Does Romans 8 support Calvinism's Total Depravity?

[whatever]

How so? You dismissed me with an insult...

For that I apologize. I do believe that your argument is deficient, but I did not intend to insult you, and I did a poor job of explaining what I meant, and I ask your forgiveness.

Isn't Romans addressed to the believers in Rome?

I suspect that you know this, but I guess I have to spell it all out. The context includes much more than the audience. In 2 Tim. Paul is instructing Timothy to prove himself as a young Christian leader, and so (I believe) the vessels are different kinds of Christians doing different kinds of ministry. In Romans 9 Paul is instructing the Christians in Rome concerning God's sovereign control over all of creation, and he likens God to a potter creating vessels for His own purposes.

I never suggested that Paul delivered himself.

Well, you did say this: "Or it might just mean that we can't deliver ourselves without His provision." Which sounds to my ears like suggesting that we can deliver ourselves with His provision. Which isn't what Paul said. Maybe that isn't what you meant. If not, what did you mean?

Faith is a response and it is all that God requires. No work is required. Does that answer your question?

No, but ...

Arminians don't reject the notion that God could justly condemn all of us to hell if he so chose. That is not what we find "unjust." What is unjust is the notion that we are judged for not responding to his words of redemption when were weren't ever given the ability to respond.

There's the answer. Now, in light of what Paul told the Romans in chapter 9, why is the notion of a vessel responsible for its own damnation but with no ability to change its own destiny unjust?

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What is unjust is the notion that we are judged for not responding to his words of redemption when were weren't ever given the ability to respond.

Salvation is about mercy, not justice. By moving into the category of justice you beg the question that we deserve to be given the ability if we do not have it. God is unjust, therefore, because we deserve to be given this ability.

Why does a person deserve this? What has the sinner in himself that can merit this? </font>[/QUOTE]Again, I am not objecting to the notion that God might only choose to save some and not others. I agree that it would be meriful of God to save just one of us. I also don't believe that any of us deserve anything at all. I'm not debating about what God could have or couldn't have justly done, I'm debating about what the scripture reveals He has done.

The scripture reveals that He loves the world and has sent his son into the world to save the lost. Christ came to reconcile the world to God and he has given us the message of reconcilation which was given for the purpose to bring reconcilation to all who hear it. It is a message that is sent to every creature.

The reproach of God comes in the idea that this message cannot be responded to by the majority of those who hear it yet they will be judged and condemned for their response on the final day.

Calvinists answer this arguement by pointing to the demands of the law and say that God demanded people to follow the law and they couldn't do it, so what is the difference. There is a big difference. The law wasn't ever given with the purpose of bringing reconcilation. The gospel was. The law bound men over to disobedience. God bound all men over to disobedience so that he might show mercy to all. How? Through the message of reconcilation.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by whatever:
There's the answer. Now, in light of what Paul told the Romans in chapter 9, why is the notion of a vessel responsible for its own damnation but with no ability to change its own destiny unjust?

I skipped the other part because this is the meat of the issue:

The problem you have is that you believe Paul is contrasting the elect (those being shown mercy/honorable vessels) with the non-elect (those being hardened/dishonorable vessels). Correct me if I'm wrong.

I can assure you that is not what Paul is contrasting. He is contrasting the Jew and the Gentile. Back away from the text and look at it objectively from this perspective and try to understand what I'm mean. I know that it is difficult to read a text from a different perspective when you have only read it one way for so long. At least I know that it was for me when I was a Calvinist.

The Jews are being hardened (not certainly condemned, but temporarily hardened for a redemptive purpose) and the Gentiles are being shown mercy (by being granted entrance into Covenant with God/ingrafted into the vine).

This is why Paul sums up Romans 9 with these words:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law.

You can see that he is contrasting the Jews (in general) and the Gentiles (in general) throughout this passage and therefore it is incorrect to assume that the Calvinistic elect and non-elect are being contrasted.

Also, while you read through the chapter look at the objections being raised. Many Calvinist presume these would be the objections of a free will Arminian, but instead look at them as being from a Jew and I think you will see they make more sense.

 

[whatever]

So, am I forgiven?

I can assure you that is not what Paul is contrasting. He is contrasting the Jew and the Gentile. Back away from the text and look at it objectively from this perspective and try to understand what I'm mean. I know that it is difficult to read a text from a different perspective when you have only read it one way for so long. At least I know that it was for me when I was a Calvinist.

It was that way for me before I became a Calvinist.

Romans 9:14-24 (ESV)
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

So,

1) Paul is addressing a question of injustice on God's part. How does the objection raised here ("Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?") differ from your objection to condemnation without ability?

2) Some vessels are prepared for mercy leading to glory, but others for destruction and wrath (not temporary hardening).

3) The vessels prepared for glory include both Jews and Gentiles.

4) The question of whether God is unjust for creating anything expressly for the purpose of pouring His wrath out upon it is dismissed.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes. Its all good.

Romans 9:14-24 (ESV)
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

1) Paul is addressing a question of injustice on God's part. How does the objection raised here ("Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?") differ from your objection to condemnation without ability?

Good Question: First I will deal with the objection of Injustice:

THE JEWS OBJECTION: The Jew would be objecting to Paul's message because according to Paul God is showing mercy to dirty Gentiles and he is hardening the "chosen" seed of Abraham, the Jews. This is the objection of injustice in Romans 9.

MY OBJECTION: It brings reproach upon God to invite all men without granting all men the ability to respond and then judge them for that response on the final day. It is unjust to hold a man responsible when he is not response-able.

Now, the objection of finding fault and resisting his will:

THE JEWS OBJECTION: If God were to say, "I will show mercy to whom I please, even dirty Gentiles, and I will hardened whom I please, even the Jews. The Jew, who has been hardened, would object to being hardened by saying, "Then why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?" (NOTE: The Jew has been hearing and yet rejecting the revelation of God for years as God has patiently held out his hands to them all along (Rom. 10:21) and has longed to gather them under his wings of salvation (Matt. 23:37). But they, for the most part, have rebelled from His revelations, thus they were hardened. But this hardening is not unto certain condemnation, for if you read Romans 11 you will see that the ingrafting of the Gentiles will provoke the hardened Jews to envy so that they might be saved as well (vs. 14) for God bound them over to disobedience so as to have mercy on them (vs. 30-32) not to condemn them.)

MY OBJECTION: I object to a dogma that teaches men are born hardened to the point that they never are capable of hearing and responding in faith to God's revelation. See the difference? Romans 9 is teaching that rebellious men who have continually heard and refused the truth are being temporarily hardened so that they might be provoked and saved. Calvinism teaches that men are born hardened (depraved) having never had the opportunity to even understand or respond in faith to God's revelations and this hardening is unto certain condemnation.

2) Some vessels are prepared for mercy leading to glory, but others for destruction and wrath (not temporary hardening).

Romans 11 refers to the hardening as temporary and certainly shows it is not certainly unto condemnation in verse 14 and 30-32. The "vessels of mercy" are those who believe, whether from the Jews or the Gentiles. The vessels of wrath who fitted themselves for destruction despite God's longsuffering is a reference to the Jews who are now being hardened.

3) The vessels prepared for glory include both Jews and Gentiles.

Agreed, but Paul is pointing to the unaccepted fact that the Gentiles are among these vessels being prepared.

4) The question of whether God is unjust for creating anything expressly for the purpose of pouring His wrath out upon it is dismissed.

That is your error. You think this passage is about God creating men for the purpose of pouring out his wrath upon them. The wrath is being poured out upon those who God held out his hands to (Romans 10:21) and who he desired to gather under his wings (Matt. 23:37) and that wrath can still be avoided if they don't continue in their unbelief (Rom. 11:23). God bound all men over to disobedience so as to show them all mercy, not so as to pour out his wrath. (Rom. 11:30-32)

 

[whatever]

That is your error. You think this passage is about God creating men for the purpose of pouring out his wrath upon them.

I guess there's not much more to say. The examples that Paul gives (Pharaoh, Esau, the vessel made expressly for dishonorable use) in no way parallel a temporary hardening. There's nothing in Paul's language to indicate that he's talking about a temporary hardening here. You have to go over to chapter 11 and find the temporary hardening of the Jews and then bring it back here in order to make it mean what you say. That's just not sound. You speak of "vessels of wrath who fitted themselves for destruction" but Paul says it is the potter who purposes destruction or glory for each vessel.

And the point remains - will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" I don't think I claimed that God created men for the purpose of pouring out His wrath upon them. I only said that, if He did so, Paul says that no one would have the right to question His justice. Yet that is exactly what you question.

 

[lets_reason_toghether]

The aspect of total depravity can be seen in other scriptures Rom 3:11-19. But on man's inability to accept the gospel message when that individual is dead in tresspasses and sins can be seen in a couple of scrirptures.. I will give you one for now..

1Cor 2:12-16 and I will captialize the high points to look at along with Romans eight. the natural mind

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath REVEALED them unto US by HIS SPIRIT: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the NATURAL man receiveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can HE KNOW them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But WE have the mind of Christ.

I see a person that initally has a carnal mind. but when he is born again. God gives him a new mind the mind of Christ. the inner man, the seed of Christ,

Flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit (jo 3:6)

These are separate and opposed. I can't have teh mind of Christ thinking carnally. Children of God have a warfare flesh agaist the Spirit.

THere is a differece in being IN the flesh and walking after it. A person born again can be walking after the flesh (rom 8:1) but he can't be IN the flesh.

Now what fellowhsip does light have with darkness. A dead man can' respond but onece he is born again, he can.

the Gospel is a message but it doesn't hve the power to give life. you can never offer a dead man life, He must be given life.

To prove that man in born dead... read Gen 5:3 and look who seth was made and the likeness of. Then read Eph 2:1.

hope this hepls.

Larry

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Let's reason together;

Now what fellowhsip does light have with darkness. A dead man can' respond but onece he is born again, he can.

What makes you so sure that being dead spiritually and being dead Physcialy are any thing alike.
You say they are but Christ said that the rich man spoke to Abraham while his soul was in torment. He also could see Lazrus in Abrahams bossom and asked Abraham to send Lazrus to him with his finger dipped in water because of his undying thirst.
Now you can say that this is just a parable and this didn't really happen but then you'd be calling Christ a liar. Assuming that in His vast knowledge he didn't know of a single event that could relate his message with out the lie.

The God I believe in can't lie even in a parable.
May God Bless You With Light;
Mike