A Summary of the Cal/Arm debate as I see it...

Exactly, I'm glad we are in agreement.

Verse 24 perfectly supports my view that the lump of clay represents Israel and that he is expounding the idea that the vessels made for glory extend to the Gentiles as well. He has bound all men over to disobedience so as to have mercy on them all, both Jew and Gentile.

 

Yep, we are.

He made know the riches of His glory upon those special chosen vessels of Israel (such as Paul and the apostles), which he had predestined for this noble purpose before the foundation of the world unto his glory being preached throughout the earth, even us, who he also called (again apostles from Israel), but not only us the Jews, but also those he is grafting in, those he is calling to repentance, those who "will listen" (acts 28:28), the Gentiles.

Linguistic scholar and highly respected commentator, Adam Clarke, supports this view:

 

Allan,

As I said, I'm not with my books, but just a quick search online did turn up this quote from Clarke that illustrates my point well. This is his commentary on the 1 Cor 2 passage:

Notice how he equate the demonstrations of the HS with the preaching of the gospel? The doctrine he preached WAS "a revelation of the Spirit." That is the point I'm attempting to make here. It's not so much that I'm attempting to discredit your point regarding the need of a demonstration of the HS, just point out that the preaching of God's word IS a demonstration of the HS and thus the chosen "normative" means by which He brings men understanding.

Does that make sense? Again, I'll look for some other sources when I get to the house....

 

Here is some more from Clarke in that same chapter that also supports this point:

See, the mystery is revealed through the glorious preaching of those inspired, the apostles of Christ. Much of the NT is being written in a world that hasn't heard this "glorious revelation" thus it remains a mystery to most...and until they hear the glorious HS wrought revelation which makes this mystery manifest it remains mysterious....more to come...

 

Allan,

Not trying to sand bag you here, but a passage you should consider in this discussion is Titus 2:


Titus 2:
so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age…

Notice how he equates the grace of God that appears to all men with the "TEACHINGS?" He wants the teachings to be seen as "attractive" because that is God's gracious means to make appeal to the all men to be reconciled to God.

I've not seen it laid out this way, but I just came across this Comparison between Protestants table:

This table summarizes the classical views of three different Protestant beliefs.
Lutheranism: Conversion Through the means of grace, resistible
Calvinism: Through Grace alone, irresistible
Arminianism: By Grace through Faith and is resistible

So, according to this particular (and admittedly incomplete table), my view might fall more in line with the more "Lutheran" brand of non-Calvinism, but this does show that "my" view is not without historical/scholarly/orthodox backing...which is what I think you were seeking.

I've got some more quotes, but I'll stop there for now and let you have time to reply...

 

Allan,

I know I said that's all I would give you to view, but there is a great article that describes the differences in Calvinism and Lutheranism as it relates to this point of our contention:

I think that makes my point well, but you are right that this particular distinction is not "Arminian" per say, but more "non-Calvinistic" but also not purely "Lutheran" either...just "lutheran" in this one respect...

Thoughts?

 

There are numerous moderators, most of which are Calvinistic in their theology. My being a moderator doesn't give me the ability to cut you off or edit your views. If I did then TomVols, who is a Reformed believer that I respect and a Administrator, would correct me. We can only edit offensive language and personal attacks. Stay away from those tactics, discuss the issues and there won't be a problem.

Fact: You don't believe God loves and genuinely calls all (even the non-elect) to salvation.

Fact: Men like John MacArthur appose this view and label it as tending toward "hyperism."

I merely pointed out those two facts. I did so respectfully and without malice.

You are always welcome to start a new thread on a particular topic. You can't challenge individuals to a personal debate since this is an open forum. I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion of the topics, but personal attacks will not be tolerated.

 

That passage is addressed well by the ligustic scholar Adam Clarke HERE>

Notice that they weren't even given the right to become children of God until the first "received him." So, it not those who pursue him, by running and willing after the law, but those who receive him by faith who are given the right to become his child. This parallels perfectly with Romans 9 which says in concluding:

"30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Correct. The HS built the car [gospe] from the ground up and drives the car, thus anything the gospel accomplishes is properly seen has a direct work of the Holy Spirit. Thanks for clarifying that truth.

 

I didn't leave it out. I explained that the "lump of clay" represents Israel and there are vessels of honor (apostles) and dishonor (hardened Jew/cut off) being created out of that same lump. But he expands his illustration to include not only the Jews but those now being called (grafted in), the Gentile nations.

Notice that when one says Israel they mean one nation, but Gentile is not one nation. It simply means all the nations that aren't Israel. Thus, passages like Acts 13 could very well be talking about how the nations God had appointed to be grafted in were proving this through their belief. If you look at the context of this passage, it is clear that there is a serious debate over the idea of God's desire to save non-Jewish nations. The proof of God's appointing of the different nations to be grafted into the gospel church is their faith in that gospel.

Got to run, but will answer the rest of your post later... Blessings!

 

You say that as if Adam Clarke and his commentary on this verse somehow refutes "free will soteriology" when you and I both know full well that Clarke is an "Arminian" scholar, which would be clear if the previous paragraph had been quoted along with the one you provided, "He who is made a child of God enjoys the greatest privilege which the Divine Being can confer on this side eternity. Those who accept Jesus Christ, as he is offered to them in the Gospel, have, through his blood, a right to this sonship; for by that sacrifice this blessing was purchased; and the fullest promises of God confirm it to all who believe."

My emphasis in not on my "free will" theology, I don't make the mistake of trying to read my theological dogma into the text. Instead, my emphasis is to discover the intent of the author in his historical context. The debate of that day was not Cal/Arm, it was Jew/Gentile. The Jews were 'running/willing/pursuing' salvation as if it were by the works of the law, while Gentiles were receiving it by faith. That is the distinction being drawn by Paul. You apply it, falsely IMO, to support your systematic dogma of individual election of certain people to the neglect of all others. I simply read it within the context of the Jews, who are being cut off, while the Gentiles are being grafted in.

As Paul himself summaries the chapter by saying, "30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Correct. And at that moment in history God was showing mercy to the Gentiles (yes individually as well as corporately), by grafting them into the church and sending them the gospel appeal to be reconciled to God. At the same time he was Hardening the Jews by cutting them off from the gospel (blinding them from it). In the mix of all this, God is fulfilling the prophecy that redemption of the world will come through Israel by reserving from Israel a remnant who are not being hardened, but who have been selected to carry the gospel message to the whole world. They were from Israel, hand selected for a noble purpose. Not because they were better or had earned that appointment (Paul, was the chief of sinners and killing believers), but he was molded out of the same lump of clay (Israel) as the rest of the Jews who were being hardened.

Does that mean the rest of Israel who was hardened are the non-elect reprobates who have no hope of being saved! "BY NO MEANS!!!" Paul says that he makes much of his ministry to the Gentiles because it may provoke the hardened ones to envy so as to be saved (Rm 11:14).

So, In your view those being "shown mercy" are the elect ones who will certainly be saved, and those being "hardened" are the non-elect ones who will certainly be condemned, but that is NOT a possible interpretation of the text if you consider the entire context, which is not divided by chapters and verses. It must be seen in the entire passage of the letter included chapters 9 when he starts the discussion wishing himself accursed for the sake of his fellow country men who are being 'cut off,' through the concluding doxology of chapter 11.

So, lets compare your view to mine with ALL the context in FULL view:

Those being shown mercy are the unclean Gentiles (those being grafted in) and if they get proud and unbelieving they too may be cut off (Read Romans 11). Which means being "shown mercy" or being "grafted in" doesn't mean the individual will certainly be saved...it just means they have the ability or opportunity to be saved "if they continue in their belief."

Those being hardened are the rebellious Jews (those being cut off), and if they "leave their unbelief" they too may be grafted back in (Read Romans 11). Which means being "hardened" or being "cut off" doesn't mean the individual will certainly be condemned to hell...it just means they are being judged for their rebellion, but they may be provoked by envy and could "leave their unbelief" to be "grafted in again." If the unnatural branches (Gentiles) can be grafted in (shown mercy), how much more can the natural branches be grafted in (shown mercy), if they leave their unbelief.

 

I'm typically accused of saying Romans 9 doesn't include individuals, but that is not true. Let me summarize what I was just explaining by looking at 3 individuals being discussed in Romans 9-11:

The Hardened Jew:
1. Loved by Paul to the point he wishes himself accursed for their sake
2. Pursuing, running after, willing to be saved through the law
3. Not being shown mercy, but chosen for "common use."
4. The one who might cry out, "Why did you create me like this?"
5. God held out his hands to them in mercy for years but they were rebellious and unwilling (Rm 10:21; Matt 23:37)
6. Cut off from the tree
7. Hardened in their unbelief, blinded from the gospel
8. But may be provoked to envy, grafted back in and shown mercy if they leave their unbelief (Rom. 11)

The Divinely Appointed Jew- like Paul himself
1. Individually hand picked by God from Israel for a "noble purpose"
2. He didn't deserve it. He was picked before he had done anything good or bad (just like Jacob's election over Esau, both children of the seed)
3. Reserved from the "hardening of Israel"
4. Taught the mysteries of the Kingdom by Christ himself
5. Sent to tell the world and make appeal for all to be reconciled

The Gentile
1. Being shown mercy
2. Grafted into the tree
3. Could be cut off if they "leave their unbelief" or become proud (Rm 11)

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

The Jew was shown mercy through the law and prophets while the Gentiles were blind; now the Gentiles are being shown mercy through the gospel and apostles while the Jews are blinded. He bound them all over to blindness, so as to show mercy to them all.

 

Do you believe the Spirit COULD have chosen to work on them to understand through normative means, like preaching? For example, a teenager is reading the gospel, but just doesn't get it. A minister sees him, feels a prompting to go sit down and speak with him. The teen says I just don't understand some of these things. The minister sits and explains the truth in a way the teen can understand. The teen repents and is baptized. Isn't that what happened to Philip and the Ethiopian? He asked for help and Philip taught him so he believed? How will they know unless someone tells them?

Again, you are making an unneeded distinction. After all, what is the preacher preaching except the words themselves? I'm not sure I understand your point.

I'm not claiming Clarke and I agree on every aspect of this point. But this particular quote actually makes my point. Notice the parts I left emboldened. The Gospel was Divine, and "these things" contained within it, which were just being made known, we mysteries, or "beyond man's wisdom and comprehension," but in the next line he says, "God was now in a certain way become manifest..." In other words, the gospel being revealed through the apostles, who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, is making God and these mysteries "manifest" or clear. Which is what he was indicating when he said, "This is the Spirit of God, which spoke by the prophets, and has now given to the apostles the fullness of that heavenly truth."

Actually, I believe his intent is to say that they were beyond man's wisdom and comprehension UNTIL they were revealed by the apostles through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Which again, is why he said, "This is the Spirit of God, which spoke by the prophets, and has now given to the apostles the fullness of that heavenly truth."

How did the apostles come to know this mysteries? By Divine Inspiration.

How do we come to know this mysteries? By testimony of the those divinely inspired. (Preaching, scriptures, church---all of which are lead, carried, preserved and moved by the HS still today)

You are attempting to make the argument that because the apostles were revealed these mysteries by divine inspiration that the same divine inspiration is needed to understand their testimony of that divine inspiration, which is simply not supported. In fact, why did God have the apostles write or preach what was revealed to them, when the Holy Spirit could accomplish in everyone the exact same thing he accomplished in the apostles? In fact, why is there apostolic authority when we apparently have the same divine inspiration as they did? See my point?

Really? Was regeneration another word for the quickening or awaking of the spirit? And I guess they believed everyone was regenerated but not saved? Do you know where this is written about so I can read it?

Where do you stand? If you are apart of the "divergence" then couldn't the same argument be made against your posts as the one you've leveled against mine?

Well, according to what you just said about Clarke and the classical Arminian view that regeneration proceeds faith view, I'd say there is not an Arminian among us, is there???

Would you be interested in defending the more classical Arminian view in light of the biblical data, rather than just through historical labels? You didn't address the article I pointed on with regard to the Lutheran position on this particular subject, but clearly their is an historical precedence for the manner in which I view the working of God through normative means. I dare say, its a much more biblically support view as well, but maybe I'm biased?