The Potter's Wheel

[tyndale1946]

Let me ask this question... How did he make the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction? In fact doesn't God claim at the end of his creation... very good!... How is the pot marred... by God or of itself? If God fitted those for destuction after they had sinned in election based on sin then God shows partiality. God elects those who shall be marred by sin before the foundation of the world showing his love and mercy and those not elected who are also fitted for destruction he shows his justice! Remember we were also at one time the children of wrath even as others... Brother Glen

[ July 19, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The passage still ascribes God with "making" oth vessels that way, even though one would wonder "who could resist His will". I thought that was the whole point of quoting Romans 9 when people object to people having no chance of salvation. Now everyone's saying that God didn't fit the vessels of wrath to destruction. But calvin and many other Calvinists say He did.[/QB]

Exactly, Eric - exactly. They want to have it both ways, but they don't want it THAT way - all at the same time.

 

[Eric B]

In fact doesn't God claim at the end of his creation... very good!... How is the pot marred... by God or of itself? If God fitted those for destuction after they had sinned in election based on sin then God shows partiality. Remember we were also at one time the children of wrath even as others...

This I agree with. It's the Calvinists who have been insisting on "God must be responsible for people going to Hell, else, He would be powerless over man's free will, and who is man to reply because God can do as He pleases".

God elects those who shall be marred by sin before the foundation of the world showing his love and mercy and those not elected who are also fitted for destruction he shows his justice!

Something that just occurred to me. Calvinists try to suggest that there must be "vessels of wrath" being "raised" (further crediting God as active rather than inactively passing over) in order for God's justice to be shown. But still, since Christ bore God's wrath, even if one insists it's "limited", still, why would there be need for further "justice"? Of course, God could decide to do it that way, but still, it is not necessary as some are suggesting.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Eric B:
But still, since Christ bore God's wrath, even if one insists it's "limited", still, why would there be need for further "justice"? Of course, God could decide to do it that way, but still, it is not necessary as some are suggesting.

It is necessary because those that end up in hell never had their sins atoned for, no had been punished for them, so they bear the punishment in hell.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

[Eric B]

But what at least some are saying is that the reason they couldn't be atoned for is that there had to be some left for God to show this "justice" to. But wouldn't this be rendered redundant just by Christ suffering the wrath for sin?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Eric B:
But wouldn't this be rendered redundant just by Christ suffering the wrath for sin?

Which is a redundancy that non-Calvinists teach. That Christ suffered for the sins of those in hell who are punished for the same sins that Christ was punished for.

If God had willed it all could have been saved. If God had passed by all then all would have been lost. God actually willed to save some.

If salvation was left up to man's fallen, corrupt will then all be lost as man's fallen, corrupt will would never come to Christ. So in order to save some, God gives them a new nature that always comes to Christ.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

[Eric B]

Non-Calvinists do not teach a redundancy. Whoever does not receive Christ is not "covered" by the Blood, so it is not paid for twice. They are "still in their sins". Such an eternal reality as Christ's payment for sins does not necesarily flow according to our notions of time.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Non-Calvinists do not teach a redundancy. Whoever does not receive Christ is not "covered" by the Blood, so it is not paid for twice.

So you are limiting Christ's atonement??

 

[Ray Berrian]

Calvinists not only limit His atonement they limit His love, mercy and justice. Remember, His attributes are unimpeachable.

 

[Eric B]

Once again [the rest of my statement]: "Such an eternal reality as Christ's payment for sins does not necesarily flow according to our notions of time". A person is not covered because they did not receive Him, not that they don't receive Him because they are not covered. Just because in the end they may wind up not covered it doesn't follow that the atonement was "limited" against them.

 

[Odemus]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Calvinists not only limit His atonement they limit His love, mercy and justice. Remember, His attributes are unimpeachable.

Christ's atonement, His love, mercy and justice are all infinite in nature.You need to reread what Calvinists believe.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Calvinists not only limit His atonement they limit His love, mercy and justice. Remember, His attributes are unimpeachable.

Just curious, Ray. Since you think that we Calvinists do this, do you believe we Calvinists are hell-bound?

Ken
The Happy Calvinist

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Once again [the rest of my statement]: "Such an eternal reality as Christ's payment for sins does not necesarily flow according to our notions of time". A person is not covered because they did not receive Him, not that they don't receive Him because they are not covered. Just because in the end they may wind up not covered it doesn't follow that the atonement was "limited" against them.

You have still done what you accuse the Calvinists of doing -- you have limited the atonement. I don't think the "notions of time" have any relevance here whatsoever. It becomes very easy to appeal to the differences between the eternal and temporal when in most cases, it contributes nothing to the discussion. However, if they are not covered by Christ's death, then how is your position any different?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Calvinists not only limit His atonement they limit His love, mercy and justice. Remember, His attributes are unimpeachable.

Ray, you know better.

 

[Eric B]

However, if they are not covered by Christ's death, then how is your position any different?

Because they could have been.

I don't think the "notions of time" have any relevance here whatsoever. It becomes very easy to appeal to the differences between the eternal and temporal when in most cases, it contributes nothing to the discussion.

Well, Calvinists appeal to "mystery" when pressed on God holding responsible people who couldn't repent (e.g "the secret counsel of His will"). Actually, this isn't a mystery at all, because the final answer is "He does as He pleases", but there is nothing mysteryous about a sovereign damning certain people or "passing them over" just because He can. Yet realizing His being above time and space is the real "mystery" (like the Trinity and others --connected with His nature), that helps explain all these "questions" about the atonement that Calvinists think proves their position by default (when arguments over which interpretation of scripture is right go nowhere).

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ken Hamilton,

I believe all Calvinists who have personally received Christ into their lives are saved, just as Arminians who have invited Jesus into their hearts.

I do believe everytime bad theology is spoken or written the person doing it is inadvertently 'grieving the Spirit of the living God,' [Ephesians 4:30], and they will be judged by God for the way they have taught the Word of God.

A lot of this 'beliefs' is rooted in how we were taught a children and young adults.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
A lot of this 'beliefs' is rooted in how we were taught a children and young adults.

I guess I'm in the not a lot group. I wasn't born again nor did I become a Calvinist theologically until past my 40th birthday.

So do my beliefs carry more weight then?

Ken
A Happy Calvinist