Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Wonderful passage. What does it mean to you that would fill your mouth with such bitter words?
-
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!
Once a Son Always a Son?
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
HP: Wonderful passage. What does it mean to you that would fill your mouth with such bitter words?
Bitter? Spiritual discernment would have told you, quite clearly, that there is no bitterness, real or implied. You are on the wrong track, I'm just letting you know. In so doing I pray that you will spend more time in spiritually directed study and less in high school debating tactics / philosophy.
I wrote this before I saw the dueling between DQ and HP . . .
So, HP - I wrote this in a much lighter vein . . .
First, I prefer "In like Flynn" over "In like Flint." IMHO.
Now, I think that you are using satire . . . but, just in case I am wrong: Swindoll? Call him anything you like. But, to make the allusion that being a swindoll is good support for being a Son of the King is a little stretched.
So, HP - I wrote this in a much lighter vein . . .
First, I prefer "In like Flynn" over "In like Flint." IMHO.
Now, I think that you are using satire . . . but, just in case I am wrong: Swindoll? Call him anything you like. But, to make the allusion that being a swindoll is good support for being a Son of the King is a little stretched.
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: If any dueling is going on, it is being orchestrated by DQ not myself.
I am not sure I am following you correctly, and I never called Mr Swindall anything that I can recall other than possibly ‘mistaken,’ but what I did do was to relate to the listener part of a sermon I heard with my own ears in favor of OSAS by Swindall. His comment surrounded his remark, that was in essence if not an exact quote, “Once a Swindall always a Swindall.” He expressed that it did not matter what his son did or how heinous the crime, once a Swindall always a Swindall, as if once a son of God, always a son of God. Does this shock or upset you in any way?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: If you do not know, then the best thing you could do is find out for yourself by listening to him. For you to say that I am misquoting him is simply false, but why should that surprise me coming from you?
Can you do anything to add to a discussion or debate other than to falsely accuse, slander, call names, or simply throw mud?
Dustin said:
I think you are quite naive about Calvin. This was dealt with in depth about 1-2 years ago on this BB.
We don't need to rely on others. If you have the book, Institutes of Christian Religion, please open it and check chapter 15 about Baptism article 19, I refer to it translated by Henry Beveridge.
You can find
1) Baptism by sprinkling or by immersion should be left free. Do you agree with him? Can sprinkling represent the death with the Christ and resurrection with the newness of believers?
2) He said " In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the fact, that children are baptized for future repentance and faith." p543, chapter 16.
Do you agree with him?
Can anyone be baptised without repentance, for the future repentance and for the future faith?
3. In page 525, he apparently opposed to Laymen's Baptism, saying " Although a laic have given baptism when compelled by necessity.."
His argument is that all sacraments must be performed by Clergies.
Do you find any distinction between Laymen and Clergy in the Bible?
Calvin often mentioned that the rituals should be done by clergy. Do you agree with him?
4. 1 John 2:2 says " He is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone, but also for the whole world"
Did Jesus die only for the believers or for the unbelievers as well?
Doesn't his argument for predestination contradict this verse?
5. As for his ruling in Geneve, the city council sentenced 58 to death under the authority of Calvin. Some of them were the christian believers including a woman who refused the Infant Baptism because it is not biblical. Some try to advocate Calvin on this, saying he had no authority to pardon them but followed the city council. Then why did Servetus ask Calvin for the pardon or for beheading instead of buring?
Unless God smote him when Calvin was not that old, Calvin could have killed thousands of people who didn't commit any sins according to the civil law. If you say that the local law of 500 years ago was like that, then what about the law 2000 years ago? Does Bible say that we should torture and kill them when we meet any people who are heretic?
It is ridiculous if anyone advocate such person, John Calvin who was raised up by Catholic family. There are many popes who hated another popes. Hating Popes doesn't mean that the person was not Catholic minded. Read Institutes of Christian Religion about his view on Catholic Church. His view eventually advocate Catholic though he showed the glimpse of Universal Church ( I would call the correct title should be " Heavenly Church" and Catholic is not found any where in the Bible).
He misunderstood many terms like Bishop and Pastors, Teachers as kinds of clergy system. I have plenty of argument against him but would save my time. There is no distinction between Lay people and Clergy in the Bible, All believers are the Priests. Read 1 Peter 2:5-9.
Last edited:
Eliyahu said:
It has also been said here on this board that no one is 100% right in thier theology, the same goes for John Calvin. While he was right on most things, he still was off here and there. I've read some of Institutes, I have a little program on my computer in book for of it. No, I don't agree with every single thing he said, but that still does not negate what he got right.
In fact, I'm reading as I'm posting this, and he sure does sound very anti-pope, anti-mass, etc. Again, maybe you should actually read it all through before you start critiquing. On top of that, if one was raised in the Catholic church, and seeing as how he wrote the Institutes so soon after he broke away, it is no wonder so much of the termonology is Catholic minded. The vast majority of Europe was Catholic minded then. I'm not saying that's ok, but I can understand why it's so. Aside from what is disagreeable about it, the majority of it is right. Theologians are not inspired, they're wrong on certain things, what they write is not Scripture.
I don't like John Wesley's theology, it's downright horrible, but he was right an a whole lot of things, I readily admit that. John Wesley wasn't Reformed, he was Church of England, which isn't all that much different from the RCC. He refused to break off from the CoE as many of his follwers wanted to do. Despite all this, he was right on very many things, and he's a great resource on personal holiness and practical Christian living.
I can't go judging John Calvin's personal decisions while he was head of Geneva. People are wrongly prosecuted all the time, innocent people are put to death many times. Did all those 58 people deserve thier punishment, maybe, maybe not. Did some of those 58 deserve what they got? I have no doubt that at least that much is true. I wasn't there, I do not know for sure.
John Calvin was just a man. He was right sometimes, he was wrong sometimes. That's human. I wonder what it would be like if someone, almost 5 centuries after you died, read about what people wrote about you, and wrote you off to hell. That's exactly what you are doing. People talk about how great Abe Lincoln was, and he was an infidel. George Washington wasn't a Christian either, but we sure do respect them, heck, we make statues of them. None of that means anything. We love non-Christians and make them out to be bigger and better than they were. Despite the fact they didn't know Christ, boy, they were great guys. Then some of us, look at what a European Reformer wrote 5 centuries ago, and boy, he's satan in the flesh.
Come on now.
Get real.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin
Last edited:
Dustin,
If we recognize the problems with his beliefs on church, clergy system, destiny on the salvation, baptism, sacraments, and the most important thing; his actual life, then what can we learn from such man?
Was he correct in saying about Pre-destination? I told you to read 1 John 2:2.
Didn't Jesus say this?
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Some people who studied quite a lot on Calvin say that Calvin may have not been saved. We know how Martin Luther was converted and born again after he met Staupitz at Erfurt and was recommended to read Tauler in 1505. We know John Wesley was converted in 1738, on May 24, which is celebrated by COE, Methodists, Wesleyan today. Wesley was greatly influenced by Moravians when Peter Boeler preached the gospel to him and his brother Charles was converted first. John Wesley didn't kill the people, but Calvin did! Unless God smote him, Calvin would have killed much more and if his territory was expanded further, not only Geneve, but also to the whole Europe, he would have killed, thousands or millions!
The more I read the Insititutes, the more I find the ridiculous theory which is totally groundless, far from Bible teachings. I said we can clearly find the time of being born again for Luther and Wesley, but nobody knows how Calvin was saved. This is why some argue that Calvin may have not been saved at all! He is not a Christian at all! That's why he ordered the true believer to be burnt when she refused the Infant Baptism on her baby saying that Baptism should be performed when the person repent and accept Jesus as his personal Savior. Calvin was extremely upset with it!! Then her mother -in-law protested Calvin, saying " you are a hypocrite" then Calvin said " burn her too!"
Whether Calvin was saved or not can be verified when we reach the final judgment, but even though Calvin may be among the saved, he may be one of the least on the bottom line as we read the Bible here:
Mt 5: 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
As for the Reformists in general, we have to look at them as a kind of reactionists against Roman Catholic, because we notice plenty of mistakes and errors made by them. For example, Martin Luther showed the extreme hatred against Jews. This morning, one of my church brother who is very old told me that he read a book recently which was written by Luther and says " all the Jews and Gypsies must be killed" I am looking for that book now. But I knew that Luther was very much Anti-Semitic and Catholic and Lutheran were the bases for Adolf Hitler's Holocaust.
Don't compare the Christian leaders to the politician, Abraham Lincoln did well enough as a president. But Calvin was not the right person for us to admire.
If we recognize the problems with his beliefs on church, clergy system, destiny on the salvation, baptism, sacraments, and the most important thing; his actual life, then what can we learn from such man?
Was he correct in saying about Pre-destination? I told you to read 1 John 2:2.
Didn't Jesus say this?
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Some people who studied quite a lot on Calvin say that Calvin may have not been saved. We know how Martin Luther was converted and born again after he met Staupitz at Erfurt and was recommended to read Tauler in 1505. We know John Wesley was converted in 1738, on May 24, which is celebrated by COE, Methodists, Wesleyan today. Wesley was greatly influenced by Moravians when Peter Boeler preached the gospel to him and his brother Charles was converted first. John Wesley didn't kill the people, but Calvin did! Unless God smote him, Calvin would have killed much more and if his territory was expanded further, not only Geneve, but also to the whole Europe, he would have killed, thousands or millions!
The more I read the Insititutes, the more I find the ridiculous theory which is totally groundless, far from Bible teachings. I said we can clearly find the time of being born again for Luther and Wesley, but nobody knows how Calvin was saved. This is why some argue that Calvin may have not been saved at all! He is not a Christian at all! That's why he ordered the true believer to be burnt when she refused the Infant Baptism on her baby saying that Baptism should be performed when the person repent and accept Jesus as his personal Savior. Calvin was extremely upset with it!! Then her mother -in-law protested Calvin, saying " you are a hypocrite" then Calvin said " burn her too!"
Whether Calvin was saved or not can be verified when we reach the final judgment, but even though Calvin may be among the saved, he may be one of the least on the bottom line as we read the Bible here:
Mt 5: 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
As for the Reformists in general, we have to look at them as a kind of reactionists against Roman Catholic, because we notice plenty of mistakes and errors made by them. For example, Martin Luther showed the extreme hatred against Jews. This morning, one of my church brother who is very old told me that he read a book recently which was written by Luther and says " all the Jews and Gypsies must be killed" I am looking for that book now. But I knew that Luther was very much Anti-Semitic and Catholic and Lutheran were the bases for Adolf Hitler's Holocaust.
Don't compare the Christian leaders to the politician, Abraham Lincoln did well enough as a president. But Calvin was not the right person for us to admire.
Eliyahu said:
Ok, let me get this out of the way, 1 John 2:2 has absolutly nothing to do with predestination. I don't know where you're going with that, but find some other verse to prove it wrong, because you're not proving anything with that one as far as predestination goes.
Second, now you speculate that if John Calvin had lived he would of killed millions. That has to be the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. What in the world makes you think that? You're problem in all of this seems to be primarily with God's Word, but instead of you've made John Calvin your whipping boy. Leave the guy alone! He's dead!
He was a Christian theologian who wrote lots of theolgical books and he was also a human being and did things that weren't very popular or right but COME ON NOW he's dead. Let it go. Everyone does stupid things. Calvin put people to death when he was over Geneva (not Geneve by the way), and Luther was a racist and he had a potty mouth. Oh well. If God had not raised up such fallible men for His purposes, then we would still be in the darkness of Roman Catholicism.
Nope, John Wesley didn't order any executions as far as I know, but is that the measuring stick for whether one was a true Christian or not? No, it's not. While I can't stand up for all the things he ever did, John Calvin had most of his theology right, something I cannot say about John Wesely (who never ordered anyone's execution). I have to ask you this, what do the Lutherans who supported Hitler have to do with Matrin Luther himself? I'll answer that for you: nothing. No basis but wild speculation and conspiracy theories.
These guys were fallible human beings just like you and me, they did great things for the Church in Jesus' name, but they weren't perfect. Can we live with that?
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin
Eliyahu said:
I don't know, they were centuries apart in different countries with different situations, what does that matter anyway? What I was saying was, John Calvin was a Christian, and most Christians today despise him. Abe Lincoln hated Jesus Christ, and we celebrate the day of his birth. Maybe there is something wrong with that.
Is it right for us, as Christians, to admire an infidel and hate a Christian?
Last edited:
Dustin said:
A part of his theory is that Jesus didn't die for the unbelievers, but only for the believers, as God foreknew who are going to be saved. Did Jesus die for Hitler? Did God forgive all the sins of Hitler and Stalin? Tell me your opinion based on Calvin's theory.
Do you think the Predestination can still be compatible with the following verses?
Ezekiel 33
14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
I am talking about the ratio.
Calvin didn't rule the whole Europe while the popes ruled the whole Europe. Normally don't the statistics mention the death ratio per 10,000 or 1,000? If we apply the same ratio that Calvin killed during his rule in Geneve only for over 4 years, to the rulings of the whole Europe for 20 years, let's say, then we can supppose such figures like thousands or millions. His dictatorship might have been bridled by Farrel, otherwise he would have killed hundreds more. I am glad that I don't live under the dictatorship of Calvin!!! the murderer! Killing is not an easy thing for the average people, even though it might have been easy thing for Calvin, as if he had killed a chicken!
and a MURDERER!! We don't know whether he was a born-again Christian or just a theory-teller!
I am glad that God smote him at his early time.
Geneve is the name of city in Switzerland, mainly in the French region. Geneve is French name while Geneva is English name. I have been there. Normal practice is that the geography is better pronounced or written in the way by which the local people pronounce or write.
We don't need to think about the teachings of such people. There are plenty of good Christians who lived more faithfully to the Lord than those Calvin and Luther, such as Hubmeier, Tauler, Spangenberg, Tyndale, Erasmus etc. Why do we need to learn from the murderers? Is Bible insufficient? Are you uncomfortable if you rely on Bible only?
NOPE! I didn't say so. I mentioned Calvin HAS NO Testimony of salvation! Don't you have any testimony about how you are saved? Then I would doubt about your salvation! Calvin showed no testimony of salvation even though he may have written many books. Jesus told Nicodemos who was the leading scholar at that time, " Except anyone be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"
Becoming a theologian doesn't make him a true believer! Don't you know this? If you don't, you are standing on the absolutely wrong ground!!!! Even the pope's title doesn't guarantee the entrance into the Kingdom of God! Writing thousands of theological books don't guarantee the entrance into Heaven. One must be born again! When was Calvin born again? We know how Luther was born again, we know Wesley was born again, but when did Calvin have such experience?
Calvin had the infant baptism, that's all that we know. Does the Infant Baptism make someone go to the heaven ? NOOOOOOO!!!!@!!!!!
many Lutherans followed his opinions because they were influenced by Luther!
Yes, he influenced quite a lot. You cannot measure how much his writings have influenced his followers but when there is a book like that, it can influce so much.
Do you think Mohammed didn't influence today's Muslims?
I agree on the fallibility. But I don't think they did great things for the church in Jesus Name. They may have preached their names. I would leave all the judgment to God.
That's why one should not be based on any theory by human beings in general unless someone is really proven in all aspects.
Bible is quite enough for us to learn. Do you feel Bible is insufficient? Why do you refer to Calvin for your belief? Is it difficult for you to expound your belief based on Bible Only, Sola Scriptura?
Last edited:
Eliyahu said:
No, it's very well documented by Lincoln himself, and a lot of his close political ties. He didn't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and he hated the thought that the Bible was the inspired Word of God. So what if the pope's secret service had a hand in his death, that doesn't change the fact that he was a self described infidel. He was quite unpopular in more than just the Roman Catholic circles.
No, I'm not Roman Catholic, nor do I lean that way, though certain people on the board think I probably am because I go to church on Sunday. Or even because I read Calvin's theology. If you really want a zinger of a conpiracy theory, look how much Arminian theology resembles the RCC's salvation doctrines according to the council of Trent. You guys are so ready to write of one guy to hell, that you miss the point that Jesuits peddled such doctrine to people who hated God's soveriengty in salvation and the man John Calvin, and they ate it up and spewed it out on people who either didn't know any better, or didn't want to.
There's plenty of documentation on that as well.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin
WOW! What insight into such a wonderful doctrine! 
Such knowledge! Lets try something new......lets look at what the Bible says.
1. Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
2. Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
3. Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
4. Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
5. Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
6. Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.
7. Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
8. Psa 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with Thy free spirit.
9. Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (We are not "Justified by the law, we are :Justified by Grace through Faith. Anyone "justified by the law...will fall from grace!)
10. Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (the subject is "FELLOWSHIP" here not salvation)
I am glad I serve a wonderful Saviour that can SAVE me and KEEP me!
Such knowledge! Lets try something new......lets look at what the Bible says.1. Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
2. Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
3. Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
4. Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
5. Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
6. Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.
7. Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
8. Psa 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with Thy free spirit.
9. Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (We are not "Justified by the law, we are :Justified by Grace through Faith. Anyone "justified by the law...will fall from grace!)
10. Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (the subject is "FELLOWSHIP" here not salvation)
I am glad I serve a wonderful Saviour that can SAVE me and KEEP me!
Hi Dustin,
Your last post relieved me quite a lot, though I wonder whether any writings supporting the unbelief of Abraham still exist.
As for Catholic or Arminius, or Calvin, they are not my interests.
My belief is that Bible is enough and contains all the information or teachings sufficient for us to think about.
I believe Once Saved Always Saved, and God knows everything in advance and believe in Predestination. But we may be able to say our life is predestined after we have lived. While we are living, we don't have to rely on such theory, and such doctrine should not influence on our way of thinking while we are struggling.
Let's see the film of the Safari. a Zebra is desperately running ahead of a lion. If he thinks that whether he would be killed by the lion was determined by God long before the creation of the world, and therefore desperate running doesn't mean anything, therefore he would not run, then the zebra will be killed. If the zebra thinks that whether his destiny was decided by God before the world creation doesn't matter, and therefore he tries his best to escape from the danger of Lion, then he will escape it and be safe.
So, indulging in the human theory doesn't help us in pursuing our Lord.
I just stay with the Bible expression exactly and that is enough. If Romans 9 talks about Potter and Clay ( especially v 21-22), we stay with it. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, but do not derive any further theory from it. I always stay with the Bible expression.
I believe deity of Jesus Christ, and believe that Mary was his mother while He was on this earth, but disagree with calling Mary as Mother of God, because nobody in the Bible called her so. I don't call James the brother of Jesus as Brother of God though I believe Jesus is God. I believe Mary the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary, and therefore she was the aunt of Jesus, but I don't call her God's Aunt. I know King David was the Ancestor of Jesus, but I don't call him God's Ancestor. ( There were some posters who say that title is OK, and he said Adam was the Ancestor of God!)
It is time for us to return to Bible expression itself.
Your last post relieved me quite a lot, though I wonder whether any writings supporting the unbelief of Abraham still exist.
As for Catholic or Arminius, or Calvin, they are not my interests.
My belief is that Bible is enough and contains all the information or teachings sufficient for us to think about.
I believe Once Saved Always Saved, and God knows everything in advance and believe in Predestination. But we may be able to say our life is predestined after we have lived. While we are living, we don't have to rely on such theory, and such doctrine should not influence on our way of thinking while we are struggling.
Let's see the film of the Safari. a Zebra is desperately running ahead of a lion. If he thinks that whether he would be killed by the lion was determined by God long before the creation of the world, and therefore desperate running doesn't mean anything, therefore he would not run, then the zebra will be killed. If the zebra thinks that whether his destiny was decided by God before the world creation doesn't matter, and therefore he tries his best to escape from the danger of Lion, then he will escape it and be safe.
So, indulging in the human theory doesn't help us in pursuing our Lord.
I just stay with the Bible expression exactly and that is enough. If Romans 9 talks about Potter and Clay ( especially v 21-22), we stay with it. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, but do not derive any further theory from it. I always stay with the Bible expression.
I believe deity of Jesus Christ, and believe that Mary was his mother while He was on this earth, but disagree with calling Mary as Mother of God, because nobody in the Bible called her so. I don't call James the brother of Jesus as Brother of God though I believe Jesus is God. I believe Mary the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary, and therefore she was the aunt of Jesus, but I don't call her God's Aunt. I know King David was the Ancestor of Jesus, but I don't call him God's Ancestor. ( There were some posters who say that title is OK, and he said Adam was the Ancestor of God!)
It is time for us to return to Bible expression itself.