• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

God, That's not fair!

Ian Major

New Member
Eric said,
Because He didn't just select them unconditionally out of the blue to do that, as Skan just pointed out. They could have not fallen into that role, but they refused the truth, and then God hardened them into it.

I agree, it is a lesser imposition than choosing those who had no such long record of rebellion - but it is still a causing of men to sin and allowing them to do nothing else, from your perspective. No fundemental difference from the Calvinist one, just a matter of degree.

Oh, no? In 2 Tim.2:20, 21, the 'vessels' of honor and dishonor are mentioned again, and a person chooses to be a vessel of honor, rather his choice being because he was preordained as a vessel of honor. God determined beforehand that those who leave themselves in their sinful state constitute the "vessels of wrath", and those who have faith are vessels of mercy. "Vessels" is like a plural unity in this case— Israel for instance, consists of individual "vessels" as all creatures can be likened to vessels, but Israel as a whole was the "vessel", as shown in Isaiah 29:16 & 45:9 and Jer. 18:4-6ff & 25:34 which are the very passages Paul is drawing upon here. So for Israelites trusting in their physical heritage to save them, that group is "vessels of wrath", but believers, Jew and Gentile are vessels of mercy.

You seem to think similar metaphors must refer to the same reality. Are the vessels in Rom.9 and 2Tim. referring to the same thing? Perhaps salvation and damnation are in view in 2Tim. That would agree with all of us beginning as vessels for dishonour. Cleasing ourselves from evil works then makes us vessels for honour. A bit problematic regarding salvation by faith.

Or 2Tim. could refer to the believer cleansing himself from the evil that still lurkes within, making us then sanctified vessels for His use. I think this seems the likely case.

In any event, how can we square this human action with the potter's work described in Rom.9? You try to make God's preparation before our birth conditional on our will - but that is entirely absent from the text. It is a construct only of your Arminian theology. The examples of how God works are clearly otherwise; Isaac and Ishmael; Jacob and Esau; Pharaoh. None of these had a veto on God's determination. Take Pharaoh: God 'raised him up' for this end, that through his obstinacy and rebellion against God, God's mighty power would be displayed. There could have been no other occurance; Pharaoh could not have let Israel go peacefully. But this did not make God the author of his sin; it made Pharaoh do what he was only too willing to do.

In Him

Ian
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
I agree, it is a lesser imposition than choosing those who had no such long record of rebellion - but it is still a causing of men to sin and allowing them to do nothing else, from your perspective. No fundemental difference from the Calvinist one, just a matter of degree.
Well, the only thing I was objecting to was God selecting them to do this as He first conceived of them as a person, and then scripting them to that end, and then condemning them as if they could have done otherwise but "chose" not to. I never denied what you said otherwise.
You seem to think similar metaphors must refer to the same reality. Are the vessels in Rom.9 and 2Tim. referring to the same thing? Perhaps salvation and damnation are in view in 2Tim. That would agree with all of us beginning as vessels for dishonour. Cleasing ourselves from evil works then makes us vessels for honour. A bit problematic regarding salvation by faith.

Or 2Tim. could refer to the believer cleansing himself from the evil that still lurkes within, making us then sanctified vessels for His use. I think this seems the likely case.
Of course, being a vessel of honor doesn't start with "cleansing oneeself", but rather by placing faith in Christ, he is cleansed. Then, once saved, the cleansing continues, and this is all supposed to be apart of being a vessel of honor. Of course, if a person slacks off in sin, then he doesn't lose salvation and become a vessel of dishonor again, but his works are then what become the "wood, earth, etc. Still, vessel of dishonor is not what an individual is unconditionally preordained as.
In any event, how can we square this human action with the potter's work described in Rom.9? You try to make God's preparation before our birth conditional on our will - but that is entirely absent from the text. It is a construct only of your Arminian theology. The examples of how God works are clearly otherwise; Isaac and Ishmael; Jacob and Esau; Pharaoh. None of these had a veto on God's determination. Take Pharaoh: God 'raised him up' for this end, that through his obstinacy and rebellion against God, God's mighty power would be displayed. There could have been no other occurance; Pharaoh could not have let Israel go peacefully. But this did not make God the author of his sin; it made Pharaoh do what he was only too willing to do.
And the mistake is to try to generalize these things to salvation and damnation. Do you think God "raises" each non-elect person for the specific purpose of sending him to Hell "in order to make known the riches of his glory" to the saved? NO, we don't even know who will finally end up in Hell here on earth, so that wouldn't "show" anybody anything. As for the idea that the "riches of His glory" in reprobation is to be made known to the redeemed in Heaven, the context is clearly a display of God's power in the present world, so this passage must be a specific earthly example of God's purpose. Israel is the whole focus of the chapter, not "all the people who will be in Hell". Since nobody knows who will ultimately die in their sins, there is no such "group" designated, as there would be no point in discussing it. Israel is who Paul says he wished he could be accursed for in v.3, not some new "hardened" group
 

Ian Major

New Member
Skandelon said,
Arminians are objecting to the first scenerio not the second and the only reason I won't object to the second is because Paul explains why God did it and the outcome. But Calvinists take Paul's explaination for why it is just of God to harden rebellious Jews and apply it to their doctrine of TD to justify why it is just of God to harden newborns. THAT IS NOT WHAT PAUL IS ARGUING !!!

I used to believe that but in my spirit I knew something was wrong with that interpretation and Ian I honestly believe if you search your spirit you will find the same thing.

Skan, I believe your sentiments expressed here are a key to understanding our differences. I also appreciate the compassion that moved you to that position.

It is the issue of God's fairness that has led many ot reject Calvinism, rather than exegesis of the Scripture. It IS a great problem for man to grasp: we naturally would have arranged the world in a much more manifestly fairer way, even to the extent of not creating anything if it was going to turn out so badly.

BUT that is human reasoning, reasoning based on very little of the facts. God reminds us in Job that we were not there with Him at the beginning, we did not create a thing, we gave Him no counsel.

When we come to predestination, unconditional election, reprobation, etc. we can so easily fall into the error of making judgements on what is right, when we only have the faintest of understanding of eternal things. We look at our neighbours, and by and large they are decent folk. Yet millions daily die without knowing Christ. The poor men and women forced ino the gas-chambers by the Nazis, the girls raped and murdered on our streets today; these and all the rest cry - and rightly so - for our compassion. But God reveals not only the rightness of compassion for our neighbour; but the rightness of His assessment of all sinners, and their righteous condemnation to hell - even though they may be 'decent folk'.

Scripture reveals to us the AWFULNESS of the human condition: we are born children of wrath; underneath the common grace that restrains our nature so that we are good parents, dutiful children, etc., we are haters of God. When push comes to shove, even the best of unsaved men will kick over the traces and scream, 'We will not have this Man to rule over us!'

So when we think of souls persihing without the gospel, souls whom God has ordained will not be given faith and repentance, we should not feel in our spirit that there is something wrong with the thelogy that expresses this, rather we should recognise that the something wrong is our natural instinct to think we know better than God what is right.

I have been there, Brother Skan; I do know the weight of trying to understand why those we love are allowed to perish in their sins. At the end of the day, we must submit to His perfect wisdom, love and goodness. Job is our example.

In His Love

Ian
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
It is the issue of God's fairness that has led many ot reject Calvinism, rather than exegesis of the Scripture. It IS a great problem for man to grasp: we naturally would have arranged the world in a much more manifestly fairer way, even to the extent of not creating anything if it was going to turn out so badly.

BUT that is human reasoning, reasoning based on very little of the facts. God reminds us in Job that we were not there with Him at the beginning, we did not create a thing, we gave Him no counsel.

When we come to predestination, unconditional election, reprobation, etc. we can so easily fall into the error of making judgements on what is right, when we only have the faintest of understanding of eternal things.
But God reveals not only the rightness of compassion for our neighbour; but the rightness of His assessment of all sinners, and their righteous condemnation to hell - even though they may be 'decent folk'.

Scripture reveals to us the AWFULNESS of the human condition: we are born children of wrath; underneath the common grace that restrains our nature so that we are good parents, dutiful children, etc., we are haters of God

So when we think of souls persihing without the gospel, souls whom God has ordained will not be given faith and repentance, we should not feel in our spirit that there is something wrong with the thelogy that expresses this, rather we should recognise that the something wrong is our natural instinct to think we know better than God what is right.
And Calvinists reject the other alternative because they assume people's opposition to Calvinism. But this ignores that the real reason is God's character and orientation towards man as revealed in scripture. That He concluded the world in sin to have mercy on ALL, not to leave a bunch in condemnation and then say "well, they did it to themselves because I declared it. They didn't want me, but I didn't want them to want me; I only made it look that way to further make them 'guilty'". This is a gruesome game being played on unsuspecting souls, and you try to justify it with "well they sinned and didn't want Him", but I have already shown that in the eternal realm that your position emphasizes, this only can happen if there is an unknown universal principle besides the person's sin (which is only a means to an end) that determines who is left condemned after being placed in such an inescapable trap in the first place. God has no lack of self assurance, where He has to prove Himself by "stomping ants" (as one Calvinist put it) just for the show of it like that. Talk about "human fallenness"; that's the way corrupt human dictators (including child wannabees) often do things, and I think we're projecting that onto God ("If powerful men do that; how much more must the almighty God do it). Once again, no one is talking about God's "rights". It is the principles He has revealed to us, and even our sense of "fair" comes from Him. I notice how you even admit that "we would have arranged the world in a more fairer way". But then if that is just from our fallen senses, then it wouldn't be more "fairer", than God, would it; could it? Maybe it's more than just some sentimentality held by non-Calvinists! Else, how do we know what is fair? Maybe we should let tyrants do as they please, because that just might be God's way, and we've been too blind by the Fall to see it.

It's your side that keeps using this inferential logic: "If you're saved and not them, and it is not something good in you, they must have been 'passed over'"; "What about those who never hear the Gospel? See, God doesn't want them saved, and only created them for Hell (oops, no, that's too rough; well, they didn't want Him anyway, and that's the way God planned their destruction!") Who's using 'human reasoning'? The church went for the first 4 centuries without all of this overboard speculation. They just made the point to try to reach all of those lost, rather than arguing over who God does and does not want to save. That is, intil the focus got lost in the Church's doctrinal decay, out of which arose such arguments. Why can't you accept those realities, with God's loving and reaching out to all, as the "paradox" our human minds can't understand? No, we have to go and concoct this "tough teaching" that makes God look more "big and 'bad'", because He isn't being "glorified" enough, right? Then, this patronizing "Aww, poor baby; I know it's too rough for your fallen human sensibilities, but TOO BAD!" As if there isn't enough strife and arguments over unanswerable questions and unclear scripture over clear scripture in the Church! :rolleyes:
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Ian Major:
Skandelon said,
And I was pointing out to you that they were not "without hope" of knowing God because everyone can know God through what has been revealed in creation and man's conscience. Romans 1 is very clear on that point.

Yes, and as I pointed out, that knowledge is insufficient for salvation. Otherwise, Paul's description of their state as 'without hope' is meaningless.
Ian!
The point is that they were NOT born without hope as TD suggests but they became without hope AFTER God had given them over. Can't you see that!?!
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Ian Major:
Are not all men BORN rebellious?
To some degree yes, but men are not born unable to leave that rebellion once confronted by the truth of God in the powerful gospel message.

If it OK with you that God harden adult men, why not infant men?
Read the two senerios I presented earlier. An adult man who has FREELY rebellion being hardened in that rebellion is quite different than hardening an infant. Why? Because the infant is not hardened because he has yet to be confronted by the truth.

But you want hardening to be a temporary thing, one that can eventually be changed by the will of man.
So does Paul as clearly seen in Romans 11 as he hopes for his brother of the flesh to leave their unbelief after being provoked by envy.

So we can have Pharoah truly repenting of his wickedness after Israel has crossed the Red Sea; Judas truly repenting after he betrayed the Lord. Do we see either of these significant events in Scripture? No, we hear nothing of the ruler of Egypt turning to God; and we see only remorse in the son of perdition and him 'going to his own place'.
You assume that because one might be able to repent that he will. Just because God removes his judicial hardening, which he doesn't have to do, doesn't mean that the person will automatically see the errors of his ways and repent. He may remain in stubborn rebellion, either way its his own fault because he made the initial choice to rebel and reject God.

Is Paul not arguing that man's ultimate fate is set by God before their birth, before they have made a difference between them and their neighbour by their works?

In regard to God selecting to use certain people for a divine purposes in bringing redemption to the world, yes, they are unconditionally chosen. Is each and every individual who believes the message that God sovereignly brought us selected as such? I don't see that taught in scripture.

You can certainly show me how Paul was "set apart from birth" and "unconditionally chosen" to apostleship but that in no way proves that his audiences are chosen in the same manner, does it?
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Ian Major:
Skan, I believe your sentiments expressed here are a key to understanding our differences. I also appreciate the compassion that moved you to that position.

It is the issue of God's fairness that has led many ot reject Calvinism, rather than exegesis of the Scripture. It IS a great problem for man to grasp: we naturally would have arranged the world in a much more manifestly fairer way, even to the extent of not creating anything if it was going to turn out so badly.

BUT that is human reasoning, reasoning based on very little of the facts. God reminds us in Job that we were not there with Him at the beginning, we did not create a thing, we gave Him no counsel.

When we come to predestination, unconditional election, reprobation, etc. we can so easily fall into the error of making judgements on what is right, when we only have the faintest of understanding of eternal things. We look at our neighbours, and by and large they are decent folk. Yet millions daily die without knowing Christ. The poor men and women forced ino the gas-chambers by the Nazis, the girls raped and murdered on our streets today; these and all the rest cry - and rightly so - for our compassion. But God reveals not only the rightness of compassion for our neighbour; but the rightness of His assessment of all sinners, and their righteous condemnation to hell - even though they may be 'decent folk'.

Scripture reveals to us the AWFULNESS of the human condition: we are born children of wrath; underneath the common grace that restrains our nature so that we are good parents, dutiful children, etc., we are haters of God. When push comes to shove, even the best of unsaved men will kick over the traces and scream, 'We will not have this Man to rule over us!'

So when we think of souls persihing without the gospel, souls whom God has ordained will not be given faith and repentance, we should not feel in our spirit that there is something wrong with the thelogy that expresses this, rather we should recognise that the something wrong is our natural instinct to think we know better than God what is right.

I have been there, Brother Skan; I do know the weight of trying to understand why those we love are allowed to perish in their sins. At the end of the day, we must submit to His perfect wisdom, love and goodness. Job is our example.
Ian,

Let me assure you that as a former Calvinist I have no problem with accepting the "fairness" of the Calvinistic understading of God. In fact, I accepted it for many years thus proving that I do indeed believe, as you do, that the exposition of the scripture must be the determinant here, not our emotion or logic.

That said, we can go right back to the point I made which was that Paul is not arguing for Calvinism which in essence teaches permenant hardening from birth for most people. He is arguing for the temporary hardening for a group of people after they continually rebelled. Its that simple. You missapply Paul's arguments to support a false teaching and I'm merely pointing that out. It has nothing to do with what I consider to be fair or "right" of God to do. It has to do with what the author of scripture is saying and why.

Let's deal with that. Do you deny that Paul in Romans 9 is dealing with the temporary hardening of rebellious Jews? If so, you clearly are misreading the text.
 

Ian Major

New Member
Eric said,
That He concluded the world in sin to have mercy on ALL, not to leave a bunch in condemnation and then say "well, they did it to themselves because I declared it. They didn't want me, but I didn't want them to want me; I only made it look that way to further make them 'guilty'". This is a gruesome game being played on unsuspecting souls, and you try to justify it with "well they sinned and didn't want Him", but I have already shown that in the eternal realm that your position emphasizes, this only can happen if there is an unknown universal principle besides the person's sin (which is only a means to an end) that determines who is left condemned after being placed in such an inescapable trap in the first place.

1. Rom.11: 32For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. The ALL is most likely referring to the ALL Israel who are to be saved, v26. However, it could be another term for all groups, ie. Israel and the Gentiles - that mercy will be seen as the means of salvation not only for the Gentiles but also for the Jews.

2. Your misrepresentation of Calvinism is the gruesome thing. It does little that you modify it with our explanation that the cause is man's sin, for you immediately deny that as a valid reason.

3. Your denial of sin as a just reason for reprobation really reveals the presupposition that 'fairness' has upon your theology. You insist that sinners MUST be given an opportunity to repent, an opportunity that they are able to accept, free from their evil desires. Where is this in Scripture? It leads you to the very borders of orthodoxy, if not beyond, when you say men can be saved without knowledge of God's salvation in Christ. Natural revelation and conscience are alternatives to the gospel in your theology.

Eric, your faith in Christ has kept you from following through the logic of your system, but free-willism is a dangerous error. In my opening post on this thread I pointed out where it has led many formerly conservative Evangelicals. The doctrines of grace, commonly called Calvinism, was the theology of centuries of the godliest of men and the creed for most of the Evangelical churches since the Reformation. Free-willism is a common doctrine for heresy and false religion from Roman Catholicism through the cults and isms prevalent today. That doesn't prove that it is wrong and Calvinism right, but it sure should give you pause.

The church went for the first 4 centuries without all of this overboard speculation. They just made the point to try to reach all of those lost, rather than arguing over who God does and does not want to save. That is, intil the focus got lost in the Church's doctrinal decay, out of which arose such arguments. Why can't you accept those realities, with God's loving and reaching out to all, as the "paradox" our human minds can't understand? No, we have to go and concoct this "tough teaching" that makes God look more "big and 'bad'", because He isn't being "glorified" enough, right? Then, this patronizing "Aww, poor baby; I know it's too rough for your fallen human sensibilities, but TOO BAD!" As if there isn't enough strife and arguments over unanswerable questions and unclear scripture over clear scripture in the Church!

I do sympathize with the desire to keep things simple and I do believe one can nit-pick; but the issues became issues when the church was faced with errors and heresy being taught within. The deity of Christ is a prime example, but all the other doctrines of Scripture have faced the same problem at some stage. Baptism, church government, eschatology, and many more are in company with the doctrines of grace when it comes to dispute. It is not enough to refuse to exegete the texts and just teach the simple truths. Errorists, even good brethren, bring up issues that must be refuted if the church is to be kept on the right track. No one chuch is fully in line with the Word; it is an on-going struggle for doctrinal as well as practical purity - but the battle cannot be avoided.

In Him

Ian
 

Ian Major

New Member
Eric said,
And the mistake is to try to generalize these things to salvation and damnation. Do you think God "raises" each non-elect person for the specific purpose of sending him to Hell "in order to make known the riches of his glory" to the saved? NO, we don't even know who will finally end up in Hell here on earth, so that wouldn't "show" anybody anything. As for the idea that the "riches of His glory" in reprobation is to be made known to the redeemed in Heaven, the context is clearly a display of God's power in the present world, so this passage must be a specific earthly example of God's purpose. Israel is the whole focus of the chapter, not "all the people who will be in Hell". Since nobody knows who will ultimately die in their sins, there is no such "group" designated, as there would be no point in discussing it. Israel is who Paul says he wished he could be accursed for in v.3, not some new "hardened" group

1. Rom.9: 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? To whom do you say God showed His wrath and made His power known? To whom did He make known the riches of His glory? I'm unsure what you are saying.

I think Paul is referring to the Last Day and the eternal state - when God's righteous anger and glorious power will be revealed against all unrighteousness of men. Then also will His glory will be revealed to His chosen ones. 2 Thess.1: 7and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

2. Israel AND the Church are the focus. Indeed, Israelites that die unrepentant are no different from Gentiles who do so, and the truths about their condition apply just as well to the Gentiles.

3. I totally agree, Israel is the group Paul could wish himself accursed for. Your point?


In Him

Ian
 

Ian Major

New Member
Skandelon said,
Ian!
The point is that they were NOT born without hope as TD suggests but they became without hope AFTER God had given them over. Can't you see that!?!

So, if some Gentiles had hope, how many of them were saved without hearing the gospel? How many today, in remote areas where the gospel has never come, are saved? What did Paul then mean by saying the Gentiles were without hope and without God?

In Him

Ian
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
Actually, "hope" in both 1 Thess.4:13 and Eph. 2:12 means "expectation" or "confidence". "No hope" is not the way we use it to mean "doomed", and it doesn't even do any good to "hope" you may be rescued. Through our faith, we have this "blessed hope" (not "hoping" that we are saved, but expecting based on the promise). Those who do not have faith do not have this expectation, of course. That does not mean they are doomed. With this in mind:
It leads you to the very borders of orthodoxy, if not beyond, when you say men can be saved without knowledge of God's salvation in Christ. Natural revelation and conscience are alternatives to the gospel in your theology.
I never said anything like that. The only thing I have said on that is that many non-Calvinists believe it is remotely possible for a person who never heard of Christ to be saved by looking at natural revelation, acknowledging their conscience, and then asking God to reveal Himself. (they may not know about Christ, but they can figure that there is a true God as Rom. 1 and others attest). Then, God would sens the Gospel to him, so nobody is saved without the Gospel. This may be a less likely occurrence than in a land where the Gospel is preached, but then I never said everyone had an exactly equal "opportunity". Just that God has shut no one out. That would also answer why God still calls us to spread the Gospel. To answer those who have called out to Him, and make it more likely others who may not otherwise will hear and receive.
1. Rom.11: 32For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. The ALL is most likely referring to the ALL Israel who are to be saved, v26. However, it could be another term for all groups, ie. Israel and the Gentiles - that mercy will be seen as the means of salvation not only for the Gentiles but also for the Jews.
I believe that in harmony with other scriptures, it can be extended to all individuals, and is showing a principle of why God allowed sin; and it was not to intentionally leave many trapped in sin, but to offer mercy.
2. Your misrepresentation of Calvinism is the gruesome thing. It does little that you modify it with our explanation that the cause is man's sin, for you immediately deny that as a valid reason.
But no matter what anyone says, the ultimate reason God set this trap for people (that they be born as sinners with no way out) is some unknowable "higher way" that you all keep talking about. God did not choose to have a person born in sin, and then leave him in sin, because the person was a sinner. The sin came after the initial decree. This is no misrepresentation of "Calvinism', as many do admit this. It's just that your particular brand disclaims it, and you don't like being shown that this is where it still leads. And it is gruesome for a person to be in a place like Hell and having had no way out, because it turns out he was programmed into rejecting the only way out, and thus forced into "doing it himself". That's not "pleasant" is it?
3. Your denial of sin as a just reason for reprobation really reveals the presupposition that 'fairness' has upon your theology. You insist that sinners MUST be given an opportunity to repent, an opportunity that they are able to accept, free from their evil desires. Where is this in Scripture?
It is you who keeps pinning this on "fairness", when there are plenty scriptures that show that God does give everyone an opportunity to repent (not always equal, mind you). Your side at first interprets these as "yes He does, but they don't want it", but now when we get to the real cause of why they don't, now you're admitting that no, He doesn't.
Hell is a necessary reaction to sin, first the angels, and then any men who choose to remain following the ways of those angels. It is not some good goal along with Heaven. Therefore,
To whom did He make known the riches of His glory? I'm unsure what you are saying.
First, to the Israelites, when He delivered them from Pharaoh. Then God opened up to the Gentiles, and the Israelites themselves wound up the example (like Pharaoh was), being hardened. That's why Paul used Pharaoh to illustrate his point. It is a form of typology.
I think Paul is referring to the Last Day and the eternal state - when God's righteous anger and glorious power will be revealed against all unrighteousness of men. Then also will His glory will be revealed to His chosen ones. 2 Thess.1: 7and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe,
Once again, judgment is reactive, and to those who have had to endure the persecuations or whatever other sin of the wicked, justice is part of the hope. That is the righting of the wrongs, not the punishment in itself, with God setting these people up for that end (before they were born) just for our pleasure.
I totally agree, Israel is the group Paul could wish himself accursed for. Your point?
That Rom.9 is a discussion of Israel, not some new "hardened" group called "all who will ever be lost; because they were passed over by God and never granted repenatce at all".
Eric, your faith in Christ has kept you from following through the logic of your system, but free-willism is a dangerous error. In my opening post on this thread I pointed out where it has led many formerly conservative Evangelicals. The doctrines of grace, commonly called Calvinism, was the theology of centuries of the godliest of men and the creed for most of the Evangelical churches since the Reformation. Free-willism is a common doctrine for heresy and false religion from Roman Catholicism through the cults and isms prevalent today. That doesn't prove that it is wrong and Calvinism right, but it sure should give you pause.
It is not pure free-willism in itself that leads to that stuff, but rather the corruption of Pelagianism, which denies that the Fall really affected man at all. Your side sees all free-willism as leading to that because of your interpretation of total depravity, but in truth, this particular difference on the limitations of TD does not make all free-willism Pelagian.
I won't even bother going into what Calvinism is often said to lead to. And many of the sins of many of the churches of the Reformation.
I do sympathize with the desire to keep things simple and I do believe one can nit-pick; but the issues became issues when the church was faced with errors and heresy being taught within. The deity of Christ is a prime example, but all the other doctrines of Scripture have faced the same problem at some stage. Baptism, church government, eschatology, and many more are in company with the doctrines of grace when it comes to dispute. It is not enough to refuse to exegete the texts and just teach the simple truths. Errorists, even good brethren, bring up issues that must be refuted if the church is to be kept on the right track. No one chuch is fully in line with the Word; it is an on-going struggle for doctrinal as well as practical purity - but the battle cannot be avoided.
Which illustrates once again, that the issue came up because the Church abused its doctrine of salvation into Pelagianism. Then a reaction, started by Augustine, led to the opposite extreme: God chooses who is saved and rejects all else. (Though He and others, including many Reformers still held a Pelagian view on Baptism saving and other stuff like that). It wasn't the Church's position of free will that caused this, but rather just one more corruption of the truth, like all the others, including Nestorianism, the doctrines of Baptism, Communion, church govt. (being discussed right now on "Other Religions"), etc.
What we should do is go back to the Bible, not focus on later reactions to some error. Those often will overemphasize the point it was opposing the error on, (and themselves may introduce error, since they are not inspired) and often causes much problems in our interaction with the cults, religions, etc. (the creedal language of the Trinity is an example, and I notice how this is often compared to that).
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Ian Major:
So, if some Gentiles had hope, how many of them were saved without hearing the gospel? How many today, in remote areas where the gospel has never come, are saved? What did Paul then mean by saying the Gentiles were without hope and without God?
How am I supposed to know the answer to that question? Do you know who God has elected in remote areas to hear and believe? Of course not. The Bible doesn't address this fully so you are just asking me to speculate.

I know Helen Keller's testimony was that she knew God before they told her of Him, and she said, "I just didn't know His name."

And I know there have been many testimonies of people who have come to fear God and believe upon him who haven't necessarily known the gospel. In fact, I've heard Calvinists using such stories as proof of God's effectual call working apart from from the gospel. My rebuttal to that is that these could merely be examples of those who have responded in faith to God's general/universal revelation as spoken of in Romans 1.

Yes, I admit that Paul's point in Romans 1-3 is that no one is righteous, but that is in regard to the law, not in regard to faith, which he goes on to introduce as the "righteousness that is being revealed." He then goes on to use Abraham as a model of one declared righteous, not because of his works, but because of his faith. If Romans 3:10-11 was meant to say that NO ONE was ever declared "righteous" then why would Abraham be an exception? He was an exception because of his FAITH not his works. So too, ANYONE who has faith in God is an exception to what Paul is refering to in Romans 3:10-11. It is a misapplication of this text to say that no one who has been exposed to God's creation could have by their own conscience decided to acknowledge him as God in faith. We may not know who they all are but we do know some of them. Heb. 11 lists several.
 

Ian Major

New Member
Skandelon said,
You assume that because one might be able to repent that he will. Just because God removes his judicial hardening, which he doesn't have to do, doesn't mean that the person will automatically see the errors of his ways and repent. He may remain in stubborn rebellion, either way its his own fault because he made the initial choice to rebel and reject God.

No, I don't mean that one must repent if one can. My point is that under your scheme Judas might have truly repented and not 'gone to his place'. But I note you say here that God doesn't have to remove judical hardening - so your accept that God can justly refuse men the opportunity to repent, so that they live the rest of their lives reprobate. That is no different than what Calvinists say, except that your reprobate has been given at least one chance prior to this of repentance. Calvinists say that man is born wicked, therefore deserving of no mercy; you say those who have refused the gospel are in the same boat. So what's the problem with Calvinism's election and reprobation?

You can certainly show me how Paul was "set apart from birth" and "unconditionally chosen" to apostleship but that in no way proves that his audiences are chosen in the same manner, does it?

What then do you believe Paul refers to when he refers to the Christian's election?

In Him

Ian
 

Ian Major

New Member
Skandelon said,
Let me assure you that as a former Calvinist I have no problem with accepting the "fairness" of the Calvinistic understading of God. In fact, I accepted it for many years thus proving that I do indeed believe, as you do, that the exposition of the scripture must be the determinant here, not our emotion or logic.

Then I have misunderstood what you wrote: I used to believe that but in my spirit I knew something was wrong with that interpretation and Ian I honestly believe if you search your spirit you will find the same thing. I took that to mean you 'felt' it was wrong because of the (apparent)lack of fairness.

Let's deal with that. Do you deny that Paul in Romans 9 is dealing with the temporary hardening of rebellious Jews? If so, you clearly are misreading the text.

Paul is dealing with the hardening of Israel. But the principles he uses to show God's justice in so doing are applied beyond Israel. He includes non-hardened Israelites; he includes believing Gentiles. The chief principle he invokes is God's sovereign right to harden whom He will and have mercy on whom He will. He chooses Isaac rather than Ishmael; Jacob rather than Esau - and all not based on forseen righteousness, but on His sovereign choice. Then Pharaoh is used by Paul as an example of God's sovereign right to raise the wicked and use them for His glory. The objector says they are not to blame, for God purposed it that way. Paul rebukes this impiety by pointing to God's sovereign right. He doesn't even try to argue the case, for that is enough to shut the wicked mouth. Arminians however like to pursue the issue of God's justice - and make a strong case for the objector!

Calvinists say the wicked are justly condemned, even if they do no other than what God ordained for them to do. He allowed them the freedom of their sinful nature, and they did according to His purpose, even to crucifying the Lord of Glory.

To limit the doctrine of Rom. 9-11 to the nation of Israel alone is to miss the principles so clearly set out for our learning. Surely 1 Cor. 10 shows us how we are to treat Scripture.

In Him

Ian
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
All that stuff about "the objector" assumes that this chapter is just setting a "principle" on individual salvation, and you have not proven that it is. Individual salvation is the long range goal in the book, but he is using illustrations to explain the case histories of the raising of Israel, and other significant people along the way like Pharaoh. You can't take these to be the main point of salvation, as none of them are even talking about salvation, and if they were, Paul would use at least one example of someone going to Hell to show God's glory. Instead, all we see are eartly events. That's why I said, once again, that Israel is the group Paul could wish himself accursed for. Not some new hardened group called "non-elect". So if it's not what is being discussed, then the "objection" is also not discussing it, and you can't throw this up at people who challenge the idea.

Once again,
WHAT is really being asked here? "Yet" find "fault" for what? "Why would God unconditionally choose someone else and not me/[others], and leave me/[others] in this helpless state, yet still hold me/[them] responsible [i.e. 'find fault'] for my sin, and send me/[them] to Hell when I/[they] couldn't even 'resist His will' to place me/[them] in this state in the first place?". This is what Calvinists are simply projecting into the text. But "ability to repent" is not being discussed here. Neither is any inescapable state or fate. Paul had just mentioned Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh, who are being used to illustrate "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8) The point is, being "Abraham's children" does not make one a child of promise, and being from Isaac also wasn't enough, because both had other children who were not of the promise. So the whole point here is that it must be more than physical lineage. The next step is that even being of Jacob's physical lineage is not enough.
So the objection (from Jews offended that they are pictured as lost like everyone else) is "Why did God make us physical Israel only if that doesn't make us the true children of promise? As much as we try so hard to keep the Law, why is he still finding fault or not accepting us as we are (His people)? Could we have resisted His will to create us this way, if this is not what He counts?" HERE is where Paul says "who are you to reply back to God?"

So the theory of reprobation must stand the same scrutiny as any other idea men come up with: does this line up with what Scripture says about God's character? Not what He "could" do, or "had the right to do", but what He has said He would do. Does it distort reality? Is "guilt" really from sin, or is it something God just pronounces on people, with "sin" scripted in to justify it? (what is reality, then?) And misapplying Paul's answer and saying it is above us won't cut it. You have to show that reprobation is God's intention, and how it squares with what we call "good news" for all. (It is a mixture of good news for some and bad news regarding everyone else)

[ April 21, 2004, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
 

Ian Major

New Member
Eric said,
I never said anything like that. The only thing I have said on that is that many non-Calvinists believe it is remotely possible for a person who never heard of Christ to be saved by looking at natural revelation, acknowledging their conscience, and then asking God to reveal Himself. (they may not know about Christ, but they can figure that there is a true God as Rom. 1 and others attest). Then, God would sens the Gospel to him, so nobody is saved without the Gospel. This may be a less likely occurrence than in a land where the Gospel is preached, but then I never said everyone had an exactly equal "opportunity". Just that God has shut no one out. That would also answer why God still calls us to spread the Gospel. To answer those who have called out to Him, and make it more likely others who may not otherwise will hear and receive.

My apologies, I had assumed you followed Skan on the salvation of the heathen apart form the gospel. Calvinists do accept your scenario, where the heathen are drawn by God to desire Him and then He sends the gospel to them.

The sin came after the initial decree. This is no misrepresentation of "Calvinism', as many do admit this. It's just that your particular brand disclaims it, and you don't like being shown that this is where it still leads. And it is gruesome for a person to be in a place like Hell and having had no way out, because it turns out he was programmed into rejecting the only way out, and thus forced into "doing it himself". That's not "pleasant" is it?

There are those who hold that God reprobated men without consideration of the Fall - but they are a small minority, not representative of mainstream Calvinism. It is your 'programmed into' sin scenario that is faulty. Calvinism rejects the idea that God is the author of sin. You may well insist that He must be to blame if no one resisted His will, but Paul and the rest of Scripture reject your logic.

It is you who keeps pinning this on "fairness", when there are plenty scriptures that show that God does give everyone an opportunity to repent (not always equal, mind you).

If you insist that God must give everyone an opportunity to repent or Himself be unfair, then He must give an equal opportunity. That is the logic of fairness. You would not accept any less in human affairs. But as to opportuny to repent, the Scripture does indeed show that God gives sinners opportunities to repent; natural revelation and conscience for all mankind, and the Law for the Jews. Those however were useless in actually saving anyone, for our sinful nature rebelled against them. The gospel then is sent out into the world, and those who have ears to hear obey it and are saved. Those who do not obey it still have had the opportunity.

You may object that it is no real opportunity if due to their natures they are unwilling to believe. Calvinists believe it is a real opportunity and the fault for rejecting it lies with them, not with God. The reprobate's nature causes him to reject natural revelation, conscience, Law and the gospel.

What we should do is go back to the Bible, not focus on later reactions to some error. Those often will overemphasize the point it was opposing the error on, (and themselves may introduce error, since they are not inspired) and often causes much problems in our interaction with the cults, religions, etc. (the creedal language of the Trinity is an example, and I notice how this is often compared to that).

I completely agree. That is part of the reason I am wary of too much systematic theology - the logic can lead one away from Scripture.

Must Rush

In Him

Ian
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
There are those who hold that God reprobated men without consideration of the Fall - but they are a small minority, not representative of mainstream Calvinism. It is your 'programmed into' sin scenario that is faulty. Calvinism rejects the idea that God is the author of sin. You may well insist that He must be to blame if no one resisted His will, but Paul and the rest of Scripture reject your logic.
You may object that it is no real opportunity if due to their natures they are unwilling to believe. Calvinists believe it is a real opportunity and the fault for rejecting it lies with them, not with God. The reprobate's nature causes him to reject natural revelation, conscience, Law and the gospel.
It was Edwin Palmer who said "God ordains sin; man is to blame", which he called the "awsome asymmetry" (You would think this was the main part of the blessed hope! :rolleyes: ) Is he one of those "small minorities", or do you see "ordain" as somehow diferent from "cause"? Still, nobody at any time said "I choose to be born sinful and unable to repent" (unless you take Origen's position), so they did not create "sin". (Paul and "resisted His will was answered, yet again, above).
Also, while you and others keep disclaiming these harder forms of Calvinism, are you sure that you are not doing the same thing you accuse us of? Rejecting something because it is too "hard" or "unfair" for you? It seems all of those teachings came with the package, and as I show, it leads back to that no matter what. Those hypers, or supras, or whatever, will tell you "Who are you to reply back to God?" If reprobation is justified on God's sovereign will, then He can condemn them apart from sin as well. And once again, in the eternal scheme of things, whoever is lost is not determined by the "good or evil" they did anyway, according to your readings of Rom.9; thus "apart from sin".
Believing that there is a "real opportunity" and it's people's own fault for rejecting it is what leads us to our view. In your system, "fault" and "opportunity" seem to lose their meaning altogether, and fault becomes some tag God puts on people to condemn them. You can argue that God's ways are higher, but then we are using human language, and how can there be communication of nothing means what one would think it means?
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Ian Major:
No, I don't mean that one must repent if one can. My point is that under your scheme Judas might have truly repented and not 'gone to his place'.
Not until God had accomplished his purpose through him. In other words, I don't believe it was possible for Judas to thwart the plan of redemption by repenting before his betrayal. I believe God had hardened Judas in his rebellious state to accomplish a purpose through him. Was he left in that hardened state? I don't know. He did give the money back, but scripture certainly doesn't exonerate him.

But I note you say here that God doesn't have to remove judical hardening - so your accept that God can justly refuse men the opportunity to repent, so that they live the rest of their lives reprobate.
First, God can do whatever He wants. I've always stated that Calvinism could have been God's plan, I just don't believe it is because its not biblical. This is not about what God COULD do, its about what the scripture reveals He has done and is doing. Secondly, the answer to your question is yes. God can justly refused men the opportunity to repent so that they live the rest of their lives reprobate, afterall they have been given ample opportunity to come under God's saving wings but they were unwilling (Matt. 23:37).

That is no different than what Calvinists say, except that your reprobate has been given at least one chance prior to this of repentance. Calvinists say that man is born wicked, therefore deserving of no mercy; you say those who have refused the gospel are in the same boat. So what's the problem with Calvinism's election and reprobation?
Its not biblical. That's it. The bible teaches what I have presented but it does not teach what you have presented. Do you think I only object to Calvinism because I think its unfair or unreasonable? I used to debate professors and friends with passion defending Calvinism. I don't have a problem accepting Calvinism's claims IF indeed the scripture support it. But it doesn't!

Ian, go back and look at the two sinareios I presented earlier. One that has God hardening an infant and another that has God hardening a grown man who has freely, by his own volition with full understanding and knowledge, continually rejected God. Are you really telling me that you don't see anything different in these two objections regarding God's fairness and more importantly the biblical account?

What then do you believe Paul refers to when he refers to the Christian's election?
To what passage are you referring? I need to know the context.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Skandelon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But I note you say here that God doesn't have to remove judical hardening - so your accept that God can justly refuse men the opportunity to repent, so that they live the rest of their lives reprobate.
First, God can do whatever He wants. I've always stated that Calvinism could have been God's plan, I just don't believe it is because its not biblical. This is not about what God COULD do, its about what the scripture reveals He has done and is doing. Secondly, the answer to your question is yes. God can justly refused men the opportunity to repent so that they live the rest of their lives reprobate, afterall they have been given ample opportunity to come under God's saving wings but they were unwilling (Matt. 23:37).</font>[/QUOTE]I just wanted to add a note to this. You must remember the point Paul goes out of his way to mention: The ingrafting of the Gentiles was meant to provoke the unbelieving Jews to envy so that they might believe. If the only unbelieving Jews who were going to be saved were elect then why would they need to be provoked by envy? Couldn't they have been effectually called just like the "remnant" which included Paul? Paul and the remnant of his day didn't need to be provoked by envy, they were effectually called. Why aren't the other "elect Jews" simply effectually called as were the first group? What purpose does provoking them accomplish?
 

Ian Major

New Member
Eric said,
It was Edwin Palmer who said "God ordains sin; man is to blame", which he called the "awsome asymmetry" (You would think this was the main part of the blessed hope! ) Is he one of those "small minorities", or do you see "ordain" as somehow diferent from "cause"? Still, nobody at any time said "I choose to be born sinful and unable to repent" (unless you take Origen's position), so they did not create "sin". (Paul and "resisted His will was answered, yet again, above).

Yes, I do see 'ordain' as being different to being the author of sin. I'm sure Palmer does too. If Palmer had said God made Adam sin, then that would have been a different matter. As to man creating sin, how can one 'create' sin, other than by sinning. We 'create' sin every day. Sin is the violation of God's command and standard for us. God did not create a substance called sin and set it upon Adam - Adam disobeyed God. God had ordained that in such a way that the moral responsibility for the sin lay with the sinner, not with Him. How did He do so? We don't know, He doesn't say. But like job, we are not to charge God foolishly. We can be sure that the Holy One does only what is right and good, even if it means suffering and death for us.

If reprobation is justified on God's sovereign will, then He can condemn them apart from sin as well. And once again, in the eternal scheme of things, whoever is lost is not determined by the "good or evil" they did anyway, according to your readings of Rom.9; thus "apart from sin".

Perhaps He could. We don't know. Scripture seems best understood in terms of reprobation in view of the Fall. And the 'good or evil' refers to man's works, not to his nature. God viewed man in his fallen state, and chose from among such a people for Himself.

Believing that there is a "real opportunity" and it's people's own fault for rejecting it is what leads us to our view. In your system, "fault" and "opportunity" seem to lose their meaning altogether, and fault becomes some tag God puts on people to condemn them. You can argue that God's ways are higher, but then we are using human language, and how can there be communication of nothing means what one would think it means?

The Old Covenant was an opportunity to be saved, for failure to keep it brought condemnation. But you agree it was impossible for man to keep, due to his sinful nature. You then say it was not a 'real' opportunity. But then God must be unfair when He condemns the Jews for breaking it - Jer.31:32. The truth is, the OC was a real opportunity in God's sight, and that should settle it for us. Our understanding of 'fault' and 'opportunity' must come from what God says, not our human reasoning. As I said before, human reasoning will lead us to Open Theism and worse.

In Him

Ian
 
Top