correct
it can be "suggested" but it is not conclusive.
the idea of preterition is that some are "left"...unchosen seems more active...
.
I would not word it as he has, but that is subjective. I prefer preterition...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
vessels of wrath
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
I would not word it as he has, but that is subjective. I prefer preterition...
pt2;
FITTED TO DESTRUCTION
Some make the words, "fitted to destruction," to be a verbal adjective, or to mean fit for destruction. This leaves undetermined the agency by which this fitness is effected. This allows man to fit himself for destruction. It also permits one to escape supralapsarianism.[/QUOTE]
By saying it enables one to escape supralapsarianism .it seems as if he might be defending that position...
here he rejects what the other men have said in what they taught by way of comparison.
[
FITTED TO DESTRUCTION
Some make the words, "fitted to destruction," to be a verbal adjective, or to mean fit for destruction. This leaves undetermined the agency by which this fitness is effected. This allows man to fit himself for destruction. It also permits one to escape supralapsarianism.[/QUOTE]
By saying it enables one to escape supralapsarianism .it seems as if he might be defending that position...
here he rejects what the other men have said in what they taught by way of comparison.
This goes against what the others have said....it is not a crime, but someone is right and someone is wrong here.
This gives some support to his teaching and the language has to be accounted for.
[
I agree
. Not really. These differences are worth discussing, not merely dismissing on a few quick comments. We are speaking of a topic worth discussion. I will sum up my point because I think you have misrepresented it:
You say that it is obvious that since God desires all men to be saved, Christ died as a ransom for all men. You misrepresented my words to be that we disagree in terms of this being logical. On the contrary, Van, I believe it very logical. God purchased what He desired - that makes sense. And I even agree with what you affirm (I disagree with what you deny).
But it is just as logical to say that since God desires all men to be saved, God saves all men. In fact, it is probably even more logical than your reasoning.
Another logical reasoning is that God desires all men to be saved but this desire is secondary to God's desire for His own righteousness. Therefore God purchases humanity, but atonement is applied only to those He elected and re-created.
And my question to you, Van:
You say that it is both obvious and logical that since God desires all men to be saved that Christ died as a ransom for all men. How is it less logical that since God desires all men to be saved He saves all men?
Last edited:
There are issues with "double predestination" that I cannot reconcile under the auspice of supralapsarianism, but that fade when examined in light of God electing out of a fallen race.
Martin Luther’s comment of Plato, that “he remains within the limits of metaphysical thought, like a cow staring at a new gate” comes to mind. The reason being is that we remain within the limits of human thought and dependent on God's own revelation.
I do find merit in examining Cockrell’s article. When we examine men being formed as vessels of wrath and others as vessels of mercy, and this in exclusion of the man but entirely based upon the will of God, then it strikes firmly in the realm of decrees of election and reprobation (and I believe “double predestination”). So there is a sense by which I believe God elected man before the Fall.
But I also say “double predestination” because not only was Christ the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), foreknown before the creation of the world (1 Peter 1:20), but also the Fall and the Cross were decreed before the foundation of the world. Here “double predestination” does not make God author evil as I believe that election is best viewed (in this context) as God electing out of fallen man (leaving some in their rejection, saving others).
The “logical order” is logical for our understanding (it reflects man, not God) – I don’t believe that God thinks through things as men do, through process, as this would call into debate other attributes).
To return to topic. Everyone God places in Christ is "appointed" to salvation. Everyone not placed in Christ is condemned already.
No one was appointed to wrath before creation, but by the disobedience of Adam, all people were made sinners right after creation.
The assertion by some that Jesus was speaking about everyone's election for salvation rather than those chosen and given to Him up to that time, at John 17:6 is simply man-made speculation.
No one was appointed to wrath before creation, but by the disobedience of Adam, all people were made sinners right after creation.
The assertion by some that Jesus was speaking about everyone's election for salvation rather than those chosen and given to Him up to that time, at John 17:6 is simply man-made speculation.
Last edited:
JonC, it is pointless to discuss this. I do not need to defend that all men are not saved, scripture supports that fact. Logically, God desires all people to be saved according to His purpose and plan, which is everyone believing into Christ will be saved. Christ died for all people, but all people are not placed in Christ. This should not be this hard.
I have told you you are using the word atonement to mean something other than being at one with God. This just generates confusion, and is simply a word game. Reconciliation occurs when someone is placed in Christ and not before.
My view is quite simple, logical and biblical.
I have told you you are using the word atonement to mean something other than being at one with God. This just generates confusion, and is simply a word game. Reconciliation occurs when someone is placed in Christ and not before.
My view is quite simple, logical and biblical.
I think that the problem with using “atonement” with the definition of “being one with God” is that quite simply this is not what the word always means in Scripture. We are using the English word, but we are also using English translations (or dealing with people who do). I think, for example, that using saying OT sacrifices were sacrifices that made people “one with God” is a bit confusing.
And we can actually get around the issue as I have also clarified that when I speak of the “doctrine of the Atonement” I am speaking of more than “being one with God” as I have included unrealized opportunity, soteriological implications, and even “logical orders”. Speaking with you, however, I can easily adapt to your definition. One problem is that you seem to also object on points where we agree. In fact, I've agreed with ninety percent of what you have said (probably more of what you've affirmed).
Your view is logical. It is simple, and I’ll even grant that what I understand you to affirm is biblical. It’s what you deny that seems to stray a bit from Scripture.
Last edited:
What I deny, left undefined in your posts, are the unbiblical assertions such as reconciliation occurred when Christ died, rather than when individuals are placed in Christ. We have been all through this with no solution. Modern translations translate the Greek word as "reconciliation" or other forms such as reconciled. Once we separate (and I know you refuse to do it) Christ's sacrifice on the cross, from individuals being reconciled in Christ, we can have a discussion. Otherwise we get your vague assertions about ephemeral aspects of atonement defined as a mixture.
Examining your comments, it may help to look at where I have agreed with you.
I agreed that:
1. God desires that none should perish. God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.
2. That everyone believing will be saved.
3. That Christ died for all people, but all people are not placed in Christ.
4. That everyone God places “in Christ” is “appointed” to salvation.
5. That everyone not placed “in Christ” are already condemned.
6. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is separate from reconciliation in Christ. You and I were not reconciled to God two thousand years ago…that’s just silly. Humanity was redeemed to God, but you and I were reconciled when through faith we were…as you say…”placed in Christ”.
Where I believe we disagree:
1. That the “doctrine of the Atonement” is broader than the “at-one-men” that you suppose as it incorporates doctrines and theories beyond effectively making one “at one with” God (like about every other doctrine within Christianity, the doctrine is broader than the definition of the word).
2. I believe that God did elect those who would be “placed in Christ” before the foundations of the earth.
3. I believe in “double predestination” as God electing and not electing a people from fallen and condemned men.
4. I believe that God draws men to Himself, and that men once drawn cannot but believe (e.g., God hardened Pharaoh’s heart because otherwise seeing he would believe).
5. I believe the topic is worth discussing even though entering into such a discourse will most likely change neither of our minds. I think that discussion between brothers is nonetheless edifying and helpful.
I am able to discuss the issue even with those differences, but I understand if you are not. As neither of us will change our minds, it is not worth it to me if the only thing produced by such a conversation would be hard feelings.
JonC, the only thing I see ahead is hard feelings. I agree that we agree on the first part of your post. 
1) Why not address the doctrine of reconciliation rather than atonement? Because one is found in scripture and one is mixture from the mind of men.
2) Of course God elected corporately those who would be redeemed before the foundation of the world. We still disagree, that God chooses for salvation people through faith in the truth. If 2 Thessalonians 2:13 means what it says, then your interpretation of Ephesians 1:4 is in error.
3) All that speculation based on God choosing individuals before creation is unbiblical, as I have demonstrated time and time again. James 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:13, 1 Cor. 1:26-30, 1 Peter 2:9-10.
4) Your view that draw means compel rather than attract, fails at John 12:32. If it had your meaning we would have universalism.
5) Discussion is not edifying when folks talk past each other.
1) Why not address the doctrine of reconciliation rather than atonement? Because one is found in scripture and one is mixture from the mind of men.
2) Of course God elected corporately those who would be redeemed before the foundation of the world. We still disagree, that God chooses for salvation people through faith in the truth. If 2 Thessalonians 2:13 means what it says, then your interpretation of Ephesians 1:4 is in error.
3) All that speculation based on God choosing individuals before creation is unbiblical, as I have demonstrated time and time again. James 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:13, 1 Cor. 1:26-30, 1 Peter 2:9-10.
4) Your view that draw means compel rather than attract, fails at John 12:32. If it had your meaning we would have universalism.
5) Discussion is not edifying when folks talk past each other.
I do not read any verse that says any man is.....placed.....
What is that?
In the off topic verse......you leave out ......God from the beginning has chosen you........why is that?
Why do you add or take away from the word of God?
What is that?
In the off topic verse......you leave out ......God from the beginning has chosen you........why is that?
Why do you add or take away from the word of God?
We cannot refrain from discussing topics out of fear that some cannot separate their feelings from their thoughts. There should be no “hard feelings” ahead because we should be discussing the topic. The problem arises several ways (e.g., emotionally charged words to defend or advance a position; ad hominem; assumptions of other’s). Sometimes things are worded poorly and it is taken wrong (or needs clarification). An example of this is my use of “atonement”. I knew from another conversation that you did not agree with my use of the word to incorporate the doctrine of the Cross, but it slipped my mind and I neglected to consider that when I replied to you.JonC, the only thing I see ahead is hard feelings. I agree that we agree on the first part of your post.
1) Why not address the doctrine of reconciliation rather than atonement? Because one is found in scripture and one is mixture from the mind of men.
2) Of course God elected corporately those who would be redeemed before the foundation of the world. We still disagree, that God chooses for salvation people through faith in the truth. If 2 Thessalonians 2:13 means what it says, then your interpretation of Ephesians 1:4 is in error.
3) All that speculation based on God choosing individuals before creation is unbiblical, as I have demonstrated time and time again. James 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:13, 1 Cor. 1:26-30, 1 Peter 2:9-10.
4) Your view that draw means compel rather than attract, fails at John 12:32. If it had your meaning we would have universalism.
5) Discussion is not edifying when folks talk past each other.
1. Either way, brother. You set the stage and we can discuss it. Just please keep in mind that I may slip into using “atonement” simply because it is such a prevalent word to use in Christian theology. A kind reminder may get me back on track.
2. We do disagree on points here. If we did not disagree then there would be no room for discussion. I believe that God elected corporately the Church, but I also believe that this extends to individual election (not at the moment of reconciliation, but before the foundation of the earth). Yes, we disagree.
3. I disagree that it is unbiblical. Your interpretation of those verses are just as tied up in your theology as is mine. Neither are “unbiblical”, but both cannot be right. I think that it would be better to slowly work through entire passages rather than toss individual verses out to “prove”
a point. I am not sure that this forum, however, will end up allowing such an exploration.
4. You have made an assumption that I believe “draw” means “compel” rather than attract. I do not use the word to mean “compel” and I do not believe it means “attract” either. If you would like to start there, I suggest we integrate the account of Moses lifting the serpent, the provision, the reason, and the result. And then discuss what it means in John 12:32.
5. I agree. Discussion is not edifying when people talk past each other. This is why we need to slow down, define terms, and identify when we are using them differently. Instead of trying to make the other person think as we do, or accept our position, why not just try first to make sure the other is on the same page and then deal with the topic?
I've been thinking that his use of "placed" in Christ means that we are simply "in Christ" by God's doing.
I believe that we got there by the supernatural work of God in recreating us (giving us a new spirit, a new heart, putting His Spirit in us).
This is another point that Van may want to explain a bit more before going on.
Hi JonC, I use the meaning of draw as defined in the lexicons. When used metaphorically it means attract.
See these OT verses, Exodus 5:4, Judges 20:32, and Jeremiah 31:3 for the idea embodied in John 6:44 and John 12:32.
What does it mean to be drawn? It means to be attracted. Christ suffering and dying on the Cross draws all men. Does this mean folks who have not heard of Christ's death on the cross are drawn? Of course not. Does this mean all men who have heard of the cross come to Christ? Of course not. Does this mean all men, all of mankind, are attracted to those who suffer and die for them? Of course.
How does the Father draw folks to Christ? By His word. He told of the coming Christ. All those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Christ. Does this mean all that know of the coming Messiah, the Christ and are attracted to the Messiah are saved? Nope. The rich young ruler came to Christ but could not turn loose of his worldly possessions. The Apostles came to Christ and turned loose of everything, possessions, relationships, everything because Christ had the words of eternal life. A pearl of great price. We are not drawn by some mystical inner persuasion, but by our awareness of God’s lovingkindness.
You can believe God's pre-creation election extends to individuals, but to do that you must have an explanation of why God says over and over He elects individuals during their lifetime.
See these OT verses, Exodus 5:4, Judges 20:32, and Jeremiah 31:3 for the idea embodied in John 6:44 and John 12:32.
What does it mean to be drawn? It means to be attracted. Christ suffering and dying on the Cross draws all men. Does this mean folks who have not heard of Christ's death on the cross are drawn? Of course not. Does this mean all men who have heard of the cross come to Christ? Of course not. Does this mean all men, all of mankind, are attracted to those who suffer and die for them? Of course.
How does the Father draw folks to Christ? By His word. He told of the coming Christ. All those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Christ. Does this mean all that know of the coming Messiah, the Christ and are attracted to the Messiah are saved? Nope. The rich young ruler came to Christ but could not turn loose of his worldly possessions. The Apostles came to Christ and turned loose of everything, possessions, relationships, everything because Christ had the words of eternal life. A pearl of great price. We are not drawn by some mystical inner persuasion, but by our awareness of God’s lovingkindness.
You can believe God's pre-creation election extends to individuals, but to do that you must have an explanation of why God says over and over He elects individuals during their lifetime.
Last edited:
Van,
All the reputable confessions state the complete opposite of what you say.....show any support you have for this anti biblical concept.
You cannot show one verse or one confession of faith that says this. You say it...but no one else in church history believes this falsehood. Could you show where anyone believes this.
All the reputable confessions state the complete opposite of what you say.....show any support you have for this anti biblical concept.
I think that Numbers 21:9 would be a good place to begin when we examine John 12:32. How do you see this parallel between the fairly obscure (as a whole) passage in Numbers that Jesus applies to Himself in John 12? Do you think that drawing here really means to “attract”, or as all who looked upon the serpent were healed, and all who did not (although it was there for all) would die, do you think that perhaps it means something else?
none of which were on the topic...here is 4 verses also;
Ecclesiastes 7King James Version (KJV)
7 A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
2 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
3 Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
none of these have to do with the topic either but I referenced 4 verses
no...but the verses they used are
- Status