How about this for a proof text?

[Skandelon]

Will the Calvinists say to the One who made the Arminian, 'Why did you make him that way?' But who are you, O Calvinist, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make him like this?' Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for Arminian purposes and some for Calvinistic use?

 

[annsni]

So you're saying that God created someone to a particular belief system and that they will never change their mind?

Oh the places we must go to argue. :BangHead:

 

[Herald]

So you're saying that God created someone to a particular belief system and that they will never change their mind?

Oh the places we must go to argue. :BangHead:

Exactly. Since Skan claims to have once believed the DoG, how does that fit into his proof text?

 

[Herald]

Correction. Not proof text; a rewording of scripture that has no resemblance to the original passage.

 

[Yeshua1]

Correction. Not proof text; a rewording of scripture that has no resemblance to the original passage.

or ANY support for the implied thought contained within it!

 

[Benjamin]

Will the Calvinists say to the One who made the Arminian, 'Why did you make him that way?' But who are you, O Calvinist, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make him like this?' Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for Arminian purposes and some for Calvinistic use?

Shandelon! How dare you suggest any other interpretation to be possible of that treasured Calvinist’ proof-text than that which would fit their deterministic theological goals! Don't you know that verse is off bounds! What a trouble maker "you" "you" "you" are!

Romans 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay - And much more hath not God power over his creatures, to appoint one vessel, namely, the believer, to honour, and another, the unbeliever, to dishonour?

If we survey the right which God has over us, in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views, as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all; or, as their moral Governor, and Judge.

God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind; these, and numberless other circumstances, are doubtless ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But God's methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are dearly revealed and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works: "He that believeth shalt be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned."

Therefore, though "He hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth," that is, suffers to be hardened in consequence of their obstinate wickedness; yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercy. ~ John Wesley

 

[jbh28]

Exactly. Since Skan claims to have once believed the DoG, how does that fit into his proof text?

I've always wondered why people who claim to be formal calvinist have an amnesia attack? Either Skan was a major hyper hyper hyper calvinist, is having amnesia on what he believed, or is misrepresenting.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Actually the passage is strikingly applicable. The Jews were "elect" and confident in that and Paul says God's going to cast many of these supposedly "elect" straight to hell, and who is the Jew to complain to God the Creator for doing so? So it all comes back (as it always has) to salvation coming upon ALL who believe, and these who believe are the true elect, and not the supposedly elect being saved no matter what. The problem with Calvies is that they reason too much like the Jews in Rom. 9-11.

 

[Winman]

The problem with Calvies is that they reason too much like the Jews in Rom. 9-11.

That is exactly what this ex-Calvinist says in this very interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hVfRKSUqZo

 

[zrs6v4]

Actually the passage is strikingly applicable. The Jews were "elect" and confident in that and Paul says God's going to cast many of these supposedly "elect" straight to hell, and who is the Jew to complain to God the Creator for doing so? So it all comes back (as it always has) to salvation coming upon ALL who believe, and these who believe are the true elect, and not the supposedly elect being saved no matter what. The problem with Calvies is that they reason too much like the Jews in Rom. 9-11.

Not to mention that pauls thoughts in Romans 9 flow from the end of Romans 8

 

[Herald]

Go back to the OP. It implies no one should question the Arminian or the validity of his theology. The OP isn't even a debate between monergism and synergism. It's a cutsie tactic that will appeal to the synergists; one of those "gotcha" moments that are intelluctually wanting. The fact is that we are to take the Word seriously and contend for the truth in the face of error. With that in mind both groups are within their right to challenge the other.

 

[WITBOTL]

determinism
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

key phrase being "events determined by causes external to the will"

Do any "Calvinists" here believe that when man exercises his will the event that he chooses based on that exercise is somehow not caused by that choice? Seems to me when a man makes a choice the cause of the action upon which his choice is based is... his choice. hmmm... doesn't sound like determinism to me...

what some(one) here fails or refuses to recognize is that it is possible for x to be determined by y but caused by z. Determine is not always a synonym for cause, hence the apparent complete misapprehension of some relatively simple scriptural concepts regarding the sovereignty of God and the free agency of man.

If God determined that you will be a wicked reprobate of the worst nature he simply has to do NOTHING to efficiently cause it, only allow it to happen. You will fall into it naturally by the force of your own will governed by your nature which you inherited from Adam, which he received through his choice to rebel against God.

rom 9:19 - Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:19 - "Nay but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it...

9:32 ... Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at the stumblingstone...

Interesting, It looks like the potter determined to make known his wrath preparing a lump unto dishonour... how did this happen? Looks like it happened because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. Here we have God determining as the potter and man acting of his own accord to accomplish God's purpose.

The real problem comes in understanding how it is possible for man to make a choice which is against his nature. Either man's nature does not determine his choices OR man needs his nature to be changed in order to make a different choice...

 

[Herald]

determinism
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

key phrase being "events determined by causes external to the will"

Do any "Calvinists" here believe that when man exercises his will the event that he chooses based on that exercise is somehow not caused by that choice? Seems to me when a man makes a choice the cause of the action upon which his choice is based is... his choice. hmmm... doesn't sound like determinism to me...

what some(one) here fails or refuses to recognize is that it is possible for x to be determined by y but caused by z. Determine is not always a synonym for cause, hence the apparent complete misapprehension of some relatively simple scriptural concepts regarding the sovereignty of God and the free agency of man.

If God determined that you will be a wicked reprobate of the worst nature he simply has to do NOTHING to efficiently cause it, only allow it to happen. You will fall into it naturally by the force of your own will governed by your nature which you inherited from Adam, which he received through his choice to rebel against God.

rom 9:19 - Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:19 - "Nay but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it...

9:32 ... Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at the stumblingstone...

Interesting, It looks like the potter determined to make known his wrath preparing a lump unto dishonour... how did this happen? Looks like it happened because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. Here we have God determining as the potter and man acting of his own accord to accomplish God's purpose.

The real problem comes in understanding how it is possible for man to make a choice which is against his nature. Either man's nature does not determine his choices OR man needs his nature to be changed in order to make a different choice...

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Skandelon]

Yall crack me up. This post was tongue in cheek but the reaction makes me think there must be something to it.

It's just interesting that Calvinists love quoting this passage in Romans 9 when anyone questions why God would make someone unable to willingly respond to His appeal for reconciliation but still hold they responsible for that response, but they get their panties all in a wad when anyone applies the same logic to the question as to why God would decree before the foundation of the world which of his children would be Calvinistic and which ones wouldn't.

Doesn't seem that unreasonable of a parallel to me. Do you all not believe that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, or don't you? Do you think God is sovereign over everything except our theological views, or what?

 

[OldRegular]

Will the Calvinists say to the One who made the Arminian, 'Why did you make him that way?' But who are you, O Calvinist, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make him like this?' Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for Arminian purposes and some for Calvinistic use?

I believe you have an incorrect view of the Doctrines of Grace. I can't speak for Calvinism!

 

[Herald]

Yall crack me up. This post was tongue in cheek but the reaction makes me think there must be something to it.

It's just interesting that Calvinists love quoting this passage in Romans 9 when anyone questions why God would make someone unable to willingly respond to His appeal for reconciliation but still hold they responsible for that response, but they get their panties all in a wad when anyone applies the same logic to the question as to why God would decree before the foundation of the world which of his children would be Calvinistic and which ones wouldn't.

Doesn't seem that unreasonable of a parallel to me. Do you all not believe that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, or don't you? Do you think God is sovereign over everything except our theological views, or what?

I think you better go back and read your "joke" and the criticisms of it.

 

[Skandelon]

Go back to the OP. It implies no one should question the Arminian or the validity of his theology.

Nope. It implies that if Calvinism's premise is true then Calvinists shouldn't question as to why God made some to be Arminians and some to be Calvinists. If you deny contra-causal freedom and insist that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass so that it unchangeably will come to pass (as some do); then this is a valid implication.

It's a cutsie tactic

Thanks. I thought it was cute too. :love2:

one of those "gotcha" moments that are intelluctually wanting.

Aww, now your just being mean.

Well, God chose the weak to shame the wise, so maybe since I'm more intelluctually (sic) wanting than you, I'll be more likely to be chosen? Oh, wait that wouldn't be unconditional...Hmmm? :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

So you're saying that God created someone to a particular belief system and that they will never change their mind?

No, I'm saying that if God unchangeably decrees whatsoever comes to pass (a view held to by most Calvinists), that would undoubtably include our particular belief system. And if the non-elect reprobate shouldn't question why God made him such (the faulty application of Rom 9 by Calvinism); then the Calvinist shouldn't question why God made me, an Arminian, such as I am either.

 

[Luke2427]

Will the Calvinists say to the One who made the Arminian, 'Why did you make him that way?' But who are you, O Calvinist, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make him like this?' Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for Arminian purposes and some for Calvinistic use?

The Calvinist is content that God made Arminians. He has a purpose for all things.

This is no problem for the Calvinist at all.

God had a purpose for creating a world in which he knew there would be all kinds of errors- including Arminianism.

We are perfectly satisfied with trusting his wisdom in this matter.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Calvinist is content that God made Arminians. He has a purpose for all things.

This is no problem for the Calvinist at all.

God had a purpose for creating a world in which he knew there would be all kinds of errors- including Arminianism.

We are perfectly satisfied with trusting his wisdom in this matter.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: