagreeing with his theology, I do as well. I'm a Particular Baptist like Gill and Spurgeon, not Reformed like Calvin and Kyper.

~JM~

 

[golfjack]

reply

JM. I still do not underrstand your Thelogy. I respect it, but its confusing to me. You will say that your thelogy is based on the Bible. Well, so is mine. So, I believe its a matter of interpretation. With this in mind, I will ask some questions: Do you believe the Church replaces Israel, which is commonly called replacement thelogy? Are you trying to fit your thelogy into one pet doctrine, which is your doctrine of Election and predestination? Who are the elect? What do you mean by saying we are spiritual Israel? Does an unbeliever have a free will? What do you mean when you say your thelogy is that of Spurgeon and Gill? That is enough for now. I ask these questioins, not to be antagonistic, but for my personal information.


May God bless, Golfjack

 

[JM]

JM. I still do not underrstand your Thelogy. I respect it, but its confusing to me. You will say that your thelogy is based on the Bible. Well, so is mine. So, I believe its a matter of interpretation.

Yes, that is true. I do try to respect other theology especially if the other theology begins at a different point then my own.

With this in mind, I will ask some questions: Do you believe the Church replaces Israel, which is commonly called replacement thelogy?

This is a difficult question. Yes and no. Yes the Church receives the Spiritual promises but to what extent physical Israel will play in the future, I can’t be certain. For now, we are Spiritual Israel. As for “replacement theology,†that’s a derogatory term used by dispensationalists, the Church is the realization of physical Israel, so it’s supersessionism and not replacement. This just means that God is dealing with everyone now instead of Israel based on the physical line.

Are you trying to fit your thelogy into one pet doctrine, which is your doctrine of Election and predestination?

Not sure what you mean.

Who are the elect?

The elect are the "whosoever wills" the problem is people in their natural state hate [Bible search enmity] God.

What do you mean by saying we are spiritual Israel?

The Church receives the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant, we are spiritual Israel.

Does an unbeliever have a free will?

It depends on what you mean by freewill.

What do you mean when you say your thelogy is that of Spurgeon and Gill? That is enough for now. I ask these questioins, not to be antagonistic, but for my personal information.


May God bless, Golfjack

What I mean to say, my theology is similar to Dr. John Gill and C. H. Spurgeon, in terms of the op.

http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist ... s/gill.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon

Peace.

~JM~

 

[unred typo]

You assuming she had the ability within her self to accept the Gospel offer, but Paul tells us what man is like in there natural state: Romans 3:10 As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God…..

No, Paul tells us what is written about those who say “there is no God,†whether they are Jews or Gentiles. You have taken this verse out of context. He is trying to prove that God doesn’t show favoritism in salvation, even though he chooses some for special privileges. The scripture he quotes from in Psalms clearly distinguish between those who don’t believe in God (fools) and those who do (his people). They are called his people because they believe in him and serve him, not because they were chosen.

Proverbs 21:21
He that follows after righteousness and mercy finds life, righteousness, and honor.
Malachi 3:18
Then shall you return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serves God and him that serves him not.

The Bible does not say there are not any righteous men in all the earth throughout history. It says there are not any who have never once sinned, but it calls many men righteous because of the way they lived due to their belief in God. You can’t be perfectly sinless but you can be called righteous if you believe God. To say otherwise is to call God a liar. When God says you have this ability, it is a lack of faith to say you are not able because you are human.

Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Philippians 3:6
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

You need to rethink your ideas. Your ‘natural’ state is not the same as being human. Being human is not a sin but when you choose to live ‘unto the flesh’ at the expense of others, exploiting them or ignoring their needs, you are being sinful. You are said to be ‘of the flesh’ and not ‘spiritual’ when you take advantage of your fellow man just to gratify your own lusts because you don’t believe in God (or that he will punish you for your sin or just don‘t care because you have willfully chosen to gratify your fleshly lust.) David was a good example of one who was spiritually minded but then acted in the flesh:

Psalm 119:40
Behold, I have longed after your precepts: quicken me in your righteousness.
Ezekiel 33:12
Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turns from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sins.
Ezekiel 33:18
When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.

David loved God’s law but when David acted in the flesh, he was punished. God only justified him when he repented. God rewards those who are righteous and punishes the unrepentant wicked who hate righteousness:

Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
Proverbs 10:2
Treasures of wickedness profit nothing: but righteousness delivers from death.
Psalm 11:5
The LORD tries the righteous: but the wicked and him that loves violence his soul hates.

God does not justify some or cause some to be righteous and not others.

Acts 10:35
But in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him.
Proverbs 15:9
The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loves him that follows after righteousness.
Proverbs 24:24
He that says unto the wicked, You are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him.


You don’t choose to do righteousness because you are chosen of God, you are chosen of God because you choose to do righteousness.


Psalm 7:11
God judges the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loves not his brother.
Romans 6:16
Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

:fadein: Simple, isn't it?

 

[Imagican]

While the opening post 'sounds' logical, I believe the 'misinterpretation' lies in that it deals MORE with God's WILL than WHAT WE ourselves 'choose' to BE. In this, I MUST agree with Vic. This parable is NOT concerning WHAT man may or may not 'become'. It is MUCH more an example of being satisfied with the ACCEPTANCE of God's WILL REGARDLESS of our own.

MEC

 

[unred typo]

While the opening post 'sounds' logical, I believe the 'misinterpretation' lies in that it deals MORE with God's WILL than WHAT WE ourselves 'choose' to BE. In this, I MUST agree with Vic. This parable is NOT concerning WHAT man may or may not 'become'. It is MUCH more an example of being satisfied with the ACCEPTANCE of God's WILL REGARDLESS of our own.

MEC

I agree, (if I read you correctly) with both your estimations that this parable is not what the OP purposes. The parable doesn’t even claim to be in regard to salvation, but election to certain privileges and honors, even dishonors. To use the passages in this way is a very poor exegesis. The fact that such a faulty analysis is used as a pillar in the doctrines of Calvin should red flag the whole system. House of cards doesn’t fully describe this construct of misused scripture. When a paper house falls, no one is hurt and no one has to pay with their soul. Please forgive my passionate melodrama and total disgust for Calvinism. It is not meant to be personally directed at those who are the unsuspecting victims of such a scriptural malignancy. (Some of the most rabid anti-smokers are ex smokers or secondhand smokers.)

 

[JM]

So I guess it's more logical to demand clay to form itself into a pot.

:

 

[Imagican]

No JM,

I don't believe that is what ANYONE is saying. I believe the scripture is simply stating that we are NOT in a position to 'judge God', but, being created BY God, we are certainly subject to HIS judgement and should thus be satisfied.

We have been instructed through prophets, The Word and Christ Himself, to ACCEPT God AS GOD. And by doing this, we WILL accept Christ Jesus AS our Savior, and through this acceptance, subject ourselves to The Spirit. It IS through The Spirit that we become 'different' than what we 'were before'. To 'attempt' to make these changes on our own, (the pot forming itself), we can do NOTHING of significance according to God, (still remain the SAME 'dirty pot', if you will).

It is through our submission and obedience that these 'changes' ARE possible, but NOT of our OWN design.

MEC

 

[JM]

Romans 9:21-22 YLT hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honour, and the one to dishonour? (22) And if God, willing to shew the wrath and to make known His power, did endure, in much long suffering, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,

In v. 22 we see vessels of wrath, in v. 23 we see it contrasted with vessels of kindness. Two vessels both made by the potter with different purposes.

Peace,

jm

 

[unred typo]

Romans 9:21-22 YLT hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honour, and the one to dishonour? (22) And if God, willing to shew the wrath and to make known His power, did endure, in much long suffering, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,

In v. 22 we see vessels of wrath, in v. 23 we see it contrasted with vessels of kindness. Two vessels both made by the potter with different purposes.

God made his power known when he executed his wrath on the Egyptians, in the plagues, after enduring their hateful behavior for nearly 400 years, they were then fitted for destruction and became vessels of wrath. They didn’t repent and it was time to bring his people back to Canaan. He made an example of them. They were infested with insects and frogs, and lost crops and cattle, friends and servants died, and then firstborn sons and finally the army drowned. All of these things fell on them, but none of these things are eternal punishment in hell.

This is an illustration of how God uses merciless men whom he had already intended to punish for their cruelty to Israel in order to bring other nations to know of his existence by a display of his power. You used it to say God had chosen some for eternal wrath and some for eternal salvation and I know you claim this happens before the creation of the world. That’s just not right.

God chooses who gets honor and who gets to be an example of what happens when you don’t love one another. Usually it was the nation of Israel who was elected for this ‘honor’ but it wasn’t always Israel that got punished. Some times, they were blessed when they obeyed and their enemies were chosen to be examples of God’s power and wrath instead. God made the Jews into the vessels of wrath when they disobeyed and made them vessels of honor when they obeyed.

The ‘election of Israel’ was not according to works, however. But their election was not about salvation either, but to be the ones to bring the Savior into the world. You just have tunnel vision when it comes to the words; ‘election’, ‘predestined’, ‘chosen’, ‘wrath’, etc. It’s not about the salvation of individuals, but for some specific purpose that God chooses nations, groups or persons.

The Jews were chosen to be the Savior’s earthly ancestors because they were Abraham’s offspring, not because they were such nice people. Jacob wasn’t any nicer than Esau before he was born either. They were just fulfilling the promise made to Abraham and the prophesy about the older serving the younger. If Jacob had been firstborn, Esau would have been the chosen one.
I hope that's clear.
:fadein: :smt101

 

[lovely]

I'll just address this: Lovely, you posted:

Quote:
[quote:56821]God is our Supreme Authority and Creator, and we are formed for His purpose alone, and have no 'right' to question God's will (Plan), or to judge God (who we know is our judge)because none can resist His will...given He is our Creator...and has created us for His purpose alone. Even for the vessels of wrath (and I think that does indicate that this is a matter of salvation),

I believe from examples in the Gospels, that we do have a right to question God at times. It's only natural, so natural that Jesus did it on at least two recorded occasions.

Luke 22:42 and Matthew 27:46

I don't judge HIM, I judge man's interpretation and overall understanding of this beautiful Book, the Bible, from cover to cover.

I also don't believe irrestable Grace applies to all. I've witnessed it being slowly denied by a family member and a very close friend. The Grace was so evident, even I felt it's presence. Grace is truely amazing, but it can be rejected.

The last part, I hope I am misunderstanding you and that you are not saying that one must believe in this analogy of the Potter and clay, because it is a matter of salvation. If so, please see AV's simple multiple choice question here:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... ht=#315606

Peace and Love in Christ,
Vic[/quote:56821]

Hi Vic, I apologize for not responding to you here, because I failed to see it. I decided to not post again, unless I was addressed, and missed your post.

Vic, I don't see us in disagreement on this point really. I think Job is a good example of what I am talking about. The Father has a plan, and it is not our place to feel as if we have the 'right' to ask God to change His plan in order to accomodate us, or so that we may avoid suffering. Christ was actually submitting to the Father, and telling Him that He would prefer to not drink of the bitter cup of His wrath, but that He would submit to His plan. This is actually an example of what our attitude should be.

As far as grace goes, we do not know the final results of anyone's conversion...nor the process. I do not think we can conclusively say that anyone has resisted the Holy Spirit's drawing, but I do think Scripture indicates that we won't.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me. I am saying that I believe the text indicates that the analogy does speak to matters of salvation...as far as the Potter's freedom. However, I do not think anyone has to agree with that to be saved...no way.

I think that if Scripture is read in context, and as a whole, and people are continually reading it, and studying it, in that manner, with a heart open to learn before God, then they will grow exactly as God desires. I trust God's plan and process above man's interpretation, above man's doctrine, and above man's wisdom. We desire to teach each others, but I think our strongest desire should be to learn from Him...through each other.

I appreciate your approach to things, Vic, and though I know we don't agree on every matter I always see the fruits in your responses. The Lord bless you.

 

[Vic C.]

Don't even worry about not responding sooner. I had forgotten about that post and have been out of the loop on the Calvin and Potter subjects anyway.

Peace and love in Christ,
Vic

 

[Dave...]

I agree, (if I read you correctly) with both your estimations that this parable is not what the OP purposes. The parable doesn’t even claim to be in regard to salvation, but election to certain privileges and honors, even dishonors.

Aaaaa, but it is. look closer.

 

[unred typo]

Aaaaa, but it is. look closer.

You need to take a step back so you can see the entire picture. :o

 

[MarkT]

The raw clay is mixed and placed on the wheel by the potter, the vessel then finds it’s form in the fingers of the potter who is spinning the wheel and using his hands in the clay to shape it. The potter, not the clay, decides the pattern, coiling and scraping or paddle and anvil, etc.

The decision is never given to the clay as the open theist or Arminian may suggest.

Even the simple clay pot which is called "pinch" potting doesn't have a choice. The clay in any form never has inherit shape, it doesn’t decide or chooce to be a pot. It becomes whatever the potter wants it to become.

When you think the pot is making a choice, it really isn't, the potter is working the clay. He is the master potter and knows every turn the clay will make on the wheel because His foot is causing the wheel to spin.

At what point does clay shape itself?

Clay can only react because the wheel is spinning. The potter is causing the clay to move and react in His hands, the clay is not given the opinion to react the way it wants to. What is often suggested by non-Calvinistic understandings destroys the analogy. The master potter forms the clay, spins the wheel, adds the water to get the form He wants. Everything is done by the potter. The clay never stops the potter to accept how much clay is added, how fast the wheel is spinning or how much water to add. The clay is never ask, “will you form into a pot for me now?â€Â

The Calvinist understanding reads the analogy as it is. The clay is never asked "will you form into a pot?"

But the clay refers to the vessel. Man has a physical form made in the image of God. Call it a vessel. But look at the contents of the vessel. Vessels are made to contain. The vessel made for destruction contains something. Call it a soul.

Jesus told the Pharisees and the Sad'ducees that God was not their father. He said, "you are of your father, the devil." John 8:44 He called them a brood of vipers. He didn't say they would be saved. In fact he told them they would go to hell. Likewise he called Judas a devil. He didn't say Judas would be saved.

So they were, in fact, vessels made for destruction; rebels from birth, raised to be caught and destroyed. It's a simple fact that God knows who everyone is. He knows who you are like a father knows his own son. In fact you are his son. But he also knows the plant he didn't plant. He knows the sons of the evil one. They appear as weeds in the world. They are the vessels of wrath made for destruction. Why would God make vessels? Why did God create man? To hear. To understand. To not hear. To not understand. Why does God make vessels for wrath? To contain the devil and the sons of the evil one and Jesus said they would be thrown into the furnace of fire. God pours out his wrath on them. He makes them do unspeakable things. They are violent men, arrogant, haters of God.