Reformed theologians, please help me

[beartheweak]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

 

[stranger]

Hi beartheweak,

If you decide one way or another, the trouble is the next Protestant may make a different call. That said, as an ex-Arminian and later an ex- Reformed, I never felt that either camp made God an author of sin. Correct me if I am wrong but this is a prime case of what one side says that others position leads to. Man using reason to interpret the scripture(s) and then claiming his conclusion is what God teaches, or what the Holy Spirit taught him, is a recipe for division.

When I am tempted and sin I walk in the flesh and have ceased to partake of the divine nature i.e. to walk in the Spirit.

While I have not answered your question hopefully, I have succeeded in painting a broader picture that you might find useful.

 

[Arch Angle]

For there to be a choice there has to be "anotherway". Gods knows this. The nice thing is that you can always choseto turn back and look at the light if possible.

 

[ezra]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

may i suggest leave the Calvinist views AND Armenian views read your Bible the big question is are you saved born again forgiven... i have studied both sides .. the important thing is salvation prayer attend church..

 

[beartheweak]

may i suggest leave the Calvinist views AND Armenian views read your Bible the big question is are you saved born again forgiven... i have studied both sides .. the important thing is salvation prayer attend church..

I think that's another subject altogether. It's clear that in the church, people can't agree on what salvation is (or at least the means of salvation). I think it's at the core of determining which doctrine is true in order to figure out if you're saved or not. I agree with people when they say it's just a secondary thing (to determine God's ultimate plan for salvation), but if it's in the bible, I want to learn about it. I don't like sweeping unresolved issues under the rug.

 

[stranger]

It is probable that people can't agree on perspectives of salvation in the bible or what the 'fullness of salvation' is. The degree to which you limit your search (i.e. when you stop searching believing you have resolved this issue) is the degree to which you are limiting your vision of salvation and the kingdom of God.

 

[Knotical]

Many of your questions can be answered by looking through either the Westminster or Heidelberg catechisms, then by looking up the scriptural supporting references.

 

[ezra]

I think that's another subject altogether. It's clear that in the church, people can't agree on what salvation is (or at least the means of salvation). I think it's at the core of determining which doctrine is true in order to figure out if you're saved or not. I agree with people when they say it's just a secondary thing (to determine God's ultimate plan for salvation), but if it's in the bible, I want to learn about it. I don't like sweeping unresolved issues under the rug.

we are told to attend Church.. we are told to study to show our self approved ..we are told to Grow in the Grace and Knowledge of the Lord. {Calvinist views AND Armenian views] ARE COMPLICATED you need to read your Bible study it out.. find a church that holds close to the truths you Believe in..... if you want to learn read read read there are plenty of good study Bibles out there..free commentaries ON LINE.. get you a get Bible dictionary....question is what does the scriptures say?? to learn the Bible it takes lots of study ..you learn new stuff each time you read... read study=pray 3 keys you must use....

 

[mondar]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man.

I hope I can be of assistance in expressing a Reformed understanding of scripture. I would not see the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man as "contradictory." It depends upon what you mean by the term "responsibility." Certainly with regard to our faith, and resultant justification, we do not bear any "responsibility." That is Gods responsibility and by his grace alone. As far as our sin and rebellion, we bear total responsibility. While it is true that God decreed that Adam would take man into sin and rebellion, God bears no responsibility because he did not take part in that sin, nor assist in sin in any way. It might take a little work to understand what Reformed people mean by God's decree, and also why that never involved God in sin, but it is an important distinction. When we sin, its not like God waved a magic wand and made us more sinful. No, we were already sinful and we love our sin, and bear total responsibility for our sin.

I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

Interesting. Most people cannot make it that far. Most people begin with the assumption that for God to be fair, everyone must have an equal change and the same chance. This of course would mean that God is not sovereign in a sense, and cannot make a world where he shows grace to only a specific group of people. Romans 9 is saying that God can do as he pleases with his creation just as the potter can do as he pleases with the pot. It is a hard truth to swallow that God is that sovereign.

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

Concerning James 1:13, it is true that God would never tempt people. James 1 has some interesting greek words in it. It builds up in a fascinating way to verse 13. God can test, but he does not solicit to evil. God can create morally innocent creatures knowing full well that they will choose rebellion (Ex--- Adam). He even allows Satan to tempt, but God does not do that. I also think of the case of Job. God tested Job, God wanted Job destroyed. What God was doing was bragging about Job. He said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, there is none like him in all the earth." When Satan then destroys Jobs wealth, his health, and his family, God did not say "Oh my, I did not mean for that to happen." No, God sovereignty foreknew all that Satan would do, and actually wanted it. Remember, it was God that drew Satans attention to Job. But while God might foreknow and ordain evil to happen in a 2ndary source like Satan, God never participates in it. So God never tempts anyone, but he does use the temptation, and wants it to happen so that he can show his own glory. At times, God will even use the evil, and turn the evil into something good. An example of this would be Genesis 50:20.
Gen 50:20 And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Remember the account of Joseph being put in a pit, and then sold into slavery? The brothers sinned against Joseph so greatly, they feared Joseph would kill them all after the father died. But Joseph saw the sovereignty of God. God wanted Joseph sold into slavery, but God did not participate in that sin. He did not make the brothers more sinful that day so that they would consider murdering a brother. Nevertheless, God wanted it to happen to save many people from famine. So God wanted evil to happen, so that he could show the glory of his goodness, and how he is far greater then sin.

Can God show he is greater then sin without sin happening? It would only be theoretical unless sin happens. For this reason, for his glory, God wants sin to happen, and decreed that it would happen, but never participates in sin.

 

[beartheweak]

When we sin, its not like God waved a magic wand and made us more sinful. No, we were already sinful and we love our sin, and bear total responsibility for our sin.

...

But while God might foreknow and ordain evil to happen in a 2ndary source like Satan, God never participates in it. So God never tempts anyone, but he does use the temptation, and wants it to happen so that he can show his own glory. At times, God will even use the evil, and turn the evil into something good.

...

Can God show he is greater then sin without sin happening? It would only be theoretical unless sin happens. For this reason, for his glory, God wants sin to happen, and decreed that it would happen, but never participates in sin.

I agree that God allows and even planned (ordained) unpleasant situations to happen to people. As I mentioned, I would have an easy time accepting that God can write out every action (including the key strokes I am making now) because the potter can do what he'd like with the clay. What I have a hard time accepting is that He claims to not be the tempter of evil (James 1:13). We also know that he cannot lie. Still, it appears that He is using some kind of seemingly "cheap" loop hole to get around being the "Ultimate" causer of evil. If he preordains every action that a person makes then it doesn't matter if Satan or man's sin-nature is sinning because it couldn't happen in any other way due to the fact that God said it needed to happen. I hate to cheapen the character of God, so I only use the next example as a way to demonstrate my frustration and a simplistic idea. I imagine God as being a leader of an organization who hires a hit-man to do the dirty work of "whacking" someone. This leader that tells the hit-man who to kill is still ultimately just as guilty for the murder as the hit-man is because the leader decreed it.

I know it's a lowsy example and it deals with murdering and not the causation of sin, but the overall idea of the example still stands. The Boss telling Satan to tempt someone is the same as tempting someone himself (especially if he decreed that we would commit a particular sin; i.e. Judas' betrayal of Jesus).

Could an explanation of this this be that God does indeed sometimes decree (ordain) that we will do things that go against His laws (such as the annihilation of people's in the OT via His followers when we're told to love one another as ourselves)? It seems that there have been exceptions to His laws before. This could also be explained by Paul saying "Then it is not I that still commits the sin, but the man within me that sins"? In other words, some sins HAVE to happen because God said they had to happen. Therefore when a believer still sins, it's because God is making the man sin (through the means of Satan/flesh) therefore we aren't responsible for those sins? This could also clarify what the bible tells us that a believer can't sin (or continue in sin) if he is saved (I always thought this verse referred to habitual sin, but I could see it reinterpreted in a more natural way... a way that doesn't imply something to the text).

Sorry for my lengthy thoughts, but I think you helped me to figure this out. Thanks much for forcing me to think about this again! Let me know if you see something wrong with my theory.

 

[JCitoL]

the true God is not a causer of the evil, the appearance of the "darkness"(devil) is its primary causer, while in Romans 9:18-21 it is about the two categories of people which the true God has from the beginning established and they are the true spiritual servants/workers and the users as well as there are both rulers and consumers in each country

Blessings

 

[beartheweak]

the true God is not a causer of the evil, the appearance of the "darkness"(devil) is its primary causer, while in Romans 9:18-21 it is about the two categories of people which the true God has from the beginning established and they are the true spiritual servants/workers and the users as well as there are both rulers and consumers in each country

Blessings

Hmm, CitoL are you saying that Romans 9:18-21 isn't talking about God predestining (electing) whether a person (people) will go to Hell or Heaven?

 

[JCitoL]

Hmm, CitoL are you saying that Romans 9:18-21 isn't talking about God predestining (electing) whether a person (people) will go to Hell or Heaven?

would you choose some of your children to be lifelong exiled in the amazon jungle like tarzan especially when you have possibility to provide a good life for all of them?!, but if even bad people had/have to the utterance fended for their children, then how much more the Heavenly God is fatherly?!, because He is omnipotent and can afford it

Blessings

 

[beartheweak]

would you choose some of your children to be lifelong exiled in the amazon jungle like tarzan especially when you have possibility to provide a good life for all of them?!, but if even bad people had/have to the utterance fended for their children, then how much more the Heavenly God is fatherly?!, because He is omnipotent and can afford it

Blessings

So then why did God place people in bad circumstances? Also, what is your interpretation of Romans 9:18-21?

 

[childeye]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

Dear beartheweak, I understand your question. It is at the surface of theology that men make choices while deeper still is the question of why they choose the way they choose. So how could God desire for all men to come to the knowledge of God while at the same time requiring men to experience sinfulness and see His wrath? The answer is not hard to comprehend but is difficult to explain since flesh is a temporal existence and Spiritual knowledge is an eternal matter. Lost in the dialogue is the fact that there exists semantics in human language wherein one word can be taken to mean different things.

I find it helpful to understand God's purpose so as to understand the dilemna and why there appear to be contradictions in scripture. Apparrantly according to scripture, there is an ignorance that exists in the creation pertaining to the Holiness of God's Character. It is no one's fault that this ignorance exists yet it must be eliminated. This ignorance first appears in heaven in the form of a created Cheribum called Lucifer. This Cheribum has a false image of god at the heart of his reasoning which pre-determines his moral judgments. This same judgment, or moral choice, will be manifested in the existence of men made of flesh who have unwittingly accepted this false image when subtly presented by Satan in the form of a serpent in Eden. This false image is the source of all sin and corruption.

A good analogy is the fact that we all take our parents for granted in ignorance of all that they sacrifice for our wellbeing. We are unappreciative of what is given to us. We will not fully esteem our parents until we come full circle and become parents ourselves. Then we will come to see how we did not esteem our parents properly. God however will in His foresight use that ignorance to garner praise unto Himself. He will cause that ignorance to destroy that same ignorance and bring about knowledge.

The spirit that is Satanic will be folded in on itself so that it destroys it's self. Consequently parents are longsuffering towards their children knowing that they too were once children and ignorant making the leaven of the bread hypocrisy. Hence the merciful receive mercy and the merciless do not, so that the spirit of condemnation is destroyed by the spirit of condemnation. And this is all carried out in the flesh of men which is a temporal existence.

It is as though God knew we would take Him and all He gives us for granted, so He devised a way to experience the loss of His precious gifts so all of heaven and earth might come to appreciate what we all had been given. Once God has taught us the value of Who He is and what He bestows upon us, He will then restore to us what was lost. After all, how else does one address the problem of those who are in paradise trying to fix what was never broken? For all is built upon faith. All of this is God's will.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I think that's another subject altogether. It's clear that in the church, people can't agree on what salvation is (or at least the means of salvation). I think it's at the core of determining which doctrine is true in order to figure out if you're saved or not. I agree with people when they say it's just a secondary thing (to determine God's ultimate plan for salvation), but if it's in the bible, I want to learn about it. I don't like sweeping unresolved issues under the rug.

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 All the men whom God appointed apostles taught no other perspective of salvation.

 

[Grappler]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

God knew before He created anything what was going to happen. So why did He go ahead and create it?? Because he wanted to. The Most High God created other lesser gods who would rebel against His first order. When he created man He gave him freewill and dominion over the Earth...only Adam and Eve had true freewill...the lesser gods who rebelled were angry and jealous and wanted to prove to the Most High that His creation of man was a mistake...hence the story of the nacash tempting Eve in the garden of Eden and so forth and so on....So basically to answer your question....we are not meant to completely understand why things are the way they are ...we are to have faith in God as a little child for such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[mondar]

I agree that God allows and even planned (ordained) unpleasant situations to happen to people. As I mentioned, I would have an easy time accepting that God can write out every action (including the key strokes I am making now) because the potter can do what he'd like with the clay.

: ) Agreed, its call being God.

What I have a hard time accepting is that He claims to not be the tempter of evil (James 1:13). We also know that he cannot lie. Still, it appears that He is using some kind of seemingly "cheap" loop hole to get around being the "Ultimate" causer of evil. If he preordains every action that a person makes then it doesn't matter if Satan or man's sin-nature is sinning because it couldn't happen in any other way due to the fact that God said it needed to happen. I hate to cheapen the character of God, so I only use the next example as a way to demonstrate my frustration and a simplistic idea. I imagine God as being a leader of an organization who hires a hit-man to do the dirty work of "whacking" someone. This leader that tells the hit-man who to kill is still ultimately just as guilty for the murder as the hit-man is because the leader decreed it.

I know it's a lowsy example and it deals with murdering and not the causation of sin, but the overall idea of the example still stands. The Boss telling Satan to tempt someone is the same as tempting someone himself (especially if he decreed that we would commit a particular sin; i.e. Judas' betrayal of Jesus).

I guess all analogies break down somewhere, but I am having trouble equating the picture you paint above with how I understand things. I would not see God as a leader that uses a hit man, but let me give my own analogy. God is more like the the owner of a football stadium who is also a football coach, and also owns all the teams playing. Now all of the teams got together and murdered his son. Even though each and every football player was a part of that, God is such a great football fan, and a great football coach that he still gives the audience their show. But first, he chooses a team and he changes their nature so that they repent of murdering his son and then gives them a play book that will help them win the game. Oh certainly some of his players will be blocked and tackled in the course of the game. Some might get hurt, but he has a great physician that will make sure they are whole at the end of the game. Yeah, the game gets rough because the other side cheats, and pulls all sorts of dirty tricks, but God is such a great coach that he knew what was in their play book and every dirty trick they were going to pull, in fact he even selected that team to play against his team knowing they would play dirty. He just wanted to show that he can still outwit them, so he wanted them to play dirty. He also know their game plan in advance, and could have stopped it, but the nastier they played, the more it showed his own skill and smart coaching. The weird thing is that even the referee's cheated. They penalized the good guys and not the bad guys. One of the good guys even complained, "oh why do the wicked prosper."

If this great and good coach knew the other team was going to cheat, and that the referee's where going to rule unfairly and even wanted them to cheat so that he could still outwit them and still win the game........... what is better, should he have made all the bad guys play fair so that none of his players get hurt? What would impress the crowd more about his coaching? A completely fair and honest game? or one where he picks a cheating team to play the game against his team and then outwits them by his intelligence and skill as a coach.

Now that coach is not tempting the bad guys to play as they do, nor did he write their play book, but he wanted them to play that way.

Is not this closer to the way God's decree of evil works? He ordained evil, he wanted evil to happen, but outsmarts evil and brings glory to himself. Without evil actually happening, God cannot outsmart it. How could we see that, how could we know that if evil never existed. Thus, God ordained evil to happen. He created a world where man was untested in his good or evil ways. God knew man would rebel, but created him because he would rebel, and because he could then show even greater glory in that rebellion.

Could an explanation of this this be that God does indeed sometimes decree (ordain) that we will do things that go against His laws (such as the annihilation of people's in the OT via His followers when we're told to love one another as ourselves)? It seems that there have been exceptions to His laws before. This could also be explained by Paul saying "Then it is not I that still commits the sin, but the man within me that sins"? In other words, some sins HAVE to happen because God said they had to happen. Therefore when a believer still sins, it's because God is making the man sin (through the means of Satan/flesh) therefore we aren't responsible for those sins? This could also clarify what the bible tells us that a believer can't sin (or continue in sin) if he is saved (I always thought this verse referred to habitual sin, but I could see it reinterpreted in a more natural way... a way that doesn't imply something to the text).

Sorry for my lengthy thoughts, but I think you helped me to figure this out. Thanks much for forcing me to think about this again! Let me know if you see something wrong with my theory.

As far as believers sin, that is a different story. Believers sin is a different issue then the illustration I gave above.

I think you are alluding to Romans 7 in your statement above, but I am not sure. If that is Romans 7: 20, it should read like this "But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me."
I am not sure where to begin with this one. There is exegesis that goes back into Chapter 6, and even into chapter 5. It would take way to much space to go through this in detail. I will make only a brief comment.

As believers, we still have the Adamic nature or sin nature in us, but we are no longer slaves of that Adamic/sin nature. We are free to live in obedience to God. Sin dwells in us, but since we are legally free from that sin nature, sin nature is not what we are. So then when we sin, it us sinning (as thought we were slaves of sin), it is that sin nature which still dwells in us like an unwelcome guest.

I am not sure what this has to do with the existence of evil. It seems two different subjects. I am not sure I understand your connection.

Thanks for the chance to talk, and for your courteousness.

 

[JCitoL]

So then why did God place people in bad circumstances? Also, what is your interpretation of Romans 9:18-21?

the true God did/does never place any human in a bad situation, but throughout from the seventh day on He was in a state of somnolence/drowse (even till now), whence He was not fully able to prevent the evil completely, however He has made there be (both) true spiritual servants and ordinary users, but not every human may be a true spiritual servant, neither there is a need because even the small percentage of such are enough, and exactly this is (also) (the) written in Romans 9:18-21

Romans 9:18-33 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy(i.e. He makes a true spiritual servant whom He wills to make (be) such), and whom he will he hardeneth(i.e. and whom He wills He doesn't make (be) a true spiritual servant). Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault(viz. why does He yet restrict)? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour(viz. true righteous servants), and another unto dishonour(viz. just ordinary users)? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath(i.e. the ordinary users) fitted to destruction(i.e. prepared for purification): And that he might make known the riches of his glory(i.e. the glory of overall salvation) on the vessels of mercy(i.e. on the true spiritual servants), which he had afore prepared unto glory(i.e. to glorify), Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews(i.e. not of the clerics/believers) only, but also of the Gentiles(i.e. but also of the infidel/non-occult people)? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel(i.e. concerning the clerics/believers), Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea(i.e. though the number of the clerics/believers may be as the number of the sand particles), a remnant shall be saved(i.e. it is likely only a remnant of them to be accepted as true): For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness(i.e. for He will finish His work shortening the time to a maximum of no more than 5-6 millennia): because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed(i.e. if the true God had not left a righteousness in the faith to the clerics/believers), we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha(i.e. then they would become monstrous idolaters even like the people of sodom and gomorrha). What shall we say then? That the Gentiles(i.e. that the infidel/non-occult people), which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness(i.e. after the faith), hath not attained to the law of righteousness(i.e. to the Holy Law of (the) faith). Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith(i.e. not by (the) right faith), but as it were by the works of the law(i.e. by (the) human religion/spirituality). For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion(i.e. in the world of faith) a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

Blessings

 

[mondar]

beartheweak, You do recognize that many of the other replys being given are not "Reformed theologians?"