Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized

[Humble Disciple]

My intent on this forum has not been to convince others that Calvinism is true, but only that they should be more tolerant of Calvinists, especially since some of history's greatest missionaries and evangelists have been Calvinists.

I have to plead ignorance on Romans 9, the scripture most cited by Calvinists to support their doctrine of unconditional election, because I didn't start reading the Book of Jeremiah until a few days ago.

When Paul uses the potter and clay analogy in Romans 9, it's unthinkable that Paul, as the Pharisee of Pharisees, didn't have Jeremiah 18 in mind:

Jeremiah 18
The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’
12 “But they say, ‘That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’

As one can see, the potter makes Israel a vessel fit for destruction due to its free-willed choice to reject God. Otherwise, Jeremiah 18:12 doesn't make any logical sense, "That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart."

Calvinists, by insisting that humans have no free will whatsoever to obey God, not even to accept God's offer of salvation by faith alone through grace alone, are taking the side of the objector in Jeremiah 18:12.

The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God's grace is irresistible. While Calvinists insist that God's enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it. (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11)

The most natural reading of Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, especially in light of Jeremiah 18:12, is that God's decision of election is based on His foreknowledge of who would accept God's free offer of grace and who wouldn't, and is thus conditional, not unconditional.

I find it amazing that Calvinism takes the argument of Israel, against God. Jeremiah 18:12-13 states: “But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ Therefore thus says the LORD, ‘Ask now among the nations, who ever heard the like of this? The virgin of Israel has done a most appalling thing.’” God is basically saying of Calvinism, “who ever heard the like of this?” God is not just disagreeing with Calvinism, He finds it “appalling.” What they are missing is the fact that although God recognized their inability to keep the Law, He held that as absolutely no excuse to prevent them from repenting, and returning to Him, in order to receive His mercy.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/Jer18_6.html

 

[Iconoclast]

My intent on this forum has not been to convince others that Calvinism is true, but only that they should be more tolerant of Calvinists, especially since some of history's greatest missionaries and evangelists have been Calvinists.

I have to plead ignorance on Romans 9, the scripture most cited by Calvinists to support their doctrine of unconditional election, because I didn't start reading the Book of Jeremiah until a few days ago.

When Paul uses the potter and clay analogy in Romans 9, it's unthinkable that Paul, as the Pharisee of Pharisees, didn't have Jeremiah 18 in mind:



As one can see, the potter makes Israel a vessel fit for destruction due to its free-willed choice to reject God. Otherwise, Jeremiah 18:12 doesn't make any logical sense, "That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart."

Calvinists, by insisting that humans have no free will whatsoever to obey God, not even to accept God's offer of grace alone through faith alone, are taking the side of the objector in Jeremiah 18:12.

The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God's grace is irresistible. While Calvinists insist that God's enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it.

The most natural reading of Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, especially in light of Jeremiah 18:12, is that God's decision of election is based on His foreknowledge of who would accept God's free offer of grace and who wouldn't, and is thus conditional, not unconditional.

Maybe you should refrain from being a Calvinist spokesperson until you learn the position.
Who is that Hippie in your avatar?

 

[Humble Disciple]

Maybe you should refrain from being a Calvinist spokesperson until you learn the position.

I still consider Calvinism a legitimate understanding of scripture and Calvinists as our brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm not going to stop defending the right of Calvinists to be Calvinists.

John Wesley and George Whitefield accomplished great things together precisely because they were able to agree to disagree on predestination.

My intent on this forum has not been to convince others that Calvinism is true, but only that they should be more tolerant of Calvinists, especially since some of history's greatest missionaries and evangelists have been Calvinists.

Who is that Hippie in your avatar?

Your Lord and Savior was a first-century Palestinian Jew, of mixed African and Middle Eastern descent.

Matthew 1:1-14 - The genealogy of Jesus, in which four Afro-Asiatic women are included: Rahab, Tamar, Ruth, and Bathsheba.
https://bibleresources.americanbible.org/resource/blacks-in-biblical-antiquity

 

[Humble Disciple]

Please keep in mind that I disproved Calvinism on my own, based on my reading of scripture alone, rather than of what anti-Calvinists have to say.

I prayed for God to reveal to me whether Calvinism is true or untrue, and then I read the Bible until I had an answer.

If scripture is self-interpreting, as the Reformers insisted upon, then Romans 9 must be read in light of Jeremiah 18.

Nonetheless, I still believe we should be accepting of Calvinists as our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ecclesiastes 7:18
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

 

[Humble Disciple]

Please also keep in mind that Jacobus Arminius himself was also from the Reformed tradition, and he was taught by Theodore Beza, a disciple of John Calvin.

No one looks at scripture from an entirely neutral viewpoint. That's why it's good to get various perspectives. While the Bible itself is infallible, our interpretations are not.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are free to post whatever you want, and believe what you want.
Second commandment violations, strange ideas, all find there way here.
Several have expected sooner or later a fifth column was at work and would manifest itself.
Guess it was sooner.

 

[kyredneck]

a fifth column

???

 

[Iconoclast]

No one goes from claiming to be a Calvinist, to posting the works of Charles Finney overnight.
Your Graceless attacks on John MacArthur, and James White reveal your disingenuous agenda.

 

[Iconoclast]

???

Kyred, a fifth column is a term for enemies to pretend to be part of the army, they dress up, and play the part, they attempt to infiltrate. Then when they thing it is time they attack.
He just posted the works of Charles Finney,lol
Willis was asking me what is up with this guy,lol
We saw it coming

 

[Iconoclast]

He might have pulled it down,lol.
But I will see if it is still to be found

Hey HD, where did you hide your Charles Finney post???

 

[kyredneck]

If scripture is self-interpreting

It generally is, if you let it and then accept it (imo most don't)

You wouldn't have made this statement if you'd let the scriptures self interpret:

As one can see, the potter makes Israel a vessel

Let the scriptures self interpret, it's not about Jews only:

23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

Also notices the plurality of 'vessels', NOT vessel, and the pronouns show Ro 9 is about INDIVIDUALS NOT A NATION:

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Ro 9

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8
The Objector in Romans 9 is an Arminian

 

[Humble Disciple]

No one goes from claiming to be a Calvinist, to posting the works of Charles Finney overnight.

Perhaps I have not said anything favorable toward Charles Finney, until this time, out of fear of being accused of Pelagianism, as John MacArthur and his ilk would do.

Who is the real Charles Finney?

Do you have anything specific to say about Charles Finney, in his own words, that you disagree with?

Your Graceless attacks on John MacArthur, and James White reveal your disingenuous agenda.

Nope, I'm still the same person I've been all along. I love Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, John Piper, Matt Chandler, John Calvin, etc. while not having as much love for joyless partisans of any stripe.

John Calvin: Not a Calvinist

I have been able to prove that, out of sympathy for good-willed and fair Calvinists like John Piper, I will go up to bat for them when I feel like they are unfairly being attacked as heretics. Why wouldn't I do the same for Charles Finney or William Lane Craig?

Since these are all people who, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, accept essential Christian doctrines, why wouldn't I defend my fellow brothers in Christ when I feel they are being unfairly attacked?

 

[Humble Disciple]

Also notices the plurality of 'vessels', NOT vessel, and the pronouns show Ro 9 is about INDIVIDUALS NOT A NATION:

When did I say that Romans 9 is not about individuals?

The most natural reading of Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, especially in light of Jeremiah 18:12, is that God's decision of election is based on His foreknowledge of who would accept God's free offer of grace and who wouldn't, and is thus conditional, not unconditional.

What do the words "foreknow" and "foreknowledge" mean to you in Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2?

 

[AustinC]

Please keep in mind that I disproved Calvinism on my own, based on my reading of scripture alone, rather than of what anti-Calvinists have to say.

I prayed for God to reveal to me whether Calvinism is true or untrue, and then I read the Bible until I had an answer.

If scripture is self-interpreting, as the Reformers insisted upon, then Romans 9 must be read in light of Jeremiah 18.

Nonetheless, I still believe we should be accepting of Calvinists as our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ecclesiastes 7:18
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

You should probably remove the word "humble" from your name...

Paul often references the Old Testament to connect his present thoughts. Inspired by God, he redirects the meaning of the OT passage to broaden it so it fits with Israel being the chosen people from any nation, tribe and tongue who are justified by faith. Paul expands on the idea of the potter and the clay.

 

[Humble Disciple]

You should probably remove the word "humble" from your name...

The entire system of Calvinism stands or falls on its interpretation of Romans 9, on whether election is conditional or unconditional.

The most natural reading of Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, especially in light of Jeremiah 18:12, is that God's decision of election is based on His foreknowledge of who would accept God's free offer of grace and who wouldn't, and is thus conditional, not unconditional.

I find it amazing that Calvinism takes the argument of Israel, against God. Jeremiah 18:12-13 states: “But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ Therefore thus says the LORD, ‘Ask now among the nations, who ever heard the like of this? The virgin of Israel has done a most appalling thing.’” God is basically saying of Calvinism, “who ever heard the like of this?” God is not just disagreeing with Calvinism, He finds it “appalling.” What they are missing is the fact that although God recognized their inability to keep the Law, He held that as absolutely no excuse to prevent them from repenting, and returning to Him, in order to receive His mercy.
Home

What do the words "foreknow" and "foreknowledge" mean to you in Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2?

I was able to humble myself before God and say that I didn't have all the answers, and that I would obey it if the reading of His Word revealed to me something other than Calvinism.

I prayed for God to reveal to me whether Calvinism is true or untrue, and then I read the Bible until I had an answer.

At the same time, I will not stop going up to bat for Calvinists, as my brothers and sisters in Christ, when I feel they are being unfairly criticized.

 

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps I have not said anything favorable toward Charles Finney, until this time, out of fear of being accused of Pelagianism, as John MacArthur and his ilk would do.

Who is the real Charles Finney?

Do you have anything specific to say about Charles Finney, in his own words, that you disagree with?



Nope, I'm still the same person I've been all along. I love Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, John Piper, Matt Chandler, John Calvin, etc. while not having as much love for joyless partisans of any stripe.

John Calvin: Not a Calvinist

I have been able to prove that, out of sympathy for good-willed and fair Calvinists like John Piper, I will go up to bat for them when I feel like they are unfairly being attacked as heretics. Why wouldn't I do the same for Charles Finney or William Lane Craig?

Since these are all people who, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, accept essential Christian doctrines, why wouldn't I defend my fellow brothers in Christ when I feel they are being unfairly attacked?

Just man up and be who you are.
Why did you remove your Finney post to begin with?
Take your stand and go with it.
You want to attack Dr. White, be a man, call the dividing line and offer your "correction".
I will be listening for your call

 

[Humble Disciple]

Why did you remove your Finney post to begin with?

I don't know what you are talking about. What Finney post did I remove? This is the first time I have ever posted about Charles Finney:
Who is the real Charles Finney?

Do you have anything specific about Finney that you'd like to refute?

You want to attack Dr. White, be a man, call the dividing line and offer your "correction".

Do you mean this James White, who is good friends with Michael Brown, a well-known Arminian?

This is not the first time I've posted this video to this forum.

Since the Bible is infallible, not our partisan interpretations, why shouldn't I defend Calvinists when I feel they are being unfairly attacked, just as James White would do for his friend, Michael Brown?

 

[Humble Disciple]

It's a little unsettling that Calvinists, whether wittingly or unwittingly, take the side of the objector in Jeremiah 18 in their doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election.

I find it amazing that Calvinism takes the argument of Israel, against God. Jeremiah 18:12-13 states: “But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ Therefore thus says the LORD, ‘Ask now among the nations, who ever heard the like of this? The virgin of Israel has done a most appalling thing.’” God is basically saying of Calvinism, “who ever heard the like of this?” God is not just disagreeing with Calvinism, He finds it “appalling.” What they are missing is the fact that although God recognized their inability to keep the Law, He held that as absolutely no excuse to prevent them from repenting, and returning to Him, in order to receive His mercy.
Home

 

[Dave G]

When Paul uses the potter and clay analogy in Romans 9, it's unthinkable that Paul, as the Pharisee of Pharisees, didn't have Jeremiah 18 in mind:

Since all Scripture is inspired of God ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ), then it was the Lord who put it into Paul's mind what to write.
Whether or not Paul had Jeremiah 18 in mind is not the point, as I see it.

As one can see, the potter makes Israel a vessel fit for destruction due to its free-willed choice to reject God.

I agree.
Now, why does Israel, as a nation and to this day, reject God and refuse to obey Him?

Hint:
Because they fail to do so out of a changed heart and a genuine love for Him and His ways.

That said, does God hold us ( as willfully rebellious sinners ) fully responsible to obey Him even though we adamantly will not ( Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:10-18, John 3:19-20, Ephesians 4:17-19 ) ?
Yes, He does.
Man is responsible, even though we are dead-set against Him and His ways.

Calvinists, by insisting that humans have no free will whatsoever to obey God, not even to accept God's offer of salvation by faith alone through grace alone, are taking the side of the objector in Jeremiah 18:12.

Speaking as a "non-Calvinist" ( People would call me one, even though I've never been brought up in the "Reformed" tradition ), I do not see the Bible insisting that we as men have no will whatsoever;

I see it teaching that man's will, apart from the grace of God, is dead-set and biased against Him and His ways, even from birth ( Psalms 58:3 ).

Yes, it's "free" in the sense that we make autonomous decisions.
No, we are not interested in the least in genuinely obeying God...unless it's to "get the heat off" so we can go back to what we love...sin ( Romans 1:30-32 ).
So, if the definition of "free will" is one that starts out ( or can be made ) neutral towards God, then I reject that definition.

The object lesson for all Bible believers in this, is the nation of Israel itself over the course of its history.
God painstakingly made a covenant with a chosen people, and they, for the most part ) showed what unregenerate men will always do, even though He held up His end of the agreement to the letter.

No new birth = Always backsliding into sin and forgetting about God's goodness....going back to the "vomit" and the pig to its wallowing in the mire, from the Lord's point of view.
No amount of God's "chasing after us" as sinners will ever lead to us finally agreeing with God and truly repenting of our ways until that happens.

 

[Dave G]

The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God's grace is irresistible. While Calvinists insist that God's enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it. (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11)

I agree.

I also disagree with "Arminians", "Molinists", "Semi-Pelagians", "Pelagians", "Thomists" and many others on this issue.
I see nowhere the Bible teaching us as believers that God's will is resistible when it comes to who He bestows the new birth on.

See John 1:13 that declares that a person is born of God...not of blood ( inheritance ), not of the will of the flesh ( our so-called "free will" that is enslaved to sin ) and not of the will of men as a whole.
See James 1:18 that declares that God "begets" or "births" the believer of His own will by the word of truth.
See Matthew 13:10-11 where it is given for a person to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven.
See Philippians 1:29 where it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe, but to suffer for His sake.

Things that are given are gifts, and gifts cannot be earned.
Salvation and eternal life cannot be earned...

Nothing that truly comes from the goodness of God can ever be earned or merited.

The most natural reading of Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, especially in light of Jeremiah 18:12, is that God's decision of election is based on His foreknowledge of who would accept God's free offer of grace and who wouldn't, and is thus conditional, not unconditional.

The most "natural" reading of the passage is, to me, what comes naturally to us as men..
that way that seems right unto a man, but the end of it is death ( Proverbs 14:12, Proverbs 16:25 ).

In other words, we as men think of salvation in terms of merit and de-merit...
We think of getting anything from God as involving "performing an act of contrition";
We've even gone so far as to associate our own gift-giving as involving a type of merit, as well, by reasoning that a gift isn't freely given, but that it is "offered and accepted";
That it is somehow "contractual" in nature.

That is what the "natural man" thinks is right, and even what we as believers have a hard time disassociating ourselves from...
The problem is, that is not true gift-giving and that is not true grace.
The grace of God cannot be merited, in any way, shape or form my friend;
that would violate Romans 11:5-6 and would agree with Romans 4:4.

Eternal live, salvation from the everlasting punishment of God, the faith that carries the believer through all of this life's trials and tribulations, true righteousness and peace with God in our hearts and minds...
It's all a gift, not "of works" lest any man should boast ( Ephesians 2:8-9 ).