Irresistable Grace

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Of course, nobody says "neutral". I used that word to raise the point about man having to be "blinded" or "hardened" (especially in light of the common use of Rom.9 which discusses neutral "lumps of clay" and people "not yet having been born, [to] do good or evil" being assigned wrath or mercy). If this is in order to 'keep them from moving out of the damnation column', than that is not quite "keeping them as they were", because "the way they were" was not only in "damnation", but also apparently they were in motion, (possibly to salvation), this would assume, but now you have frozen them in damnation.

Now I'm really confused. First you say nobody says "neutral", and then you refer to a passage in Romans using the assumption that the parties start out "neutral". But that's not at all what the text says. The text says that God's decision on the fate of Jacob and Esau had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Jacob and Esau could have done, because they weren't even born yet, and therefore had no opportunity to have done good or evil. This does not presuppose neutrality of any kind.

Likewise, the text on the potter and clay does not in any way express neutrality. The text points out how outrageous it would be for man to judge God's motives and actions in creating whatever and whomever He wants. The only connection with neutrality I can imagine is if you assume the "lump of clay" refers to some resevoir of neutral souls. That would be a stretch not even spandex could handle.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Under God's sovereignty He has allowed human beings complete free moral agency

Chapter and verse, please? And I don't mean Adam, I mean us, after the fall. And I don't mean indirect inferences such as "God would never command something if He didn't give us the ability to comply." I mean direct, explicit verses that in God's sovereignty He has give us complete free moral agency, by which I assume you mean free will.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,
SAINT'S CALL TO THE GOSPEL

I gladly agree with you that there is a call to those mentioned in Romans eight. They are 'foreknown, predestinated, conformed to the image of the Son, called, justified and ultimately glorified with Him.'
SINNER'S CALL TO THE GOSPEL

Moreover, all of the lost who understand the Gospel are also called to Him. [I Timothy 2:4; 2:6 and Acts 17:30. All sinners who hear the Gospel and have heard the Lord's command/ultimatum to 'repent' have, without question, been called on to make up their minds. Acts 17:30 says, ' . . . but now commandeth ALL men--everywhere to repent.' In case you might ask why repent? 'Because He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained . . . ' [John 5:22].

Why would the Lord who died on the Cross demand ALL people to repent if in reality He knows 'bottom line' He is going to damn the non-elect anyway? The Biblical answer is because He won't place people in Hell without their continued rebellion against Him by not receiving Christ.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Why would the Lord who died on the Cross demand ALL people to repent if in reality He knows 'bottom line' He is going to damn the non-elect anyway?

I suggested an answer to that question in another post. But what I'm wondering is why would you ignore the plain meaning of many scriptures simply because you can't think of a satisfactory answer to the above question?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
SAINT'S CALL TO THE GOSPEL

So you think people are saints before they are called? What kind of theology do you have?? Now you sound like a primitive baptist. Here, the call clearly precedes the justification and therefore these people are unsaved when they are called. It is a call to sinners and it surely results in justification, making them saved.

SINNER'S CALL TO THE GOSPEL

Moreover, all of the lost who understand the Gospel are also called to Him. [I Timothy 2:4; 2:6 and Acts 17:30. All sinners who hear the Gospel and have heard the Lord's command/ultimatum to 'repent' have, without question, been called on to make up their minds. Acts 17:30 says, ' . . . but now commandeth ALL men--everywhere to repent.' In case you might ask why repent? 'Because He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained . . . ' [John 5:22].

But you seem to miss the obvious, for reasons that I cannot figure out. These people in Rom 8 are unsaved (unjustified) when they are called and then justified after they are called. The call comes to unsaved and results in sure salvation. That call does not go out to everyone because not everyone is justified.

Your responses show the length to which you will go to defend your theology in spite of the text.

Why would the Lord who died on the Cross demand ALL people to repent if in reality He knows 'bottom line' He is going to damn the non-elect anyway? The Biblical answer is because He won't place people in Hell without their continued rebellion against Him by not receiving Christ.

The question is true for you as well. Even in your position, you say that the God will damn the non-elect. We agree on that. We also agree that God does not place people in Hell without their continued rebellion. This is no different. God demands all men to repent because that is the only appropriate response to the King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Jesus came into the world to "gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (John 11:52). Jesus did not come into the world to make children of God, but die for them. This verse is conclusive. Having lived before Calvary, I suppose the Old Testament saints were not children of God or justified with God.

"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Galatians 4:6)

How do you interpret that? And yes, I am an OLD SCHOOL PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, and quite proud of it.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Here is a piece of information that is worth taking into consideration. Romans 8:30 is in past tense.

It is an observation of a Jewish writer {n}, "that a thing twyhl rzgnv, "which is decreed to be," is spoken of in the past tense:" this is the Scripture style concerning things decreed, and such is the glorification of all God's elect. Dr. John Gill, D. D.

 

[Eric B]

Now I'm really confused. First you say nobody says "neutral", and then you refer to a passage in Romans using the assumption that the parties start out "neutral". But that's not at all what the text says. The text says that God's decision on the fate of Jacob and Esau had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Jacob and Esau could have done, because they weren't even born yet, and therefore had no opportunity to have done good or evil. This does not presuppose neutrality of any kind.

Likewise, the text on the potter and clay does not in any way express neutrality. The text points out how outrageous it would be for man to judge God's motives and actions in creating whatever and whomever He wants. The only connection with neutrality I can imagine is if you assume the "lump of clay" refers to some resevoir of neutral souls. That would be a stretch not even spandex could handle.

What I'm saying is that the Calvinists take the passage as explaining "why do some go to Heaven, and some go to Hell? Because God simply chose some to go to Heaven {or Hell / or passed over the rest}, irrespective of anything they did (including choosing or rejecting Him by free will), and nobody had the right to question this". But the passage is not talking about Heaven or Hell, and since we know that man is not neutral, then the idea of "clay vessels being assigned mercy or wrath even before they were born and had not yet done good or evil" is not talking about God giving people the retribution they deserved for evil they had done, or sparing some from it, but rather His plans through various people on earth (v.22ff). I'm not assuming/suggesting lumps of clay are neutral individuals; I'm just pointing out that that's what this passage would lead to if taken to describe the eternal damnation of individuals.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

I could never believe that a person is regenerated before personally receiving Christ into the life.

The Apostle Paul is only assuring us that all who will ultimately be glorified will have at some moment in time have been called through the Gospel. In and of itself I don't believe the call has any saving benefit, but it is a means used by God to bring all of His people into grace.

I am accepting of the Divine order as documented in Romans 8:29-30. He starts out with 'forknow.' Strong's Concordance uses the word, (proginosko) meaning, 'to know beforehand, or to foresee.' God has always, forever known who will ultimately be saved and made fit for Heaven.

I believe He uses this human concept for people who live in a time framework just so we know His decision to predestinate this group is not by His autocratic choice but because of human choice freely given to His lost creation.

A surgeon makes a 'prognosis' of a person having some grave disease. They day before that person entered his or her office, he or she did not know this disease would require the use of the scalpel. The difference with God is He has always known that certain people would, in time, be saved. This did not require that He ordain this fact without consideration of human response in what we call time.