A Very Simple Test - Rom. 9

[Skandelon]

No, I just posted for the second time the question/passage that you never interacted with.

I've interacted with that text on this forum no less that a dozen times...2 or 3 in the last week or so.

I read it, I don’t consider it pertinent to the text of Ro 9, at least not the way you do.

Ok, and I don't consider you interpretation pertinent to the text either...conversation over.

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow. It always goes this route; bannings, warnings, 'you've hit ignore', 'conversation over', judged motives, turns personal, reception of a post that personally insults another's character only after taking the one who made said post to task over his position and points, not his persona so much.

It's funny how dismantling of ones position is actually called mud slinging to said and is met with an 'you're on ignore' coupled with a personal assault of character. Yet somehow when this is employed by him it isn't possibly 'personal'. :laugh:

Same day same ending when in dialogue with this mod. If you can't stand the heat or being thoroughly rebutted without turning it personal & going the thin-skinned route, stay out of the kitchen. :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

C. The Third objection and Assertion - Rom. 9:19-24

20 No but, O man, who are you that reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?
21 Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared to glory,
24 Even us, whom he has called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Here Paul begins with the objection. If God can sovereignly unconditionally elect some and redemptively love some and not others and can use people as He chooses, hardening some and having mercy on others, then the objector says why did God even make us then if that is the case? Now is that a Calvinist objection or an Arminian objection?

Note Paul's response to this objection and ask yourself would an Arminian respond to that objection this way or is the way a Calvinist respond. Paul claims creatures have no right to even question the right of the Creator to do as He pleases. Paul says God has the right to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. Is that a typical Arminian response?

Significantly, the clay on the potter's wheel represents the FALLEN mass of humanity as the vessel unto honor is a vessel of "mercy." Mercy is not getting what you justly deserve and so the potter's wheel represents what God does with fallen mankind who are condemned already by sin and deserve destruction. That is why the vessles of dishonor are already "fitted to destruction."

CONCLUSION: Seriously, consider each assertion and each objection and ask yourself would an Arminian make this assertion and a Calvinist this objection or would a Calvinist make this assertion and an Arminian this objection to that assertion? This is a very easy way to determine if Paul was an Arminian or a Calvinist.

Clearly Paul is making the Arminian case here - because Paul is defending God's right to endure with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Worse than this - for Calvinism - is the "reason" Paul says God is using to show mercy and longsuffering to vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,

What the Calvinist argument ignores is "why" this action of "enduring with much long suffering the vessels of wrath" produces the result of "making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy"

Why wouldn't it please a Calvinist God to simply ignore the vessels of wrath -- and why is it that the vessels of mercy would see the act of God in "enduring with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath" as a sign or evidence of "the riches of God's glory" being made known?

Why is it that with complete foreknowledge - God "endures with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath"??

That is what Paul is defending in Romans 9.

The very opposite point that Calvinism would have in Romans 9.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[quantumfaith]

Wow. It always goes this route; bannings, warnings, 'you've hit ignore', 'conversation over', judged motives, turns personal, reception of a post that personally insults another's character only after taking the one who made said post to task over his position and points, not his persona so much.

It's funny how dismantling of ones position is actually called mud slinging to said and is met with an 'you're on ignore' coupled with a personal assault of character. Yet somehow when this is employed by him it isn't possibly 'personal'. :laugh:

Same day same ending when in dialogue with this mod. If you can't stand the heat or being thoroughly rebutted without turning it personal & going the thin-skinned route, stay out of the kitchen. :thumbs:

twad·dle
ˈtwädl/Submit
informal
noun
1.
trivial or foolish speech or writing; nonsense.
"he dismissed the novel as self-indulgent twaddle"
verbarchaic
1.
talk or write in a trivial or foolish way.
"what is that old fellow twaddling about?"

 

[Aaron]

Oh, right. I'm sure you affirm contra-causal free will for believers, right? No, you don't, so how exactly do you think that qualification helps your system?

Well, it's not about the "system." It's about the truth. It's as Paul said, But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. [1Cr 15:10 KJV]

I cleanse, yet not I.