Is this the Arminian Stumper?

RomOne16,

'Who made the soil?' {in connection with Matthew 13:3-9}

My sincere answer is that God has created us at birth on an equal basis. We all have the proclivity toward evil because of a common depravity which theologians called, 'the Adamic nature.' [Psalm 58:3]

Having been born equally with no standing with God, our circumstances of life and/or our environment have a part to play in our decision to either respond to God or to continue on our downward trek. [Romans 1:24-25-32] Thank God, even for those who, as sinners, have gone the furthest away from the Lord, still can be reached by His matchless grace. Sinning has a way of taking us further away from Him and it also has a hardening affect on sinners as well as called, saints. The 'shopping list' of sins and continued rebellion against God makes for the different kinds of 'soil' meaning different kinds of sinners from the most vile to those who might have lived, by human standard, a moral life. Before someone corrects me, I also want to say that even the smallest sin, humanly speaking, still makes us guilty before the God of holiness that we have come to know. Just having the nature of 'Adam' makes us guilty before the Lord God.

 

Samuel,

Where is the word “objects” or “vessels” found in Eph. 2:1-8?

2 Cor. 4:7 is a different context than Romans 9. I do not carry the meaning of “earthen vessels” (KJV) over to the same meaning of Romans 9. Why do you?

Yes, a person fills an office. However, your interpretation suggests God ordains the person. I suggest God ordains the office. For example, Pharaoh, a person, made choices concerning God. As a result of those choices, God used him in the office of “vessel of dishonor”, which he had ordained, to achieve His purpose. God did not ordain Pharaoh to be a “vessel of dishonor” but Pharaoh’s choices made him a candidate for the office. You will disagree, I’m sure, and say that God “raised him up” for that purpose and thus interpret that God ordained Pharaoh, the person, to that end. I would question what “raise up” means? Even if that phrase applies to “the person Pharaoh”, the question is, why did he “raise him up”? Was it due to his preordained life as a person? Or was it due to his personal choices which God foreknew that resulted in God’s purpose to use him in the office of “vessel of dishonor” to display His power and declare to the whole earth the He is the LORD?

Be mindful that I am not arguing in defense of an Arminian position. Just discussing scripture.

 

Eric,

That's fine. We agree.

Maybe, but it isn't relevant to the question.

That's assumption on your part. Since parables are menta to relate to life, I think it makes very good sense for Jesus to mention a number of "soils" which occur in real life anyway. So, no to dispositions. It is not possible to say that soils have a disposition.

 

I see no Calvinists bit on the hook dated January 21 3:48 pg. 6. {Stumper}

Avoidance is a poor excuse for not having the answers.

 

Samuel,

I use the KJV and the translaion there is "children of wrath". I'm not sure what version you're using but I'd be interested in the Greek term used there so we can find out why there is such a descrepancy between the KJV and your version. Perhaps your's is more correct.

I understand why you make the transition from 2 Cor. to Romans 9, however, the context in 2 Cor. is different from Romans 9. Yes, the metaphor of a potter is used in Romans, but the question is, what is being fashioned? The person or the office? Since 2 Cor. seems to be talking about pserson, is it safe to say Romans 9 is talking about person also?

That is your interpretation. Here's mine.

The thrust of this context is not about why God selects to have mercy on some and not others, it's about "the true Israel". Paul says, "they are not all Israel which are of Israel". In other words, being an Israelite by birth does not obligate God to have mercy on that individual. Also, and I think primarily, since the majority of Israelites reject God, does not make the promises of God void. Because who is an Israelite? Not one by birth, but one by faith. And those who are "of faith" are those whom God has mercy upon. Since God chose Israel, does his mercy upon those other than Isreal make Him unjust? No. Because God had revealed through Moses, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy". So it's not of those who are in a particular postion by a will of the flesh (those who are Israelites by birth) but of those whom God will have mercy upon regardless of birthright but rather of faith. Those who are "of faith" are also considered "vessels of honour", not in person, but in office. So this is about "who is Israel" or as the KJV says, "the children of promise". The "children of promise" are not whom they are as a result of personal election. If they were, then Israelites by birth would have a very good argument before God. They are whom they are as a result of God's promise to those who are of faith which is a description of the office of "vessels of honour".

I'd like to take this opportunity to make a point about opinion. Do you think either one of us is able to approach Romans 9 and intepret it without any preconcieved ideas? I don't. I think both of us have presumptions about God, Adam, and The Fall, that take part in our understanding of the words, phrases, and context of Romans 9.

 

Deuteronomy 30:19 is referring to temporal salvation. This is very clear from the context. Their choosing life was to have effects upon their seed. Now, if by "life" is meant eternal life, by their choice their seed was also going to inherit eternal life. All the other verses are referring to the same thing Ray. Read them.

 

That is a good point Primitive Baptist... Scripture does not contradict scripture... If you think it does you are using the wrong application... btw there are more salvations in the scripture than just eternal!... You just need to open up your spiritual eyes and look!... The Primitive Baptist believe in two that I can name... What is called timely or temporal... then there is eternal. Many times in the scriptures there are two of everything and maybe more. There is natural death and spiritual death... Light and dark... Good and evil... Just to name a few... Salvation is not that the Lord did his part when he died on the tree for the sins of all his children now it is up to you to do your part!... Show me how a dead man can have a part?... And you were dead! Brother Glen

 

Samuel,

My concern is that some Christians believe in 'the bondage of the will.' This means that the majority of people in the world cannot desire or come to Christ. In Isaiah 66:3 we find the Jews chosing their own ways and delighting in horrendous evil. If they were bound to do these things then God gave them a free choice in these matters. Isaiah said, ' . . . and they chose that in which I {meaning God} delighted not.'

I God forced them to commit such terrible sins, {after all He is allegedly in charge of everything} then why at the close of verse four did He dislike their behavior and send delusions of fear on His people?

 

Samuel,

I think we've reached the bottom line on our Romans 9:22,23 discussion; election. We both see the concpet of election differently. Regarding Romans 9 I see it as "office" and you see it as "person". Yet doesn't our concept of this go back to what we believe about God, Adam, and The Fall?

Going further on the concept of office, Jeremiah 18:1-6 is a good place to go. There, God says He will form a nation based upon their choice to obey or disobey. In fact, it says, if a nation turns from their wickedness (primarily Israel) that He will "at that instant" form them for good. The opposite is stated as well. I think this goes right along with Romans 9 and the potter. The potter has authority over THE SAME LUMP to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. How/why does this occur? Jeremiah 18 is the answer. God will refashion/reform towards the office of honor or dishonor based upon choices made.

By the way, I looked up the Ephesians 2 verse you used earlier mentioning "OBJECTS". The Greek word there is teknon usually translated "child" or "children" in the KJV. So it's not the same word used in Romans 9 for "vessels".

Thank you for your time.

 

hi Samuel! i did not bother to read every reply at this thread, so somebody else might have already posted this same thought.

to answer your question, maybe you should consider the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit, and that grace is NOT actually irresistible. that is, it might be the case that two persons were convicted of the Holy Spirit for salvation however one might have accepted salvation while the other did not.

well, i plan not to join "play" deeply with this particular topic but i thought of being a help for your thesis.

having said that, it might help you to consider my question that i've posted on another thread with this link: To My Calvinist Bretheren

happy thesis writing

 

It doesn't matter how much He "endures them", if He is the one who "prepared [them] for destruction" essentially, by passing them over for salvation and allowing them to do what they want so they could be condemned. They are still predestined to Hell in order to "show His power", as opposed to the context of this which is not talking about Hell, but rather a show of power on earth.
But I won't argue. Everyone else uses that verse, and insists on "single predestination", so I guess you believe like them. I did say I apologize if I was wrong.
Latreia:

I included that because your last response you said "No one is arguing for double predestination", but some are. I was wrong on one, but there are others, and anyway, I feel the way these passages are being taken leads to double presedtination whether people deny or not, so it is relevant.

Christ says they're different states of the heart. Different reasons people do not come to Him (or stay) not simply because of the one cause of being passed over.
Samuel again:

Yes they could think God unfair, because they were so used to thinking they were saved by inheritance and Law, now here comes Paul saying they were not saved by those things, but rather hardened as a whole. "Why would God find fault with Israel if He hardened us" But as individuals they could still repent and stop trusting in inheritance and law.
Do you think the Jews would really care if individuals (such as the unbelieving) were preordained to destruction? They probably already believed that. Would Gentiles care whether individual Jews were "vessels of wrath"? No; what would that have to do with them? People back then were concerned primarily about themselves and their own group. No one thought about such questions like this as we do. The whole notion of the "dignity and worth of human beings" that makes people so offended at this doctrine now is more a modern Western mindset.

[ January 23, 2003, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

"Christ says they're different states of the heart. Different reasons people do not come to Him (or stay) not simply because of the one cause of being passed over."

This does not contradict me in the least. I agree that they are different states of the heart, but they are all states of an unelect heart, ones that occur in real life. So it is simply not true, as you asserted, that to have the question about election makes it meaningless to have more than two soils mentioned. The other three soils, or heart types, are all unelect. All three give eivdence of heir unelect status by virtue of thier lack of producing frit. They do so in accordance with thier nature. Exactly the Calvanist thought.

And I note that you are rading in a double predestinarian idea again. As I said, it is not relevant. Whether some arghue for it or not, the question does not materially affect the real issue of election. For double rpedestinarians would say those predestined to hell are not elct for heaven anyway. it does not impact the differnece between calvanist and armninian ideas of election.

Sop if you have that axe to grind, please start another thread.

 

Strange as it may seem to you, this is what none other that Paul said in Rom 3 and Rom 8. It is indeed what Christ said in John 6. They cannot come to God; they cannot please God; they cannot subject themselves to God; they do not seek God.

What you are arguing against are the explicit statements of Scripture.

He did not force them to commit terrible sins. You are barking up the wrong tree. How many times do we have to go through this Ray???

 

The seed is the word of God about salvation. Why? Because that is what the passage is talking about. When you use the word "entire," as you admit, that is not what I said. The context is salvation, the word is the message that leads to that.

The point is that Christ used parables to hide truth from people so that they would not believe.

[ January 23, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]