Romans 9

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the late Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary writes this about Supralapsarians, ‘Men were elected or rejected before the decree concerning the fall and without reference to the fall . . . . The effect of this doctrinal scheme is to rob God of all pity and love and to present Him as One who disregards the suffering of His creatures. Such a doctrine may answer to the cold, erring reason of man, but it wholly disregards the full testimony of the Word of God wherein the compassion of God is stressed.' [Vol. I p. 245]. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The charge of Chafer is meaningless and erroneous – Supras give all the glory to God for his grace in salvation. The charge does not stick, makes man the judge of God, and is irrelevant to the issue of Romans 9.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.' This word ‘hated' in the Greek is the word, ‘miseo.' Dr. James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible on p. 48 column 3 uses these three words to express the word, ‘hated.' [ Note ‘hatred, detest, persecute, or to love less.] Arminians may use the less provocative word, but it doesn't really matter. Yes, God really hated Esau to the extent that He chose Jacob to be the son through which our promised Savior was born. Biblical theology indicates that God chose Jacob over Esau as I mentioned in a former posting. This selection was autocratically or sovereignly arranged by the Godhead, but not in selecting Pharaoh, Esau and the non-elect to Hell. God molded this lump of clay named, Pharaoh portraying that God is more powerful than any earthly potentate. [I Timothy 6:15]. Thus, we read ‘ . . . for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.' [Romans 9:17]. In the case of Esau, he was rejected and made by the Potter into an inferior person in that he was not considered worthy of producing the lineage though which the Lord Jesus would be born. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Genesis 29:31 (ESV) When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
Malachi 1:3 (ESV) but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Leah was indeed "hated".. i.e., despised, utterly disliked, etc. The word used here is the same as used in Malachi 1:3, where God says he "hated Esau". If you simply read the following verses, it is spelled out quite clearly how God's hatred of Esau was expressed. One could hardly conclude that the perpetual rejection and destruction of Esau and his descendants is being "loved less".
Again, Paul quoting from this same passage in Malachi uses the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word for "hate" used in the Genesis and Malachi passages. And he too makes it very clear that God's hatred of Esau is profound and without reserve. Only a presupposed abhorrence to the doctrine of election can derive any other meaning of the text.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If anyone was evil it was Jacob who wilfully stole ‘the birthright' and the ‘blessing' from his elder brother, Esau. As I said in the other posting, Esau tried to make things right with his brother, Jacob, even though Jacob was the lapsed saint. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since when did “trying to make things right” equate with salvation? Salvation is by grace, not works.

Romans 4:2-8 (ESV) For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [3] For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." [4] Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, [6] just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
[7] "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
[8] blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Biblical theology must conclude that the idea of ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated,' means that the Lord had sovereign plans for both brothers, but our Lord favored the lineage of Jacob in bringing about His own incarnation. This well used phrase in Romans 9:13 has nothing to do, in any way, with saving a tiny, minority--the elect and damning the majority--the non-elect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Biblical theology must take the text to mean what it says – Jacob is chosen and Esau is not. Yes, God has sovereign plans for both brothers; does he not for everyone? Rom 9:13 has everything to do with personal election. Election is a tiny minority of undeserving mankind saved; Scripture is clear about the saved, elect remnant. All those not elect are not saved. That is the clear teaching of the whole Scripture, including Romans 9-11.
Unless you are willing to discard the clear testimony of all of Scripture, election is the only assurance of salvation.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Chris,

I think that down deep you really know that my statement as to Esau ‘trying to make things right with Jacob' had nothing to do with either of their salvation experiences under the Old Covenant. I was merely saying that Esau was the better man, at this point in time, by trying to reconcile with his chosen and highly elevated brother.

Secondly, I have preached salvation by grace alone with no mixture of human works or effort. I knew this truth when I was twelve years old . . . a few years back, come to think of it. You are affirming what I also believe about God's exquisite grace.

Sometimes I wonder if some people are trusting in a theological system or are they depending in the living and ascended Christ who is our great High Priest and Advocate. There is a difference. Trusting in Christ alone for our salvation secures our election. Trusting exclusively and merely in a system of theology still brings separation from God now and at the White Throne Judgment.

Someone said, ‘Election is the only assurance of salvation.' Wrong. The assurance that normative Christians experience is found in Romans 8:16. And lest someone does not look it up in the Word-- I will quote it. ‘The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our [human] spirit, that we are the children of God.' One might use Colossians 1:27b ‘. . . Christ in you, the hope of glory.' When a person receives Christ into their lives with true repentance he or she may consider himself or herself an ‘elect person.' Although only the Triune God can create an elect person/saint, yet I remind you that the Apostle Peter told his flock to ‘ . . . give diligence TO MAKE YOUR CALLING AND ELECTION sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.' [II Peter 1:10]. I think a fifth grader in school would have to conclude that a human being has his part to do in the Lord's act of election. The human agent has to believe in Jesus and this is not a ‘work' of a man or woman, it is a response to the calling of the Holy Spirit.

If man is to be indefatigable in making sure that his calling and election are guaranteed, how then can anyone come up with the idea that, ‘Election is the only assurance of salvation.'

Oh, by the way, is it true that God chose or elected Jacob to the honor of actualizing the lineage leading to the birth of our Lord, while disapproving and disdaining Esau as to this elevated privilege. The answer is in the affirmative. This truth is all summed up in the oft misunderstood phrase, ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.' The Lord sovereignly elected Jacob to this place of prominence in our history of His everlasting salvation.

With warm regards,

"Ray"

 

[Ray Berrian]

Chris,

I am responding to you response on the board. I agree with you that the elect will be a tiny, minority of all the world population who will have ever lived. We speak of these people as being the remnant. You are right. The only thing we might not agree about is the mode by which these sinners are made saints and inducted into the Kingdom of God. You believe that God autocratically selects certain ones to become His elect and I believe that God the Spirit calls people to Himself and they become the elect, the remnant, when they received Christ into their lives.

You said in effect, doesn't God have plans for everyone--just as He had with JACOB AND ESAU? The answer is yes. I, personally, don't believe that my life will be as important as was the life of Jacob or perhaps even Esau in the annals of human/Divine history.

As you well know, Jacob's fourth son from Leah was JUDAH, the lineage through which Jesus was born. [Genesis 29:31-35 note especially vs. 35]. In Revelation 5:5 you will be reminded of the importance of the Tribe of Judah. Revelation 5:5 says, ‘And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not; behold, the Lion of the Tribe of JUDAH, the ROOT OF DAVID, hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof.' Jesus was born of the lineage of JACOB, JUDAH, KING DAVID,Solomon, and Joseph the husband of the virgin Mary and then the Promised Son, our Savior Jesus. [Matthew 1:1-16]. Jesus was included in the Tribe of Judah through the lineage of His step-father, Joseph. [Note Matthew 1:16].

This is the significance of the life of Jacob over that of Esau as it relates to Romans chapter nine.
Jesus was born from the direct line or lineage of Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon and on down the line of Israelite nobility.

With warm regards,
"Ray"

 

[Chris Temple]

Ray:

You said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am responding to you response on the board. I agree with you that the elect will be a tiny, minority of all the world population who will have ever lived. We speak of these people as being the remnant. You are right. The only thing we might not agree about is the mode by which these sinners are made saints and inducted into the Kingdom of God. You believe that God autocratically selects certain ones to become His elect and I believe that God the Spirit calls people to Himself and they become the elect, the remnant, when they received Christ into their lives <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Previously, you said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Secondly, I have preached salvation by grace alone with no mixture of human works or effort. I knew this truth when I was twelve years old . . . a few years back, come to think of it. You are affirming what I also believe about God's exquisite grace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you believe the former statement, that "God the Spirit calls people to Himself and they become the elect, the remnant, when they received Christ into their lives" then you know nothing of "preaching salvation by grace alone with no mixture of human works or effort", for the belief they exhibit then earns them the right to "become elect", and salvation is a work of man of which he may boast.

Contrary to your assertion, it is works righteousness like you assert which is anathema and which will "brings separation from God now and at the White Throne Judgment", not adherence to biblical salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[KayDee]

Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Contrary to your assertion, it is works righteousness like you assert which is anathema and which will "brings separation from God now and at the White Throne Judgment", not adherence to biblical salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris are you saying that those who advocate Free Will are not saved?

In His Grace
KayDee

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KayDee:
Chris



Chris are you saying that those who advocate Free Will are not saved?

In His Grace
KayDee<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi KayDee:

No, elect Arminians are saved despite bad theology, not because of it.

But the logical outworking of a "have faith and become elect" scenario is one that leads to works righteousness, whereas the biblcal teaching of predestination unto salvation alone lends itself to the praise of God, which is "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."

 

[Ray Berrian]

We have a problem to solve if God decreed, in eternity past, that the majority of His humanity would end up in the Lake of Fire, and that only the minority would enter Heaven. I agree that this will be the situation, but God did not autocratically arrange it this way. A person might have thought that a good God would at least save the majority and send the rest on to step into the flames of everlasting destruction.

Some people believe Almighty God did plan to send the majority to Hell because in this way He can express His vindictive nature toward sinners. Here is the problem. When Jesus walked to the outskirts of the city of Jerusalem the Bible says, that He ‘ . . . wept over it.' [Luke 19:41]. Being omniscient He knew that the Israelites would reject He and His message of everlasting hope. Apparently, his heart was wrenched and in great agony and sorrow knowing that at the White Throne Judgment He would officially send them into the Lake of Fire. If this were not the case, God would not have noted in His Word, that he wept over these people.

It is incongruous to believe that the Lord elected some to Heaven and the majority to Hell in eternity past, and then when He was here on earth we see Him agonizing over those who were so stubborn that they placed themselves in spiritual jeopardy.

I think if we look at this any other way, we are saying that when God was weeping over those souls in Jerusalem, He was ‘window dressing' what He actually did by decreeing them to that unthinkable place. This would make God a hypocrite because He decreed their destiny and then just before His suffering on the Cross, acts as though He pities these blind and rebellious people. [Acts7:51].

Notice also the emphasis in two of the four Gospels [Matthew 23:37 & Luke 13:34] that our Lord Himself opens His mouth and says, in effect, that they were responsible for their own demise. ‘ . . . how often wold I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and YE WOULD NOT!' Apparently, a human being's will and decision does factor into his or her final destination.

"Ray"

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
A person might have thought that a good God would at least save the majority and send the rest on to step into the flames of everlasting destruction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But remember God's ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts. The difficulty here is found when people try to assert their own thoughts over that which God has revealed.

You have spent this post, and many others, trying to explain the infinite God. His weeping over the rejection of the people does not negate his sovereign decree in eternity past. In sending people to hell, he is not expressing his vindictive nature; he is satisfying his holy justice.

You say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Being omniscient He knew that the Israelites would reject He and His message of everlasting hope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet how did he know this? If he had not decreed it, then he would have no way of knowing it. Mere prescience does not solve your conundrum because it does not give room for a person to change their mind in the face of preaching. The point is that God's omniscience is determinative.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think if we look at this any other way, we are saying that when God was weeping over those souls in Jerusalem, He was ‘window dressing' what He actually did by decreeing them to that unthinkable place. This would make God a hypocrite because He decreed their destiny and then just before His suffering on the Cross, acts as though He pities these blind and rebellious people. [Acts7:51]. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here again, you have tried to sort these thoughts according to your own thinking. That is unacceptable in biblical truth. While our minds are necessary to process the propositional revelation that God has given to us, our minds should not be elevated to a place of denying or changing it, even when we cannot understand it.

Christ is certainly right that they were responsible for their own demise. You however assume that they were morally neutral to begin with and thereby able to choose between two options. They were not. They, like us, are dead in trespasses and sins and completely unable to please God (Rom 3, 8, Eph 2). They made their free choice in accordance with their nature.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You have spent this post, and many others, trying to explain the infinite God. His weeping over the rejection of the people does not negate his sovereign decree in eternity past. In sending people to hell, he is not expressing his vindictive nature; he is satisfying his holy justice.

Here again, you have tried to sort these thoughts according to your own thinking. That is unacceptable in biblical truth. While our minds are necessary to process the propositional revelation that God has given to us, our minds should not be elevated to a place of denying or changing it, even when we cannot understand it.
But remember God's ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts. The difficulty here is found when people try to assert their own thoughts over that which God has revealed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems Calvinists deny that this whole issue is above our understanding until a grave flaw is pointed out in their postulations. So now, we are accused of "trying to explain an infinite God" "according to our own thinking". But then so is the statement: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet how did he know this? If he had not decreed it, then he would have no way of knowing it. Mere prescience does not solve your conundrum because it does not give room for a person to change their mind in the face of preaching. The point is that God's omniscience is determinative <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
as well as all the talk of faith being a "work" by which we save ourselves. God is above our comprehension, but as we are made in His image, we can understand some things about Him, and something as glaring as Him ordaining people to destruction and then lamenting it you cannot just chalk up to "His infinite ways". Then anyone can come and teach any ridiculous doctrine about God and claim "it's above your understanding" and there would be no way to challenge it because "what God has revealed" is always interpreted in light of the position one is trying to promote. What it boils down to is what one of you told me here weeks ago: that His "moral makeup" and His "decrees" are "altogether separated". This means His decrees do not stem from His moral character! One even warned us not to have God's decrees be "forced" by His character. This makes God have some sort of split personality with a conflicting character and mind (that passes decrees contrary to His character), and "justice" that is apart of His character as well, but also is satisfied by the contrary decrees. This can in no way be reconciled with scripture!

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

Ephesians one speaks of God predestinating human beings. All of His electing and predestinating is done through His 'foreknowledge.' In Romans 11:2, 8:29, Acts 2:23 and I Peter 1:2. The Greek word for foreknowledge is (prognosis). In the medical field we would say that the doctor makes a prognosis in the life of the sick person, but he does not inflict the person with a disease. In eternity past God already knew who would receive Christ and who would reject His gracious offer. He knew and presently knows who His elect people will be. Jesus makes the prognosis but does not inflict the sentence of eternal death/Hell merely at His own choosing or whim.

Romans 9:22 is purely hypothetical or theoretical. The Apostle Paul says, ‘What if God . . .' wanted to show His anger and portray His anger toward sinners; we would have nothing to say against it. God can easily show His anger toward sinners without damning them. Nothing is even suggested about an autocratic election of the saved and lost. But, God goes on to say that He was patient with sinners even though they will face His planned, destruction. Check the Greek or the King James Version and you will see the word, 'If.' In the earlier part of the chapter we have noted that God's purpose toward Pharaoh was to show His mighty power to the world of that day, that God is sovereign over all earthly rulers. Scripture documents that Jacob and Esau were embraced by the Lord and gathered into Heaven at the time of their deaths. [Hebrews 11:13 & 11:39]. The latter reference says this. ‘And these ALL, having obtained a GOOD REPORT through FAITH, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.'

Romans 2:11 and II Chron. 19:7 teaches us that God is no respecter of persons. If the Lord at his own predilection, chose some to Heaven and the majority to Hell, He would be preferential in His nature. This is simply impossible when speaking about Almighty God. For Him to elect some to both places autocratically would make Him less than God and we know He will always remain the eternal God. I say this because this would infringe on the very nature of God. He is God of justice/fairness and untainted goodness. Salvation is by grace alone, minus works or human effort. In theology books, we read of the justice and goodness of God as being His attributes--each an aspect of His very pure Divine nature. This will never change. No one has the right to say that His alleged decreeing of some to Heaven and Hell is separate from His unchanging Divine nature, otherwise, we have God operating out of two different, Divine classifications and yet within His holy and Divine Being. All of the Triune God's attributes including His justice/fairness and goodness are immutable and changeless. He is NEVER bias toward one person as opposed to another individual, more especially in matters related to their eternal soul.

We are told in James chapter one that every gift coming from God, comes ' . . . down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' God's attributes do not fluctuate from being good, to not being good, from being fair, to not being fair. Neither is He biased toward saving His elect autocratically and rejecting the majority, because this would violate the very nature and Being of God. Thank God that some things in this life remain cohesive and untarnished. 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever.' [Hebrews 13:8].

With warm regards,

Ray Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Eric,

It gets really frustrating saying the same things over and over again when you are not reading them apparently. The point is that God and his ways are above our thoughts and ways. Calvinists are not trying to figure everything out. We are simply putting together what we can while not denying or redefining the clear statements of Scripture. I am not sure why you are not understanding that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>as well as all the talk of faith being a "work" by which we save ourselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No idea what this is talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God is above our comprehension, but as we are made in His image, we can understand some things about Him,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one denies this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and something as glaring as Him ordaining people to destruction and then lamenting it you cannot just chalk up to "His infinite ways".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? You got a better answer that does not involve impugning the infinite ways of God? I am not sure how you have an answer to this since it is not found in Scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Then anyone can come and teach any ridiculous doctrine about God and claim "it's above your understanding" and there would be no way to challenge it because "what God has revealed" is always interpreted in light of the position one is trying to promote.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what God has revealed is interpreted by the analogy of Scripture. Scripture is rightly interpreted in light of other Scripture. Your view simply omits too much Scripture.

In the bottom line, you must deal with Scripture. However, these conversations are getting us nowhere until we allow God to speak for himself in Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ephesians one speaks of God predestinating human beings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got this right but it was all downhill from here. You discuss foreknowledge, apparently without considering the data from Scripture. Foreknowledge is not a prognosis that a doctor gives. Foreknowledge in Scripture is causative. With regards to salvation, it is always a person that is foreknown, not an object like faith. Your understanding simply is inadequate. A study of foreknowledge in Scripture will refute your understanding given here. This is available in a number of readily accessible places so I will not repeat it here.

No one denies that God in eternity past knew who would reject and accept. The question is "how did he know that?" What you are not grasping is that even if you are right, man is still not free and God still created people knowing that he would damn them to hell for their own choices. In other words, you end up just where we do. You have simply gotten there without the benefit of God's control and sovereignty. The truth is that God knew because he decided it. He decided that from fallen humanity he would elect some according to his sovereign grace; the rest he would simply let go the way they want to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 9:22 is purely hypothetical or theoretical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it is not. Read Moo or Schriener on this issue. I will not reinvent the wheel here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God can easily show His anger toward sinners without damning them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not the point. God is not "showing his anger towards sinners." In punishment, God is satisfying his holy wrath.

Your understanding of Romans 9 is extremely inadequate for the text. It is useless to continue to discuss it here until the text is willing to be substantively dealt with. Pharaoh was raised up to show God’s mighty power and sovereignty over earthly rulers. That is exactly what I would say about that. But my question is how can you say that? You do not appear to believe that God is sovereign over rulers. Your theology seems to believe that Pharaoh could have repented.

You comment that <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>. Scripture documents that Jacob and Esau were embraced by the Lord and gathered into Heaven at the time of their deaths. [Hebrews 11:13 & 11:39]. The latter reference says this. ‘And these ALL, having obtained a GOOD REPORT through FAITH, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a horrible misuse of Scripture. Scripture does not say that God welcomed Esau into heaven. In fact, Scripture calls him a godless person (Heb 12:16) something hardly compatible with an “embrace” from the Lord. In fact, the immediately preceding verse (12:15) says “without holiness no one shall see the Lord” and goes on to use Esau as an example of that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Romans 2:11 and II Chron. 19:7 teaches us that God is no respecter of persons. If the Lord at his own predilection, chose some to Heaven and the majority to Hell, He would be preferential in His nature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, a clear misunderstanding. The case is exactly the opposite. If God chooses those whom he knows will choose him, he would be respecting the “more knowledgeable” or “more willing.” God does not respect the smart, wise, well-born, etc. He chooses the foolish things, those who would not choose him. (BTW, 2 chron 19:7 is completely out of context here.) The fact that God is no respecter of persons precludes the very position you are trying to argue for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ray Berrian, Th.D.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Credentials are less than impressive here, especially when the text is not dealt with.

You should read some on the nature of God. Reading your comments here seems to show that you have not adequately wrestled through the issues at hand. I agree that there are some very difficult ones out there. However, the answer does not lie in impugning the character of God and denying the clear revelation that he has given of himself in Scripture. We must be firm to accept what he has said about himself.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

I read your ‘posting' with thoughtful interest. Some theological minds view God and His sovereignty like a Fascist dictator. England has a sovereign ruler and the last time I checked they have a generous amount of freedom. This is how our Lord functions during His reign of grace. No one will ever stand at the White Throne Judgment and point to the Lord and say, "You molded me like clay into a person with this destiny leading to unquenchable fire." Sinners by their daily rejection of Him insure the fact that they remain candidates for this unthinkable place.

You might want to purchase the book entitled, "Predestination & Free Will" {Inter Varsity Press Downers Grove, Illinois 60515.} Never fear because it has the Calvinistic view written by John Feinberg plus three other views. I didn't agree with everything that any of them offered. I did find some things written by Clark Pinnock interesting. He believes in a limited sovereignty in which God allows humankind to make decisions even if He is not pleased with them. [Page 145 & 146 especially the top seven lines on page 146.]

You sounded like an Arminian when you said that a person cannot get to Heaven without holiness. [Your quote from Hebrews 12:14]. So now we work for our salvation? I was under a deep conviction that we were ‘imputed with the righteousness of Christ,' when He found us or we found Him. [Romans 4:3 & 16].

I think you believe and feel that we are impinging on the nature and attributes of God, when Biblical theologians say, that man is charged with the autonomy of a free will. By this I mean that when a sinner is brought to the knowledge of his impossible situation, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, he or she can believe in Jesus and be saved.

Actually, your view of sovereignty encroaches on the nature and attributes of the Godhead. You say that God ordains the majority of sinners to Hell. Were we taught wrong by our Sunday School teachers, when they told us that God is good, just/fair, and through the Cross keeps on extending ‘. . . love toward us, while we were yet sinners.' [Romans 5:8].

Also, if God ordains the majority to enter destruction because of His sovereign choice, we now have the Triune Godhead synchronizing His will with the Evil One, better known as the Devil, because the latter, diabolical being, always wanted sinners to suffer forever anyway. Yes, every unbeliever is guilty of his Adamic nature plus his long list of willful sins. With your persuasion God wills that the sinner commits these sins, on the basis of His election, and then condemns that person to Gehenna for those same transgressions. To me this appears more than incongruous. According to your view, God controls everything and becomes the Author of sin. Once again, God cannot uphold Himself as the Initiator of sin because this would go totally against His thrice holy nature. I guess I'll have to adjust my theology because I always believed that ‘ . . . the Son of God was manifested, that. He might destroy {abolish and eliminate} the works of the Devil,' [I John 3:8] and not to be in alliance with the ‘prince and power of the air.' [Ephesians 2:2].

I don't want to call attention to the Th.D. degree, but only as it relates to what you said with reference to it. I received the degree, ‘Summa Cum Laude,' in the year of our Lord, 2000, and I have tendered it back to Him in thankfulness for what He accomplished on the Cross for me, 2000 years ago.

With warm regards,
"Ray"

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Calvinists are not trying to figure everything out. We are simply putting together what we can while not denying or redefining the clear statements of Scripture. I am not sure why you are not understanding that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because I believe "putting together" the premise that many people have no chance to be saved IS trying to "figure it out"; God never asks us to put any such thing together, even though there may be some verses that LOOK like that. Instead, He asks us to win souls, (which would be unnecessary if He programmed individual salvation already). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> as well as all the talk of faith being a "work" by which we save ourselves.
No idea what this is talking about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're accusing us of trying to explain an infinite God with our own reason, but so are many Calvinist statements, such as the above, as well as:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "how did he know that?" What you are not grasping is that even if you are right, man is still not free and God still created people knowing that he would damn them to hell for their own choices. In other words, you end up just where we do. You have simply gotten there without the benefit of God's control and sovereignty. The truth is that God knew because he decided it.
If God chooses those whom he knows will choose him, he would be respecting the “more knowledgeable” or “more willing.” God does not respect the smart, wise, well-born, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trying to prove Calvinism with such "logical" statements is going beyond Scripture. We all do it at times, but what I am saying is that your conclusion raises many other logical problems (including comparing with other scriptures), and it is not fair, for arguments' sake, to then claim "Oh, this is the invisible God; you can't understand it" just to get around those problems, when the Calvinist has been relying on having logical answers for his theory all along. If you're going to insist now that we can't completely understand God, than you must admit that perhaps the preterition or whetever else you call it may have been a mistake caused by our limited understanding of certain scriptural statements pointing to God's eternal frame of reference. When we start talking about God's "foreknowledge" and how it pertains to salvation, THAT is where we say "OK, this is getting above our comprehension. Let's just do what He says (the Great Commission). Not try to reason "well, if He knows, He must have decreed it", and then try to read this into scripture. What is the purpose of that?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why not? You got a better answer that does not involve impugning the infinite ways of God? I am not sure how you have an answer to this since it is not found in Scripture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've been giving you the answer all along, and their are so many points you have not answered. And Calvinists always try to defend these acts they ascribe to God by saying that those who challenge it are "impugning His ways". If we're wrong, then well, we didn't think You denied anyone a chance for salvation; please forgive us for our error, Lord; but if you're wrong, that is quite a thing you are charging God with--programing ("determining") people to sin, calling it "their free choice", and using this as a reason to damn them, and then pretending to weep over it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> No, what God has revealed is interpreted by the analogy of Scripture. Scripture is rightly interpreted in light of other Scripture. Your view simply omits too much Scripture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have shown where Romans 9 is not talking about what you say it is, and that it even draws from Isaiah, where "vessels" did refer to Israel as a national entity. This is interpreting scripture with scripture; not seeing "vessels of wrath" and "mercy on whom He will have mercy on", and snatching these up saying "HA, individual election and preterition!", and then trying to read this in there when it is shown that this was not the context.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Not the point. God is not "showing his anger towards sinners." In punishment, God is satisfying his holy wrath. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the same thing, at least in the context of the verse being discussed (Romans 9:22), where Ray simply translated "wrath" as "anger"

 

[tnelson]

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil (doom). This verse helped me to understand Rom.9:22-23. (1) to demonstrate His wrath; (2) to make His power known; (3) to put the riches of His glorious mercy on display. No one is treated unfairly. Some receive the justice they earn and deserve, others graciously receive mercy.

 

[Eric B]

"make" in this passage (strong #6466) can mean "commit" or "ordain". This suggest that it is not necessarily each individual evildoer that is "made" to be condemned, but just the category of evildoers in itself. The proof of this is that all of us were evildoers, and thus "made" for destruction, but some of us crossed out of that group. So this, like Romans 9, is not talking about individuals being inescapably foreordained to destruction, because then that would be all of us.
You should understand Romans 9 through Isaiah, which it draws upon, and where the "vessels of clay" are definitely a group--Israel.