The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[Deborah13]

Did God never require His people to continue in all things in the book of the law to do them(Gal 3:10, Deut 27:26) - isn't that something impossible of man, which Christ alone fulfilled?

Yes, of coarse.
But then you ask if it was unjust of God to do that. God is not an unjust God. (Rom. 9:14) Therefore, that should be a simple answer of no. Then there are several reasons that can show how giving the Law was not unjust. But the most obvious reason that God gave the Law to start with, is to glorify Himself. How was God glorified. In more ways than one. But I see most importantly He was glorified in giving His Son. (John 17:1) In doing that, He fulfilled His own law keeping requirement and the remedy for an imperfect man to avoid the curse. Which glorifies Him further in His people. (Matt. 5:17)

 

[ivdavid]

Yes, of coarse.
But then you ask if it was unjust of God to do that. God is not an unjust God. (Rom. 9:14)

Well, I wish I had some way to go back to the OP and edit it stating I personally do not ask this question myself and that I am merely playing devil's advocate(I wish they called this rhetoric device something else) - to show that God is indeed not unjust in doing so, as some happen to believe when God requires the impossible of man unto His own glorious purposes.

Given what you've written here, you'd find we're in close agreement as seen in the latter paragraphs of my post#36.

 

[Deborah13]

Well, I wish I had some way to go back to the OP and edit it stating I personally do not ask this question myself and that I am merely playing devil's advocate(I wish they called this rhetoric device something else) - to show that God is indeed not unjust in doing so, as some happen to believe when God requires the impossible of man unto His own glorious purposes.

Given what you've written here, you'd find we're in close agreement as seen in the latter paragraphs of my post#36.

Yes, I saw that. I do think we are in close agreement.

 

[bcbsr]

The only thought I will comment on this is who are we to judge what is or is not fair or acceptable with regard to God and what He does? We are merely the clay are we not? To me that is where we often get ourselves into trouble. God is in control, not us.

If we were merely "clay", that is, an inanimate object, issues of justice don't come into play. Since inanimate objects can neither sin nor do what is right, how can in ananimate object be held accountable for things over which it has no control.

Indeed that is the position of Calvinism, namely that we are nothing but puppets and as stated above from a Calvinistic viewpoint, we are not in control, God is in control.

Now since God is in control, the when sin occurs it's God was commits it in puppetlike fashion. But then the puppet gets the blame for the sin. So Calvinism portrays God as playing Barbi dolls. He pretends that his doll sins and then throws it into the fire. Much as He has the right to throw away his puppets, He cannot claim that such is a judicial matter

 

[bcbsr]

I suppose so. I guess I've been unclear about what exactly I'm driving at with my OP. I'll simply paste a snippet that I'd copied some time ago, which is in opposition to the reformed doctrine of total depravity -

"I cannot be UNABLE and RESPONSIBLE at the same time. Consider the legal concept of depraved indifference. If a man watches as a little child falls into a pool and drowns . . . and does nothing to save her . . . you will judge him to be vile and guilty and prosecutable for depraved indifference. But what if you are told that he was watching from a wheelchair, totally disabled from a degenerative disease, and even unable to speak? Is he guilty? Of course not – he was Totally Unable to help the child. ABLE means RESPONSIBLE. NOT ABLE means NOT RESPONSIBLE. Everyone understands justice in such matters. God is not less just than we are."

I simply wanted to delink this kind of association to avoid the very doctrine of Total Depravity being considered unjust.

It can't be avoided. It's inherent to the theology of Calvinism. .Calvinism's response is simply that people aren't allowed to make that observation. To turn a blind eye to the obvious. Their justification is what Paul intended in Romans 9 as a ridicule towards the "Calivinist" mindset.

 

[WIP]

If we were merely "clay", that is, an inanimate object, issues of justice don't come into play. Since inanimate objects can neither sin nor do what is right, how can in ananimate object be held accountable for things over which it has no control.

Indeed that is the position of Calvinism, namely that we are nothing but puppets and as stated above from a Calvinistic viewpoint, we are not in control, God is in control.

Now since God is in control, the when sin occurs it's God was commits it in puppetlike fashion. But then the puppet gets the blame for the sin. So Calvinism portrays God as playing Barbi dolls. He pretends that his doll sins and then throws it into the fire. Much as He has the right to throw away his puppets, He cannot claim that such is a judicial matter

Jeremiah 18:5-6 NKJV
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!

Isaiah 64:8 NKJV
8 But now, O Lord,
You are our Father;
We are the clay, and You our potter;
And all we are the work of Your hand.

Isaiah 45:9 NKJV
9 “Woe to him who strives with his Maker!
Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth!
Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’
Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’?

And I won't post the entire text but also see Job 38-39 and ending with God's final question in chapter 40:2 NKJV
2 “Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him?
He who rebukes God, let him answer it.”

 

[ivdavid]

While I do acknowledge this earlier point raised in the OP is not yet concluded upon, I'd still like to begin discussing the next point -
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I have heard evangelists lead people to the sinner's prayer by using this verse to prove Rom 3:23 - stating that if we have committed even one sin in our whole life, such as uttering a lie or the sorts at any point in our life, we are according to Jas 2:10 held guilty of not keeping the whole law - thereby deserving condemnation and requiring Christ's sacrifice.

Is this a fair interpretation of Jas 2:10? I'm strongly inclined not to think so - I shall state my reasons in a subsequent post, but for now would like to know the alternate interpretations of this verse.

 

[ivdavid]

It can't be avoided. It's inherent to the theology of Calvinism.

Hi. Well, we've spent quite a lot of posts discussing this, considering Scripture and consistent interpretations. Could you specifically point out which part of Scripture that's been cited here or which particular inference raised on this thread you disagree with and why - that way, we could proceed with discussions beyond the initial assertions.

And who said anything about Calvinism here? We've got a Lutheran here who believes in total depravity - and who's explained how a person could hold on to certain parts of reformed doctrines without holding on to the others. Why reduce this thread to yet another denominational spat when it isn't meant to be one.

 

[Deborah13]

Jeremiah 18:5-6 NKJV
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!

Surely God can do anything He wants with Israel or us, we are His creation. In this case, He was talking about their destruction that He was going to bring on them, because of what they did.
In the very next chapter of Jeremiah that is what He says. He also said, that they had done things that He did not have anything to do with....
Jer 19:5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire, burnt-offerings to Baal, that I commanded not, nor spake of, nor did it come up on My heart.
He repeats it again.....
Jer 32:35 And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.

He says very clearly that He did not cause Judah to sin, therefore He didn't mold their clay to do that.
That does not take away from the fact that God is in control. He could have stopped them.

 

[Deborah13]

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

but for now would like to know the alternate interpretations of this verse.

mi.
James is saying they had broken the covenant. He didn't mean they were literally guilty of murder, etc. But the Law, was a legal document, so if one part of it was broken, the covenant in it's entirety had been broken (or not fulfilled). One cannot just do some things and think they are fulfilling a covenant/contract.
I hire someone to build a house. The contract lists the rooms that house will include and the description/specs, for each room.
He thinks he has fulfilled the contract, but he didn't install one bathroom sink, he hasn't fulfilled the contract. He's not guilty of not installing the carpet, just not the sink, and yet the contract has not been fulfilled.

 

[WIP]

Surely God can do anything He wants with Israel or us, we are His creation. In this case, He was talking about their destruction that He was going to bring on them, because of what they did.
In the very next chapter of Jeremiah that is what He says. He also said, that they had done things that He did not have anything to do with....
Jer 19:5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire, burnt-offerings to Baal, that I commanded not, nor spake of, nor did it come up on My heart.
He repeats it again.....
Jer 32:35 And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.

He says very clearly that He did not cause Judah to sin, therefore He didn't mold their clay to do that.
That does not take away from the fact that God is in control. He could have stopped them.

My point was that we are the clay and God is the potter. It is not our place to call into question God's actions or motives. His ways are higher than our ways.

Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJV
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

We may ask but only to gain understanding but not judge Him. I'm probably taking this too far off topic.

 

[Deborah13]

My point was that we are the clay and God is the potter. It is not our place to call into question God's actions or motives. His ways are higher than our ways.

I agree.

imo,
What we should be trying to determine is IF something is God's actions or some misplaced and incorrect view of what God does. If we can determine that God did/does something then it's a settled fact and we just need to accept it, whether we understand or not.

 

[Chopper]

Deborah: I think we're close enough on this one not to "quarrel over words" so to speak.

Chopper: Old and New Covenant theology are the same, they both point to Christ as the atonement for our Sin. One looks ahead for salvation and one looks back, Christ died for all Sins past, present, and future(Romans 6:10 ESV)(1 Peter 3:18 ESV).
Sorry for snapping at you, I've been on hold with government organizations all day , I lashed my anger out at you and that was wrong.

I hope you won't mind or be upset if I give you a little forum posting instruction....There are quite a few "new believers" who come to be members in this very popular Forum. As a result, we have to be very careful that we state our points considering how those who read it interpret it. Example:

If we were merely "clay", that is, an inanimate object, issues of justice don't come into play. Since inanimate objects can neither sin nor do what is right, how can in ananimate object be held accountable for things over which it has no control.

Indeed that is the position of Calvinism, namely that we are nothing but puppets and as stated above from a Calvinistic viewpoint, we are not in control, God is in control.

Now since God is in control, the when sin occurs it's God was commits it in puppetlike fashion. But then the puppet gets the blame for the sin. So Calvinism portrays God as playing Barbi dolls. He pretends that his doll sins and then throws it into the fire. Much as He has the right to throw away his puppets, He cannot claim that such is a judicial matter

Wow! Talk about insulting the Almighty YHVH, but insulting Calvinism as well. I don't think I've ever heard of such contempt.

 

[bcbsr]

Jeremiah 18:5-6
Isaiah 64:8
Isaiah 45:9
And I won't post the entire text but also see Job 38-39 and ending with God's final question in chapter 40:2 NKJV
2 “Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him?
He who rebukes God, let him answer it.”

Concerning

Jeremiah 18:5-6
Isaiah 64:8
Isaiah 45:9
Job38-40

The context of the verses indicate that the "pottery" analogy is not referring to behavior.

For example Jer 18:7+ says, "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it."

Indicating that God is not in control of behavior.

Is 64:8 is followed by "I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in a way that is not good, According to their own thoughts"

Is 45:9 is following by "Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you begetting?’ Or to the woman, ‘What have you brought forth?’"

Indicating that the analogy of pottery is talking about being one's father and mother, and not that one is in control of their behavior.

And again the passage in Job is simply referring generically to creation and not to behavior.

So while Calvinists insist that they are nothing but pieces of pottery, which would explain their irrational view of scripture, and incapable of being reasoned with, just as pottery is incapable of rational thought, yet it's rather obvious to the rest of us that such theology is foolish.

Now while the Calvinist is incapable of rational thought, being merely inanimate pieces of pottery, what are the implications of the Calvinist position. Well, for example, if God is in control of everything, then as I noted before, all a persons actions, and even his speech is God controlling him in puppetlike fashion. Now if that's the case then the Calvinist has to concede that whatever I say is the Word of God, since I'm merely a puppet controlled by God. And if one sins, it's really God who sins. These are implications of Calvinism. Yet these obvious implications evade the Calvinist seeing as they reckon themselves mindless pieces of pottery incapable of rational thought. So they spout off scripture without bothering to check the context.

In Romans 9 Paul made fun of those of such a theology in his day, who interpreted the "pottery analogy" to include behavior, who said, ""Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" God finds fault with that which he doesn't control, else he would be finding fault with Himself. But the Calvinist views hell-fire as not a judicial matter, but rather as Jonathan Edwards, a Calvinists said, in his famous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", that throwing people into hell is like dangling a spider over a fire.

The Biblical concept of justice is largely absent in Calvinism. And so it logically should be, as you can't speak of justice with regards to that which is an inanimate object. Yet the Bible says, "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully." Pr 28:5

 

[bcbsr]

While I do acknowledge this earlier point raised in the OP is not yet concluded upon, I'd still like to begin discussing the next point -
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I have heard evangelists lead people to the sinner's prayer by using this verse to prove Rom 3:23 - stating that if we have committed even one sin in our whole life, such as uttering a lie or the sorts at any point in our life, we are according to Jas 2:10 held guilty of not keeping the whole law - thereby deserving condemnation and requiring Christ's sacrifice.

Is this a fair interpretation of Jas 2:10? I'm strongly inclined not to think so - I shall state my reasons in a subsequent post, but for now would like to know the alternate interpretations of this verse.

Better verse would be Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

 

[bcbsr]

Hi. Well, we've spent quite a lot of posts discussing this, considering Scripture and consistent interpretations. Could you specifically point out which part of Scripture that's been cited here or which particular inference raised on this thread you disagree with and why - that way, we could proceed with discussions beyond the initial assertions.

And who said anything about Calvinism here? We've got a Lutheran here who believes in total depravity - and who's explained how a person could hold on to certain parts of reformed doctrines without holding on to the others. Why reduce this thread to yet another denominational spat when it isn't meant to be one.

So you're saying that Calvinism doesn't refer to a reformed doctrine? So we should just stick to Lutheran theology? Now aren't you making it a denominational spat? Maybe you should have entitled it stumbling blocks of Lutheran theology.

 

[WIP]

Concerning

Jeremiah 18:5-6
Isaiah 64:8
Isaiah 45:9
Job38-40

The context of the verses indicate that the "pottery" analogy is not referring to behavior.

For example Jer 18:7+ says, "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it."

Indicating that God is not in control of behavior.

Is 64:8 is followed by "I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in a way that is not good, According to their own thoughts"

Is 45:9 is following by "Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you begetting?’ Or to the woman, ‘What have you brought forth?’"

Indicating that the analogy of pottery is talking about being one's father and mother, and not that one is in control of their behavior.

And again the passage in Job is simply referring generically to creation and not to behavior.

So while Calvinists insist that they are nothing but pieces of pottery, which would explain their irrational view of scripture, and incapable of being reasoned with, just as pottery is incapable of rational thought, yet it's rather obvious to the rest of us that such theology is foolish.

Now while the Calvinist is incapable of rational thought, being merely inanimate pieces of pottery, what are the implications of the Calvinist position. Well, for example, if God is in control of everything, then as I noted before, all a persons actions, and even his speech is God controlling him in puppetlike fashion. Now if that's the case then the Calvinist has to concede that whatever I say is the Word of God, since I'm merely a puppet controlled by God. And if one sins, it's really God who sins. These are implications of Calvinism. Yet these obvious implications evade the Calvinist seeing as they reckon themselves mindless pieces of pottery incapable of rational thought. So they spout off scripture without bothering to check the context.

In Romans 9 Paul made fun of those of such a theology in his day, who interpreted the "pottery analogy" to include behavior, who said, ""Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" God finds fault with that which he doesn't control, else he would be finding fault with Himself. But the Calvinist views hell-fire as not a judicial matter, but rather as Jonathan Edwards, a Calvinists said, in his famous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", that throwing people into hell is like dangling a spider over a fire.

The Biblical concept of justice is largely absent in Calvinism. And so it logically should be, as you can't speak of justice with regards to that which is an inanimate object. Yet the Bible says, "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully." Pr 28:5

I do not believe the potter and clay analogy has anything to do with behavior. I believe it has everything to do with ownership. We do not own ourselves; God owns us. He created us afterall. God is always in control. Whether or not He takes control is another matter. This is where I believe free will comes into the picture. He has given us the ability to love Him of our own volition. After all, if He forced us to love Him, it really wouldn't be love. He waits for us to take that step of faith.

Revelation 3:20 NKJV
20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."

 

[Deborah13]

After all, if He forced us to love Him, it really wouldn't be love.

:nod

 

[Malachi]

If we were merely "clay", that is, an inanimate object, issues of justice don't come into play. Since inanimate objects can neither sin nor do what is right, how can in ananimate object be held accountable for things over which it has no control.

Romans 9:14-23 is frequently misapplied to how God chooses to save some and condemn others to Hell. The example of Pharaoh is given here, and how God hardened his heart so that eventually he and his people would be destroyed and condemned to Hell. And this is where the analogy of the potter and the clay comes in. What many generally miss is that Pharaoh had already hardened his heart long before God hardened it. Note Exod 5:1-7:
1And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
2And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.
3And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.
4 And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens.
5 And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.
6 And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people, and their officers, saying,
7 Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves.
Could Pharaoh have obeyed God at this point? Absolutely
Should Pharaoh have obeyed God at this point? Absolutely
Did he not adamantly refuse to obey, and instead heaped more cruelty on the Israelites because his heart was already hard? Yes

So when we come to Exod 7:13, God hardens his heart. This is true for all sinners, who are all given ample opportunity to repent, but when they resist the Holy Spirit God hardens their hearts. Thus it was with those who were delivered from Pharaoh but then hardened their hearts in the wilderness. Therefore we have this warning in Heb 3:7-19:
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

So why would God plead with sinners NOT TO harden their hearts if He had already planned and purposed to harden their hearts and send them to Hell? This passage is another strong evidence that no one is predestined for Hell, and that the Divine Potter does not pre-form some vessels for destruction. He foresees their hardness, but He does not create their hardness, just as He foresees the faith of others and therefore calls them "the elect".

 

[Deborah13]

Romans 9:14-23 is frequently misapplied to how God chooses to save some and condemn others to Hell. The example of Pharaoh is given here, and how God hardened his heart so that eventually he and his people would be destroyed and condemned to Hell. And this is where the analogy of the potter and the clay comes in. What many generally miss is that Pharaoh had already hardened his heart long before God hardened it. Note Exod 5:1-7:
1And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
2And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.
3And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.
4 And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens.
5 And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.
6 And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people, and their officers, saying,
7 Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves.
Could Pharaoh have obeyed God at this point? Absolutely
Should Pharaoh have obeyed God at this point? Absolutely
Did he not adamantly refuse to obey, and instead heaped more cruelty on the Israelites because his heart was already hard? Yes

So when we come to Exod 7:13, God hardens his heart. This is true for all sinners, who are all given ample opportunity to repent, but when they resist the Holy Spirit God hardens their hearts. Thus it was with those who were delivered from Pharaoh but then hardened their hearts in the wilderness. Therefore we have this warning in Heb 3:7-19:
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

So why would God plead with sinners NOT TO harden their hearts if He had already planned and purposed to harden their hearts and send them to Hell? This passage is another strong evidence that no one is predestined for Hell, and that the Divine Potter does not pre-form some vessels for destruction. He foresees their hardness, but He does not create their hardness, just as He foresees the faith of others and therefore calls them "the elect".

Good post.