I still don't understand why people, right after using the Romans 9 "Potter and Clay"/"vessel of wrath fitted for destruction in regards to individuals going to Hell then turn around and deny belief in "double predestination". "Decreed to Hell" and "fitted for destruction" are mutual paraphrases IF the latter is referring to individuals going to Hell. If you reject double predestination, then let go of this interpretation of the passage and admit it is not talking about that.
-
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!
Is Fairness an Attribute of God?
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
Ray Berrian
New Member
Ken Hamilton,
A man spoke to Jesus once and said, 'Lord, are there few that be saved?' I guess the idea did not originate with me. [Luke 13:23]. Jesus did not answer his question directly, as I see it.
The verse that stands out in my mind is Matthew 7:14 where our Lord offered these words. ' . . . and few there be that find it.'
Only a tiny percentage in our world can in any way at all be called Christian. Don't hold me to percentages but I think I have heard 2 or 3 percent of the world population. What do you think?
I still believe that people have to come to God ONLY through Jesus in order to be saved. [I Timothy 2:5-6].
Ray Berrian, Th.D.
A man spoke to Jesus once and said, 'Lord, are there few that be saved?' I guess the idea did not originate with me. [Luke 13:23]. Jesus did not answer his question directly, as I see it.
The verse that stands out in my mind is Matthew 7:14 where our Lord offered these words. ' . . . and few there be that find it.'
Only a tiny percentage in our world can in any way at all be called Christian. Don't hold me to percentages but I think I have heard 2 or 3 percent of the world population. What do you think?
I still believe that people have to come to God ONLY through Jesus in order to be saved. [I Timothy 2:5-6].
Ray Berrian, Th.D.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Scott and Ray,
Taking in account all of those who have died in the womb or at a very young age before they were conscious of sin, I think you may come up with a majority or certainly a much larger minority than you are implying are saved by Christ's blood.
And then a postmillennialist like myself believes there will be a long golden age of the church where most people on earth will be Christians and that makes number even larger.
Now it may be that a majority of those who become conscious of sin will be lost, but those that die before then will greatly swell the number of the elect.
One redeemed by Christ's blood,
Ken
Were it not for grace...
[ July 10, 2002, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
Taking in account all of those who have died in the womb or at a very young age before they were conscious of sin, I think you may come up with a majority or certainly a much larger minority than you are implying are saved by Christ's blood.
And then a postmillennialist like myself believes there will be a long golden age of the church where most people on earth will be Christians and that makes number even larger.
Now it may be that a majority of those who become conscious of sin will be lost, but those that die before then will greatly swell the number of the elect.
One redeemed by Christ's blood,
Ken
Were it not for grace...
[ July 10, 2002, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
All get a chance or the same chance?
All those people who died in China the week Christ hung on the cross got a chance like the folks who showed up at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, TN this past Sunday?
You're confusing me with your concept of fairness.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
Arminianism is more unfair than Calvinism. They teach the theory of "unlimited atonement," that Christ died for everyone equally. Why, then, doesn't God give everyone an equal opportunity to hear the Gospel. Millions die every day without hearing the name of Jesus. Is that fair? Arminians further teach if preachers don't go, God can't save. God's hands are tied. Does this sound like a sovereign God?
Why do we use human logic to determine whether God is fair or not?... Instead of accepting election the way the scripture say it is we look at election the way we think by our human logic it should be. We put God on the same plane as us mortals which is not an attribute at all. God does all things according to his OWN WILL and PURPOSE and none can stay his hand or ask him what doest thou.
I'm a history nut and one of my favorite book is Foxes Book Of Martyrs and in that book many would rather be burned at the stake than deny God. God didn't come to their aid and rescue them... He could have... After all didn't they follow him?... Now according to human logic that was not fair... Did it carry out the purpose of God?... Did it ever because the written word of God the Bible that you have the freedom to read was bought with martyrs blood.
Job 23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
14 For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him... Brother Glen
I'm a history nut and one of my favorite book is Foxes Book Of Martyrs and in that book many would rather be burned at the stake than deny God. God didn't come to their aid and rescue them... He could have... After all didn't they follow him?... Now according to human logic that was not fair... Did it carry out the purpose of God?... Did it ever because the written word of God the Bible that you have the freedom to read was bought with martyrs blood.
Job 23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
14 For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him... Brother Glen
Daniel David
New Member
Hardsheller, I didn't understand the reference to Bellevue. What is it?
Primitive Baptist
New Member
Nothing could be further from the truth. God doesn't save according to chance, but according to purpose.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28)
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (II Tim. 1:9)
Ray brought something to my attention.
"When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
Don't you see what Jesus was saying? Salvation is impossible with man!
Daniel David
New Member
Fairness is something children whine about. It is NOT an attribute of God. Everybody does not get the same thing.
Helen, had you quoted the similar passage from Ephesians, Ken would have had a harder time setting it aside...take a look:
Eph 6:5 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether [he] [is] a slave or free. 9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
Maybe you had this in mind when you quoted the other one
Another one:
Romans 2:9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism .
AITB
Eph 6:5 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether [he] [is] a slave or free. 9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
Maybe you had this in mind when you quoted the other one
Another one:
Romans 2:9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism .
AITB
The "partiality" passages are a strong argument in favor of the Calvinistic view of soteriology. To leave salvation in the unaided purview of man would be to show partiality to those who were smarter, more able to recognize their need, lucky enough to be born in a Christian society, in a day of mass communications, etc. Only in a Calvinistic view can true impartiality be found. God does not save man based on what is in man, including his circumstances, faculties, etc. He saves man based on what is in God.
Pastor Larry,
I understand your point and yet I also find it hard to see what is impartial about God choosing only some for eternal salvation.
I think if I chose only one of my children for something then the other one would have a basis for saying it wasn't fair. Regardless of whether either of them deserved the something or not.
AITB
I understand your point and yet I also find it hard to see what is impartial about God choosing only some for eternal salvation.
I think if I chose only one of my children for something then the other one would have a basis for saying it wasn't fair. Regardless of whether either of them deserved the something or not.
AITB
What basis would that be? If two people do not deserve a gift and one of them receives one based on the goodness of the giver alone, they both continue to be unworthy. By crying foul, the child who didn't receive the gift demonstrates why they justly did not deserve one in the first place. They would come closer to deserving one if they had genuine happiness for the other child without expectation for themselves.Originally posted by AITB:
I think if I chose only one of my children for something then the other one would have a basis for saying it wasn't fair. Regardless of whether either of them deserved the something or not.
AITB
By reacting with jealousy, the unchosen child is not demonstrating a basis for proving unfairness. They are simply showing their sin nature.
OK, I saw this explained with a quote from Gill on the "Handful" thread, but I pointed out over there that the rest of Romans 9 still suggests God ultimately made them that way (v17-21) and thus doesn't avoid double predestination, IF you take the passage to be referring to the eternal condemnation of individuals.
Originally posted by Scott J:
That would be the basis of having been created in God's image and therefore understanding justice and fairness, because he made him/her that way.
If two people do not deserve a gift and one of them receives one based on the goodness of the giver alone, they both continue to be unworthy. By crying foul, the child who didn't receive the gift demonstrates why they justly did not deserve one in the first place. They would come closer to deserving one if they had genuine happiness for the other child without expectation for themselves.
I say that's totally unrealistic, Scott. I can't imagine a child being happy for a sibling who got something and not even having a thought about him/herself not getting it also - unless that child has been conditioned by abuse not to dare think about why a sibling would get something they don't get.
By reacting with jealousy, the unchosen child is not demonstrating a basis for proving unfairness. They are simply showing their sin nature.
As I said, they are showing themselves made in God's image, who placed in them a desire to see fairness and justice in this world.
How very conveniently your explanation turns the child's own sense of justice and fairness against them with "Ah, see, because you complained, you just proved you didn't deserve anything!" Catch-22!
Anyway, I think the child would have this valid basis: "if you gave that to him/her because you love him/her, don't you love me as much, then?"
And what's the answer? In Calvinism it seems to be "Yep! You're right - I love him/her more and there's nothing you can do about it! But don't worry...it's not because of you..."
And that child is supposed to accept that as reasonable?
What basis would that be?Originally posted by AITB:
I think if I chose only one of my children for something then the other one would have a basis for saying it wasn't fair. Regardless of whether either of them deserved the something or not.
AITB
That would be the basis of having been created in God's image and therefore understanding justice and fairness, because he made him/her that way.
If two people do not deserve a gift and one of them receives one based on the goodness of the giver alone, they both continue to be unworthy. By crying foul, the child who didn't receive the gift demonstrates why they justly did not deserve one in the first place. They would come closer to deserving one if they had genuine happiness for the other child without expectation for themselves.
I say that's totally unrealistic, Scott. I can't imagine a child being happy for a sibling who got something and not even having a thought about him/herself not getting it also - unless that child has been conditioned by abuse not to dare think about why a sibling would get something they don't get.
By reacting with jealousy, the unchosen child is not demonstrating a basis for proving unfairness. They are simply showing their sin nature.
As I said, they are showing themselves made in God's image, who placed in them a desire to see fairness and justice in this world.
How very conveniently your explanation turns the child's own sense of justice and fairness against them with "Ah, see, because you complained, you just proved you didn't deserve anything!" Catch-22!
Anyway, I think the child would have this valid basis: "if you gave that to him/her because you love him/her, don't you love me as much, then?"
And what's the answer? In Calvinism it seems to be "Yep! You're right - I love him/her more and there's nothing you can do about it! But don't worry...it's not because of you..."
And that child is supposed to accept that as reasonable?
KenH
Well-Known Member
Eric,
You appear to be hung up on a "double predestination or bust" scenario and I simply am not going to allow you to force me into that theological corner.
Let me explain. God works monergistically in granting regeneration but He does not work that way in reprobation. God alone can grant salvation, man alone can damn himself.
God shows undeserved mercy to the elect. God gives deserved justice to the reprobate.
I understand your desire to force all Calvinists into a double predestination mode as you see it as an easier position to argue against and you want to use it to turn the theological sword of Romans 9 that we Calvinists use to hack Arminianism to pieces back upon us.
But, it won't work as I won't accept your premise of Romans 9. Perhaps you can find a true double predestinationist to argue this with.
Best wishes.
One redeemed by Christ's blood,
Ken
Were it not for grace...
You appear to be hung up on a "double predestination or bust" scenario and I simply am not going to allow you to force me into that theological corner.
Let me explain. God works monergistically in granting regeneration but He does not work that way in reprobation. God alone can grant salvation, man alone can damn himself.
God shows undeserved mercy to the elect. God gives deserved justice to the reprobate.
I understand your desire to force all Calvinists into a double predestination mode as you see it as an easier position to argue against and you want to use it to turn the theological sword of Romans 9 that we Calvinists use to hack Arminianism to pieces back upon us.
But, it won't work as I won't accept your premise of Romans 9. Perhaps you can find a true double predestinationist to argue this with.
Best wishes.
One redeemed by Christ's blood,
Ken
Were it not for grace...
It's not me who's trying to "force" you into double predestination, or "turning the sword back on you". That's what this passage says if your interpretation of it is correct. The context shows that is not correct, and just as Calvinists are always trying to show non-Calvinists the "inconsistencies" of their position, this is what I am doing. (In trying to "hack" Arminianism with this passage, you've swung so hard that you've hacked your own position) There are some inconsistencies in some of the "free-will" arguments, but Calvinism does not have it all explained either.
KenH
Well-Known Member
(Rom 9:21-23 NKJV) Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? {22} What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, {23} and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
There are masses of clay - all in various misshapen forms - in front of a potter. The potter takes some of those masses of clay and turns them into beautiful vessels which they could never have become left to themselves.
Other masses of misshapen clay vessels are passed over by this potter and they become uglier as time works on them. These masses are eventually collected and thrown into the trash heap and destroyed. This potter did nothing to cause them to reach this point, natural processes took their course.
Now, to apply this Biblically:
For the vessels of mercy:
(Col 1:27 NKJV) "Christ in you, the hope of glory."
For the vessels of wrath:
(Romans 1:24 NKJV) "Therefore God also gave them up"
(Romans 1:26 NKJV) "For this reason God gave them up"
(Romans 1:28 NKJV) "God gave them over"
As you see, for the vessels of mercy, Christ is implanted in them. For the vessels of wrath, they are simply left to the course of their own nature.
One redeemed by Christ's blood,
Ken
Were it not for grace...
There are masses of clay - all in various misshapen forms - in front of a potter. The potter takes some of those masses of clay and turns them into beautiful vessels which they could never have become left to themselves.
Other masses of misshapen clay vessels are passed over by this potter and they become uglier as time works on them. These masses are eventually collected and thrown into the trash heap and destroyed. This potter did nothing to cause them to reach this point, natural processes took their course.
Now, to apply this Biblically:
For the vessels of mercy:
(Col 1:27 NKJV) "Christ in you, the hope of glory."
For the vessels of wrath:
(Romans 1:24 NKJV) "Therefore God also gave them up"
(Romans 1:26 NKJV) "For this reason God gave them up"
(Romans 1:28 NKJV) "God gave them over"
As you see, for the vessels of mercy, Christ is implanted in them. For the vessels of wrath, they are simply left to the course of their own nature.
One redeemed by Christ's blood,
Ken
Were it not for grace...
Primitive Baptist
New Member
God is no respecter of persons. He doesn't save people because they're rich, American, male, female, slave, master, etc. If His election had been based on such, He would be a respecter of person, but it wasn't. It was based on His sovereign choice.