Consider the Potters Pots

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let’s say that a potter had formed some pots in a specific fashion to serve a specific purpose. It could be properly stated that the potter was the sole cause of the shape and destiny of the pots that were formed. Could the man justly blame and punish the clay he had not used for making pots for failure to become pots as well? Could he praise the clay the pots were made of for being the pots they were formed by him to be?

Could one deny that only a certain number of pots were made, and that limited number was in fact the direct results of the cause that made them? Would it be logial to conclude that although the potter was indeed the cause of the pots formed, that no way limited the amount or the shape of the pots made?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is the response I could justly assume that some men on this list as well as others mentioned lately would claim. “ Now I believe that the potter is the sole determining cause of the pots that were shaped, and the pots have absolutely nothing to do with their being pots or remaining as pots, but I cannot accept the idea of the potter only allowing a limited amount of the clay to end up as pots. The potter desired for all the clay to have the opportunity to become pots!”

Sound familiar to anyone? How about the logic employed by some possibly on this list? Is it flawed? If so why?

 

[BobRyan]

Let’s say that a potter had formed some pots in a specific fashion to serve a specific purpose. It could be properly stated that the potter was the sole cause of the shape and destiny of the pots that were formed. Could the man justly blame and punish the clay he had not used for making pots for failure to become pots as well? Could he praise the clay the pots were made of for being the pots they were formed by him to be?

Could one deny that only a certain number of pots were made, and that limited number was in fact the direct results of the cause that made them? Would it be logial to conclude that although the potter was indeed the cause of the pots formed, that no way limited the amount or the shape of the pots made?

The Potter is free to do as he wishes - every outcome is determined by him alone. The Pot's make no choices, have no free will and "can not be BLAMED" for anything.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the response I could justly assume that some men on this list as well as others mentioned lately would claim. “ Now I believe that the potter is the sole determining cause of the pots that were shaped, and the pots have absolutely nothing to do with their being pots or remaining as pots, but I cannot accept the idea of the potter only allowing a limited amount of the clay to end up as pots. The potter desired for all the clay to have the opportunity to become pots!”

Sound familiar to anyone? How about the logic employed by some possibly on this list? Is it flawed? If so why?

IF in addition to the Potter "being a Potter" he is ALSO an honest man who says "I am not willing for ANY of these pots to be defect but for ALL to be perfectly formed" then ALL will be perfectly formed UNLESS he is incapable of fulfilling his own will when it comes to objects that have no will and only exist to submit to his every whim.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Alcott]

Let’s say that a potter had formed some pots in a specific fashion to serve a specific purpose.

A potter had formed some pots in a specific fashion to serve a specific purpose.

It could be properly stated that the potter was the sole cause of the shape and destiny of the pots that were formed.

Yes, unless the speaker had any impediments preventing him from properly stating that.

Could the man justly blame and punish the clay he had not used for making pots for failure to become pots as well?

Yeah, I suppose he could say, "You dumb stupid clay! Why didn't you go to pot"

Could he praise the clay the pots were made of for being the pots they were formed by him to be?

Yeah, he could say, "I sure needed a pot, and I'm glad you're it!"

Could one deny that only a certain number of pots were made, and that limited number was in fact the direct results of the cause that made them?

No, one could not deny that an infinite quantity of pots were not made.

Would it be logial to conclude that although the potter was indeed the cause of the pots formed, that no way limited the amount or the shape of the pots made?

Not unless the potter wants to pot for all eternity.

 

[Dustin]

IF in addition to the Potter "being a Potter" he is ALSO an honest man who says "I am not willing for ANY of these pots to be defect but for ALL to be perfectly formed" then ALL will be perfectly formed UNLESS he is incapable of fulfilling his own will when it comes to objects that have no will and only exist to submit to his every whim.

In Christ,

Bob

So, what you're getting at is, God is unfair if men don't have a free will to accept or reject the Gospel?

Now, I may be going off the topic, but this seems to mean that the actual effectiveness of the Gospel is dictated by what men do. Or at least something to that effect. The free-will of a man is fully able to totally accept and proclaim it or to reject and denouce it.

Goon #1 hates the Gospel and hates Jesus, therefore, the Gospel is not effective to him. By his own soveriegn free will he has declared the Gospel to be an unbelievable sham. Does that in fact show that God's saving of men is dependant on their will? Is God's will mutable? Without man's choice, can God actually save anyone? Is God unable to save this goon?


I feel like I'm running off on a rant of sorts, but these questions are legitimate ones I think.


Soli Deo GLoria

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: IF in addition to the Potter "being a Potter" he is ALSO an honest man who says "I am not willing for ANY of these pots to be defect but for ALL to be perfectly formed" then ALL will be perfectly formed UNLESS he is incapable of fulfilling his own will when it comes to objects that have no will and only exist to submit to his every whim.

HP: If a man states that God is completely sovereign and man is completely impotent, God controlling the entire process of salvation and man a passive participant, and this Sovereign God honestly desires to save all, if all are not saved it must be that for some reason He is incapable of fulfilling His own desires. God, as seen in this scenario, could not be seen as all powerful, for there would be some things that for whatever reason, God is limited and cannot seemingly accomplish.

This would lead to the conclusion that if all are not saved, either God does NOT desire to save all or He is unable to save all. He is either not all powerful or He does not really to desire to save all as Scripture states He does. If all are not saved, following the logic of those that say salvation is all of God, it forces a conclusion that it is absolutely impossible to avoid a limited atonement coming from a literal payment perspective.

Three point Calvinism is simply a chimera, for if you hold to TUP you of logical necessity must agree to and hold to L and I. A three point Calvinist must basically feel, I want to be seen as orthodox to some degree so I will say I agree with three of the five points………when in reality those points he agrees with logically force the agreement of the undesirable points he is trying to escape. If man is passive in salvation, and one wishes to avoid universalism, how can salvation not be irresistible and limited?

 

[Amy.G]

This would lead to the conclusion that if all are not saved, either God does NOT desire to save all or He is unable to save all. He is either not all powerful or He does not really to desire to save all as Scripture states He does. If all are not saved, following the logic of those that say salvation is all of God, it forces a conclusion that it is absolutely impossible to avoid a limited atonement coming from a literal payment perspective

Or...He lays aside His own desires (for all to be saved) in order to allow His creation to have his desire (rejection of the Savior).

 

[DQuixote]

If a man states that God is completely sovereign and man is completely impotent, God controlling the entire process of salvation and man a passive participant, and this Sovereign God honestly desires to save all, if all are not saved it must be that for some reason He is incapable of fulfilling His own desires.

Well, there you have it. Instead of rightly dividing the Word of Truth, a straw man is created. The poster then waits behind a rock with a match. Agree with him, POOF! Disagree with him, POOF! Then he runs out from behind the rock, stands nobly in the ashes, and unfurls the banner of truth. Small t.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Or...He lays aside His own desires (for all to be saved) in order to allow His creation to have his desire (rejection of the Savior).

HP: Sorry Amy I believe I misread your post. I cut my former response. “His desire” I believe, must be referring to the one rejecting, not God.

OK, now that I believe I am on track I will try again. First, men sin due to selfishness. We are given at least two clear accounts in Scripture as to why men sin. First, Scripture tells us that Eve, “Ge 3:6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

The next place is found in James. “Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

Man’s desire is first to please himself when sin is involved. The rejection of the cure is not the cause of the malady of sin, but indeed does seal ones fate.

Secondly, your suggested response does not eliminate any of the problems we are speaking about. What do you mean by ‘allow?” According to the theology I am referring to man is completely incapable, yea he is created by God in such a state as to make any other choice impossible for him to make other than to sin. That speaks not of ‘allowance’ but of coercion. That coercion can be laid at the doorstep of the Creator that creates man if indeed He creates him as a sinner. I do not believe that to be the truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DQ: Well, there you have it.

HP: Have what? Have you ever thought about what might happen if you stop fighting windmills for just a moment and tried to add something constructive to a discussion?

 

[DQuixote]

Have what? Have you ever thought about what might happen if you stop fighting windmills

"Have what?" is rather revealing. Some get it, others don't. The windmills of intellectual gobblygook whistle in the wind. Fighting them is a spiritual assignment. There is nothing complicated about salvation by grace through faith. Lots of folks leave off the second part.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Where in Scripture do you find that God desires for men to reject the Savior and be damned?

I didn't say it was God's desire for men to reject the Savior. I said it was the creation's desire to reject Him. God allows us to have our desires, to accept or reject the Savior.


Amy:

Or...He lays aside His own desires (for all to be saved) in order to allow His (big H) creation to have his (little h) desire (rejection of the Savior).

 

[Amy.G]

"Have what?" is rather revealing. Some get it, others don't. The windmills of intellectual gobblygook whistle in the wind. Fighting them is a spiritual assignment. There is nothing complicated about salvation by grace through faith. Lots of folks leave off the second part.

AMEN and AMEN! Even a little child can understand it. Salvation is available to ALL! If we only have ears to listen!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I didn't say it was God's desire for men to reject the Savior. I said it was the creation's desire to reject Him. God allows us to have our desires, to accept or reject the Savior.

HP: Again I apologize. I simply misunderstood you. I edited my response to you. You can go back one page and pick it up. Thanks!!

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Again I apologize. I simply misunderstood you. I edited my response to you. You can go back one page and pick it up. Thanks!!

Ok, thanks. I went back and read your response. Let me say first, that I am NOT a Calvinist. I can make no sense whatsoever out of that doctrine. I don't believe that we are incapable of anything other than to sin. Even unbelievers can and do live good lives and do good things. Some even live more Godly than a lot of Christians. I think everyone is given a measure of faith, enough to have the ability to seek God.


Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I think everyone is given a measure of faith, enough to have the ability to seek God.

HP: That is a great starting point for ones theology! No man need to wait around on God to give them an ability to seek Him. God has indeed granted that to all men, IF they only have the oportunity to hear and respond with their whole heart in repentance and faith.

It is true that as a sinner, there is nothing in and of himself that could serve to motivate him to proper behavior, and no man comes to God without God drawing him, but that does not indicate in the least that God has not done just as you say, and granted to all men the necessary abilities to seek God, IF they only would. “Seek and ye shall find!!”

It is NOT abilities that the sinner needs to seek God, but rather they only need to hear and respond in willing obedience to the gospel message, utilizing the abilities God already gave them to place their faith and trust in Him.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: That is a great starting point for ones theology! No man need to wait around on God to give them an ability to seek Him. God has indeed granted that to all men, IF they only have the oportunity to hear and respond with their whole heart in repentance and faith.

It is true that as a sinner, there is nothing in and of himself that could serve to motivate him to proper behavior, and no man comes to God without God drawing him, but that does not indicate in the least that God has not done just as you say, and granted to all men the necessary abilities to seek God, IF they only would. “Seek and ye shall find!!”

It is NOT abilities that the sinner needs to seek God, but rather they only need to hear and respond in willing obedience to the gospel message, utilizing the abilities God already gave them to place their faith and trust in Him.

Did we just agree on something? I'll withold my joy 'til you confirm it.

 

[Helen]

About the pot and the potter of the OP. The potter did not make the pots in his own image.

God made us in HIS image.

And that means we are free to choose, even against our own tendencies. After all, tendencies are only tendencies and not impossible obstacles.

One tiny little bit of faith....as big as a mustard seed. Call to God and He will respond. Jesus made the path ready; the Father will, through your tiny beginning faith, walk you along it to the Son.

The pot and the potter is a very limited parable; they all are. Each can only show a bit of what is going on spiritually.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Did we just agree on something? I'll withold my joy 'til you confirm it.

HP: Indeed we did agree. Just the same, rejoice not in the fact that we agree on something, but rather rejoice that our names are written in the Lambs Book of Life!

PS It is still nice to find agreement!