A Very Simple Test - Rom. 9

[kyredneck]

Question beg much?

The gist of the objections to 'the potter's a right over the clay' posed in Ro 9 are exactly the same as you 'non-Cals' (sheesh, couldn't 'you people' come up with a better handle than that?).

... Having been a Calvinist....

You put a lot of stock in that don't you? You're constantly reminding us of that as if it adds clout to your view. Having once being a synergist/Free Willer/Arminian/non-Cal/humanist/semi pelagian or whatever one wants to call it, I say you REGRESSED from truth to a man-centric religion, not advanced.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The anticipated opponent of Paul's diatribe is not an "Arminian," far from it. It is a hardened Jew,

Correct!

Calvinist think that it's a conversation between a Calvie and an Arm:
It isn't.

Calvinist think the election was to save Jacob and damn Esau:
It wasn't.

Calvinist assume God foreordained to damn Pharaoh:
He didn't

Calvinist assume God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart was against salvation to individual damnation:
It wasn't. Arminians know that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that God could "show his power" by sending the plagues and saving Israel from bondage.

What Romans 9 says:

Rom 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee,

Calvinist interpretation:
"For this purpose were you born Pharaoh, so God can condemn you to hell."
Arminian interpretation:
"For this purpose did God raise up a new Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph"
Exd 1:8
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
And God used him and hardened him against Moses' warnings so that God's might and power should be displayed:
Exd 9:16
And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.
The tactic worked. The people's of the promised land knew of, and greatly feared the God of Israel:
Jos 2:9
And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

It is Calvinist presupposition which reads Romans 9: as a treatise of individual election to salvation. There is no contextual reason to assume that.

Calvinist supposition assumes Esau was damned and condemned to hell.
That is not Biblically warranted. We have no reason to assume Esau was un-saved and perhaps Scriptural grounds for believing he was saved. The entire purpose of Paul's arguments in Romans 9 are completely mis-understood by Calvinist dogma. The arguments and the larger point span up through and to chapter 11 at least. None of those verses should be read or understood in isolation.

 

[kyredneck]

Egad. The letter was written to the Saints at Rome, contrast and similarity between Jew and Gentile is consistently presented, AS IS contrast between Israel after the flesh and Israel after the Spirit, but NOWHERE does Paul switch midstream and begin addressing only Israel after the flesh. This is sheer fabrication on the part of you naysayers.

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

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

And it does indeed pertain to individuals, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles.

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

 

[Inspector Javert]

Naturally, if one pre-supposes a Calvinist view-point there are numerous verses there which (in a vacuum) might very well appear to support the idea that God irresistibly determines who will or who will not believe.
But, again, none of those verses stand alone. It is simply not in any way individual election to salvation which is spoken of here, but rather the election of Israel, a people for a specific task about whom Paul is speaking.... and then subsequently, his choice of bringing in of GENTILES into the covenant of Grace. The chapter begins quite specifically with Paul setting the stage:
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Notice what the "election" of Israel is about according to Paul:
vs. 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises

These "promises" are not for individual salvation, but rather the status of Israel as the covenant people who are given the Oracles of God, and the task to be the people from whom God chooses to bless ALL the nations of the World in Jesus Christ. Decidedly, there are individuals and the salvation of individual Jews which Paul is praying for and desires, but the passages quoted are in no way about salvation nor damnation of any individual at all....Notice what is said of Jacob and Esau:

Rom 9: 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
My Calvinist friends would have us believe that Jacob is an example of a saved individual and Esau analogizes an un-saved individual....but there is NO REASON to assume this at all! Jacob was chosen to receive the birth-right and the blessing and to be the Patriarch through whom God would call his special people (the Jews).........but it says nil about damning Esau.

Why should we assume Esau was un-saved? Why should we pre-suppose Esau was eternally damned? If anything, the evidence suggests other-wise. It is certainly not provable, but Esau's errors were to despise the Birth-rights and the position of Priestly leadership......not to turn his back on God. Indeed, there was repentance exemplified by Esau, BOTH in his forgiveness of Jacob and his love of him, and in his understanding (albeit too late) that he had indeed esteemed his birth-right too lightly. But this does not render Esau un-saved, not in the least. Indeed, I can well suggest that God's choice of Jacob might quite well have been CONDITIONED upon the future free choices of both sons...consider their choices of Bride:

Gen 28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
28:2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.
Contrast Esau either wittingly or un-wittingly disqualifying himself vs. Jacob:
Gen 26: 34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
These are without a doubt disqualifying CONDITIONS: See his failed response in chapter 28:
Gen 28: 8 And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;
vs. 9 Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.

Given the back-ground and the actual choices made we see Paul is in NO WAY speaking of Jacob and Esau as a "saved" or "un-saved" individual....it's not what the promise was. The "choice" was for Esau to serve Jacob, not for God to damn him...

Unfortunately, my Calvinist friends ignore the context of vs. 15 as well... notice the critical first 5 words:
v. 15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Does it not behoove us to see the context of what God said to Moses? Indeed, a quick reference to Exodus chapter 33 demonstrates two distinct things
1.) This is not a grace unto salvation....but rather God allowing Moses to see him in PERSON!
Ex. 33: 19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
2.) As might be expected........God's choice was also conditional:
vs. 17: And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
How does this contrast with say.............Pharaoh, whom Paul mentions again:
Ex. 1: 8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
Ex. 5: 2 And 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.
Contrast this specifically with Moses' knowledge of God:
Ex. 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And what did God say of Moses?
vs. 17: And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

Similarly, the error of assuming that Pharaoh is analogous to an un-saved person is as false as it is with Esau. God says NOTHING about Pharaoh's being pre-destined to eternal damnation...It is in fact about Pharaoh's COMING TO POWER!!
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Notice what God "chose" for Pharaoh:
1.) That a NEW Egyptian regime would come to power (it did) notice chapter 1
2.) That God would harden him such that he could SHEW HIS POWER....not DAMN him.

What is this "CHOICE" God is making?....Indeed it is according to Paul to bring Gentiles, as a group into the fold, not to either save nor damn any individuals:

Rom 9: 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
vs. 25: As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

Adapted from arguments on another Baptist forum:
http://www.baptistsymposium.com/for...-pharaun-is-unconditional-election-scriptural

 

[kyredneck]

Naturally, if one pre-supposes a Calvinist view-point there are numerous verses there which (in a vacuum) might very well appear to support the idea that God irresistibly determines who will or who will not believe.
But, again, none of those verses stand alone. It is simply not in any way individual election to salvation which is spoken of here, but rather the election of Israel, a people for a specific task about whom Paul is speaking.... and then subsequently, his choice of bringing in of GENTILES into the covenant of Grace. The chapter begins quite specifically with Paul setting the stage:
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Notice what the "election" of Israel is about according to Paul:
vs. 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises....

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.

These "promises" are not for individual salvation, but rather the status of Israel as the covenant people who are given the Oracles of God...

Paul is simply picking up where he left off in Ro 3:2 after defining REAL JEWS, true circumcision, in chap 2 (read children of promise as opposed to children of the flesh):

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2

Which leads up to:

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. Ro 3
4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Ro 9

... and the task to be the people from whom God chooses to bless ALL the nations of the World in Jesus Christ.

What is this task and where exactly does Paul define/describe it in the letter to the Saints at Rome?

Decidedly, there are individuals and the salvation of individual Jews...

Where exactly does Paul switch to addressing Jews only?

...which Paul is praying for and desires, but the passages quoted are in no way about salvation nor damnation of any individual at all....

The pronouns used in the context refutes your assertion that 'individuals' are not intended. Individuals ARE intended, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles.

 

[quantumfaith]

Naturally, if one pre-supposes a Calvinist view-point there are numerous verses there which (in a vacuum) might very well appear to support the idea that God irresistibly determines who will or who will not believe.
But, again, none of those verses stand alone. It is simply not in any way individual election to salvation which is spoken of here, but rather the election of Israel, a people for a specific task about whom Paul is speaking.... and then subsequently, his choice of bringing in of GENTILES into the covenant of Grace. The chapter begins quite specifically with Paul setting the stage:
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Notice what the "election" of Israel is about according to Paul:
vs. 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises

These "promises" are not for individual salvation, but rather the status of Israel as the covenant people who are given the Oracles of God, and the task to be the people from whom God chooses to bless ALL the nations of the World in Jesus Christ. Decidedly, there are individuals and the salvation of individual Jews which Paul is praying for and desires, but the passages quoted are in no way about salvation nor damnation of any individual at all....Notice what is said of Jacob and Esau:

Rom 9: 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
My Calvinist friends would have us believe that Jacob is an example of a saved individual and Esau analogizes an un-saved individual....but there is NO REASON to assume this at all! Jacob was chosen to receive the birth-right and the blessing and to be the Patriarch through whom God would call his special people (the Jews).........but it says nil about damning Esau.

Why should we assume Esau was un-saved? Why should we pre-suppose Esau was eternally damned? If anything, the evidence suggests other-wise. It is certainly not provable, but Esau's errors were to despise the Birth-rights and the position of Priestly leadership......not to turn his back on God. Indeed, there was repentance exemplified by Esau, BOTH in his forgiveness of Jacob and his love of him, and in his understanding (albeit too late) that he had indeed esteemed his birth-right too lightly. But this does not render Esau un-saved, not in the least. Indeed, I can well suggest that God's choice of Jacob might quite well have been CONDITIONED upon the future free choices of both sons...consider their choices of Bride:

Gen 28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
28:2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.
Contrast Esau either wittingly or un-wittingly disqualifying himself vs. Jacob:
Gen 26: 34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
These are without a doubt disqualifying CONDITIONS: See his failed response in chapter 28:
Gen 28: 8 And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;
vs. 9 Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.

Given the back-ground and the actual choices made we see Paul is in NO WAY speaking of Jacob and Esau as a "saved" or "un-saved" individual....it's not what the promise was. The "choice" was for Esau to serve Jacob, not for God to damn him...

Unfortunately, my Calvinist friends ignore the context of vs. 15 as well... notice the critical first 5 words:
v. 15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Does it not behoove us to see the context of what God said to Moses? Indeed, a quick reference to Exodus chapter 33 demonstrates two distinct things
1.) This is not a grace unto salvation....but rather God allowing Moses to see him in PERSON!
Ex. 33: 19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
2.) As might be expected........God's choice was also conditional:
vs. 17: And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
How does this contrast with say.............Pharaoh, whom Paul mentions again:
Ex. 1: 8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
Ex. 5: 2 And 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.
Contrast this specifically with Moses' knowledge of God:
Ex. 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And what did God say of Moses?
vs. 17: And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

Similarly, the error of assuming that Pharaoh is analogous to an un-saved person is as false as it is with Esau. God says NOTHING about Pharaoh's being pre-destined to eternal damnation...It is in fact about Pharaoh's COMING TO POWER!!
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Notice what God "chose" for Pharaoh:
1.) That a NEW Egyptian regime would come to power (it did) notice chapter 1
2.) That God would harden him such that he could SHEW HIS POWER....not DAMN him.

What is this "CHOICE" God is making?....Indeed it is according to Paul to bring Gentiles, as a group into the fold, not to either save nor damn any individuals:

Rom 9: 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
vs. 25: As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

Adapted from arguments on another Baptist forum:
http://www.baptistsymposium.com/for...-pharaun-is-unconditional-election-scriptural

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Aaron]

...'non-Cals' (sheesh, couldn't 'you people' come up with a better handle than that?).

I think I first labelled them as such. "Arminian" is too limited a term. In the debate over God's sovereignty in the salvation of an individual, Calvinists are the only ones who hold to Irrestible Grace. So, in Christianity, there are Calvinists and everyone else, or noncalvinists.

 

[preacher4truth]

You put a lot of stock in that don't you? You're constantly reminding us of that as if it adds clout to your view. Having once being a synergist/Free Willer/Arminian/non-Cal/humanist/semi pelagian or whatever one wants to call it, I say you REGRESSED from truth to a man-centric religion, not advanced.

You are absolutely correct. Nothing but boasting when the doctrine he spews is shamefully unscriptural. No wonder I left that camp and no wonder I knew something was amiss in theirs and my theology big time. Thank God He revealed the error and revealed the truth to me, what a blessing, He still opens blinded eyes.

 

[kyredneck]

I think I first labelled them as such. "Arminian" is too limited a term. In the debate over God's sovereignty in the salvation of an individual, Calvinists are the only ones who hold to Irrestible Grace. So, in Christianity, there are Calvinists and everyone else, or noncalvinists.

IMO, most 'non-Cals' here go beyond denying irresistible grace only. I think a term like 'anti-Cal' or 'nigh-Arminian' would be more appropriate for many of them. What happened to plain ol' simple 'free-willer'?

 

[OldRegular]

Correct!

Calvinist think that it's a conversation between a Calvie and an Arm:
It isn't.

Calvinist think the election was to save Jacob and damn Esau:
It wasn't.

Calvinist assume God foreordained to damn Pharaoh:
He didn't

Calvinist assume God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart was against salvation to individual damnation:
It wasn't. Arminians know that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that God could "show his power" by sending the plagues and saving Israel from bondage.

What Romans 9 says:

Rom 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee,

Calvinist interpretation:
"For this purpose were you born Pharaoh, so God can condemn you to hell."
Arminian interpretation:
"For this purpose did God raise up a new Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph"
Exd 1:8
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
And God used him and hardened him against Moses' warnings so that God's might and power should be displayed:
Exd 9:16
And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.
The tactic worked. The people's of the promised land knew of, and greatly feared the God of Israel:
Jos 2:9
And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

It is Calvinist presupposition which reads Romans 9: as a treatise of individual election to salvation. There is no contextual reason to assume that.

Calvinist supposition assumes Esau was damned and condemned to hell.
That is not Biblically warranted. We have no reason to assume Esau was un-saved and perhaps Scriptural grounds for believing he was saved. The entire purpose of Paul's arguments in Romans 9 are completely mis-understood by Calvinist dogma. The arguments and the larger point span up through and to chapter 11 at least. None of those verses should be read or understood in isolation.

I sure am glad I am not a Calvinist. Them folks is strange. They believe that God really is God!:BangHead::BangHead:

And then there is the Arminians and all them other things kyredneck wus before he learned better. All them folks want to talk about is hardened folks like Pharaoh, or Israel, or Jews? Sometimes though they talk about "I", whoever he is. One thing is certain sure though, they know more about Calvinism than that there fellow Calvin did!:BangHead::BangHead:

 

[kyredneck]

....you ort not never call me a hillbilly nary gin'!

 

[Rippon]

Calvinist supposition assumes Esau was damned and condemned to hell.
That is not Biblically warranted. We have no reason to assume Esau was un-saved and perhaps Scriptural grounds for believing he was saved.

Hmm...when God said he hated Essau I think it's a cinch that the latter was most certainly unsaved --a reprobate along with Pharaoh,Judas and others of his kind.

 

[Skandelon]

The gist of the objections to 'the potter's a right over the clay' posed in Ro 9 are exactly the same as you 'non-Cals' (sheesh, couldn't 'you people' come up with a better handle than that?).

Paul writes this in 2 Tim 2:

"In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work."​

Sound like a familiar analogy? Yep, same exact one, but this time he takes it a bit further to reveal his true intent regarding the RESPONSIBILITY man plays even as clay vessels in the potter's hands.

Verses pointing to God's sovereignty DO not negate man's responsibility (sheesh, couldn't 'you people' come up with a better handle than that?) :tongue3:

I say you REGRESSED from truth to a man-centric religion, not advanced.

Calvinism is much more man centered than what I believe. You have much too high of a view of man for me. You think unbelievers are guilty because they were born hardened, hated by their creator and hopeless wretches that were never given an opportunity to even respond to the revelation of God. One could almost feel sorry for a guy like that....almost like a person born insanely crazy without hope of even being able to live a decent life or something.

I, on the other hand, believe God loves, pursues and provides all that every man needs to come to him and be reconciled, yet some choose to trade the clearly revealed truth in for lies and they suffer the consequences as actual RESPONSE-ABLE creatures. Which one is really the worse kind of person? The person born unable to do otherwise, hated by their maker, and destined from birth to perish and hate God? Or the person born given every opportunity, loved by God, pursued by Him, but who chooses freely to reject that provision of His grace? The second is FAR worse than the first, and yet you accuse of of having a man centered doctrine? Quite the opposite is true.

 

[Skandelon]

Hmm...when God said he hated Essau I think it's a cinch that the latter was most certainly unsaved

Jesus also said that you must hate your parents in order to follow Him, but scripture also teaches to love and honor our parents. Is God contradicting himself?

God said he hated Esau, but tells us else where that he loves all men and even instructs us to love our enemies and to do good to those who hate us. Is God contradicting himself in this instance too? ORRRR might we not be understanding the intent?

If you understand the term 'hate' in this original context you know its referencing choosing one ABOVE the other. You are too put Christ ABOVE even your own family, is what scripture is clearly teaching. Likewise, Paul is saying that Jacob was chosen ABOVE Esau for the "noble purpose" of carrying the lineage of the Messiah. Jacob, representative of Israel, was elected for a noble purpose and God's purpose and promises in election WILL STAND!

In other words, God's purpose in electing Israel has not failed, because Christ did come through that lineage, and the apostles are likewise being chosen from that same lump of clay for this noble purpose, while other Jews are being used for the common use of being hardened in their rebellion, so as to cry out 'crucify him' and thus Israel's purpose in being elected IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED through Israel....with both hardened Jews and Jewish apostles.

But, can the Jews who have stumbled, been cut off and hardened still be saved? Romans 11 tells us exactly what may happen to 'the rest who are hardened.' They may be provoked to envy and saved, grafted back in because 'they have not stumbled beyond recovery.'

 

[preacher4truth]

Paul writes this in 2 Tim 2:

"In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work."​

Sound like a familiar analogy? Yep, same exact one, but this time he takes it a bit further to reveal his true intent regarding the RESPONSIBILITY man plays even as clay vessels in the potter's hands.

Only an errant arminian would relate a passage describing a regenerate man and retro fit it back to prove something about the unregenerate. Simply more of your glorification of man teaching and nothing less. You employ a very poor hermeneutic.

Calvinism is much more man centered than what I believe.

:laugh:

If you repeat a lie long enough soon enough you'll believe it. :thumbs:

I, on the other hand, believe God loves, pursues and provides all that every man needs to come to him and be reconciled,

Scripture doesn't teach what you teach here, and Scripture is replete with examples that prove your doctrine incorrect. You've come up with a twisted version of Scripture that goes against biblical revelation.

 

[kyredneck]

Paul writes this in 2 Tim 2:

"In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work."​

Sound like a familiar analogy? Yep, same exact one, but this time he takes it a bit further to reveal his true intent regarding the RESPONSIBILITY man plays even as clay vessels in the potter's hands.

Oh brother, you've totally missed the gist of what was written. Paul is telling Timothy to purge himself from those ignoble characters:

16 But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness,
17 and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus an Philetus;
18 men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: and, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.
20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some unto honor, and some unto dishonor.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, meet for the master`s use, prepared unto every good work.

The same 'gist' as conveyed here:

...Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues Rev 18:4

9 but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; Titus 3

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent. Ro 16

then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father`s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father`s house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. Dt 22:21

The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee. Dt 17:7

....and there's many others along those lines.

 

[Skandelon]

Only an errant arminian would relate a passage describing a regenerate man and retro fit it back to prove something about the unregenerate.

P4T, I don't expect you to actually "hear" this because you've clearly stopped even attempting to understand my post a long time ago...but for those who may be reading along....

This is what is known as the question begging fallacy because it presumes true the very point up for debate. P4T is presuming that only a regenerate man could repent and thus be cleansed, but that is the very point up for debate...i.e. question begging. If P4T were interested in debating me he'd actually attempt to make a case for how the 2 Tim 2 passage must be addressing believers who haven't repented yet, but may or may not do so and thus be used for noble purposes. I guess P4T thinks believers may not actually repent and be used for a noble purpose? Hmmmm

Simply more of your glorification of man teaching and nothing less.

Calvinism is far more glorifying of man than our view is as outlined HERE>>>>>

If you repeat a lie long enough soon enough you'll believe it.

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

Scripture doesn't teach what you teach here, and Scripture is replete with examples that prove your doctrine incorrect. You've come up with a twisted version of Scripture that goes against biblical revelation.

Any time your opponent in a debate could copy and paste your argument as a rebuttal it is not worth saying. It's is tauntamont to two kids on the play ground saying 'huh-huh...'nuh-huh' back and forth. It's the lowest form of debate and the reason I've typically chosen to ignore posts with such lack of substance.

 

[kyredneck]

All I can say is you're desperate to try force that 2 Tim passage to refute this:

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?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
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

It's not even in the same vein. You're desperate.

 

[preacher4truth]

All I can say is you're desperate to try force that 2 Tim passage to refute this:

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?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
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

It's not even in the same vein. You're desperate.

Desperately incorrect. His usage of that passage has NOTHING to do with what he is wresting it to say. I'd say unbelievable but it's not, it's totally believable as his system consistently misrepresents Scripture and the nature of God, sin, and man.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh brother, you've totally missed the gist of what was written. Paul is telling Timothy to purge himself from those ignoble characters:

16 But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness,
17 and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus an Philetus;
18 men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: and, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.
20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some unto honor, and some unto dishonor.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, meet for the master`s use, prepared unto every good work.

The same 'gist' as conveyed here:

...Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues Rev 18:4

9 but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; Titus 3

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent. Ro 16

then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father`s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father`s house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. Dt 22:21

The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee. Dt 17:7

....and there's many others along those lines.

Oh, so you are saying the context surrounding that passage matters? And that we should look to other texts to help us understand the intent of the author? Funny how you are willing to do that with my proof text, but not your own.

Calvinists are notorious for negating man's responsibility in many of scriptures analogies. They do it with the need for the veil to be removed, they do it with the invitation of the wedding banquet, they do it with the hardening of the heart, they do it with the giving of a new heart, they do it with the concept of 'spiritual death.' Over and over Calvinists take these biblical analogies and strip the human responsibility out of them. They make (1) their disabled condition ultimately God's doing and (2) their ability to get out of their disabled condition dependent on God alone, leaving all in a hopeless condition and human response meaningless.