On Romans 9:14-20

[Cajun Huguenot]

I've noticed that Calvinism has come up in this are a number of times. My Southern Baptist brethren are (mostly) no longer Calvinists, but that is their (mostly forgotten) roots.

Here is a little something on Romans 9 that some of you may find worth looking at.

In Christ,
Kenith
+++++++++


In Romans 9:14-20 Paul writes, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

What does Paul say? He says that salvation is based on God's choice, and it is not man's will that is ultimate in this matter. He then says that He raised up Pharaoh to smash him, as a witness to the world. Next Paul says "hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." Paul is speaking of God working with and in men. To some He shows mercy and others He hardens.

This is a repugnant thought to most of us, and Paul knows how you, me and nearly everyone else, when we first see these things in Scripture, will react negatively to them. He knows we will recoil in horror from these hard things he is saying. They are anathema to us; we don't like it. Has God made us robots? If this is true than we wish to ask as he says the Romans and ask "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

Now look at Pauls answer "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, 'Why hast thou made me thus?'"

Notice Paul didn't even answer the question that he asked for us. Instead he says that we are completely out of bounds to even ask such a question. Paul, in these verses, has personally taken on the robot/puppet/fatalism arguments that are so often thrown out by those that dislike these teachings, and tells us that we creatures are out of line to ask this question. We are God's creation and He does as He will with us.

Paul is not yet finished with his line of thought. He then asks "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Folks, we are the clay. God according to His will has made some for honor and some for dishonor. HARD STUFF, but Paul is not yet through. He now says "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory..."

Those are more difficult words. Paul says that God "willing shew His wrath, and make His power known, endured with long suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction." The word "fitted" means prepared. After quoting the Greek sentence, Thayer’s in his Greek Lexicon, gives this rendition "of men whose souls God has so constituted that they cannot escape destruction." Those of us who receive mercy were "prepared afore," which simply means ordained before hand. Some folks are ordained for mercy and some are not.

It should not seem odd that Paul should make such strong statement about God's sovereignty over the salvation of men. I am sure you recall his dramatic conversion. After that Ananias came to Paul and said to him "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth."

So Paul was chosen by God. Notice God chose Paul (of course Paul responds in faith, but it is the Lord who initiated things). But you will say, Paul is special; he is different from the rest of us. I don't think you will find Paul making such a claim. Let's see what he says in his epistles.

"Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." (Rom 16:13)

Rufus too was chosen by God, so it is not only Paul.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" (Eph. 1:4)

The "us" here is speaking of Christians; we were chosen before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him. We are all by nature sinners, fallen in Adam, at enmity with God, spiritually dead. But God, before he created anything chose us to be holy. He makes us holy in this life by the imputation of Christ righteousness. It is His choosing and it is he that makes us blameless in Christ.

Not only that, but He predestinated (ugly word indeed and it means the same as foreordain) the same group "us," who were chosen in eternity, unto adoption. Ok, but it is still because of my will. Right? No. It is according to God's will.

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (Eph. 1:5)

Of course Paul says the same thing about WHO's will is the deciding factor in Romans 9:15-16 and there too he makes clear that it's God's will and not man's.

This stuff, at first , rubbed me the wrong way. I literally hated these things. When studying this subject many years ago I threw a book promoting the biblical doctrine of predestination across my bed room as hard as I could and cried out "I'm not going to believe that garbage." I prayed that God would show me that it was a lie, instead He showed me that these things are indeed true. He then gave me the grace to bow before His Holy Word and accept even this hard doctrine that rubs our "self" and our desire for autonomy the wrong way.

Today, I love these things, because they give God all glory, honor and praise. All things were made for His glory not ours.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

[TwinCrier]

It is true what they say, man can twist scripiure to support any view. I now worry least about Calvinist. I figure according to their doctrine, if I'm not a Cavinist, it's because God won't let me be. That's the biggest error of Calvinism it it removes man's responsibilty for his actions. If God made us sinners, then He actually did deserve to die for us.
I'm glad Jesus died for the whole world. Whosoever WILL.

[aReformedPatriot]

It is true what they say, man can twist scripiure to support any view. I now worry least about Calvinist. I figure according to their doctrine, if I'm not a Cavinist, it's because God won't let me be.
I'm glad Jesus died for the whole world. Whosoever WILL.

;) :thumbsup: ^_^ 'nuff said.

[Cajun Huguenot]

It is true what they say, man can twist scripiure to support any view....

Ok. Since you assert that I've twisted the Scriptures, please be so kind and show me how. Where is the twist?:confused: Thanks.


That's the biggest error of Calvinism it it removes man's responsibilty for his actions. If God made us sinners, then He actually did deserve to die for us.

This statement shows that you have not read Calvin or any good (theologically sound) Calvinists;) . Personal responsibility is highly stressed in Calvins writings as it is in the Bible:amen: . To deny personal responsibility would be a clear denial of large sections of God's Word. I don't know any real Calvinist that would do that whether he be an Baptist or something else.


I'm glad Jesus died for the whole world. Whosoever WILL.

How did "whosoever wil"l apply to the American Indian, who did not have access to any version of the Gospel until 1500 years after Christ came? You have to here the Gospel inorder to recieve it:scratch: . But the first Indian did not even hear the Goslpel for a millennia and a half. (thats lots of people being born and dying with no chance to will anything about Christ, because they had no chance to hear.) And most would not hear it for several hundred years after that:eek: .

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

[Cajun Huguenot]

;) :thumbsup: ^_^ 'nuff said.

Hummm :scratch: I don't think so. See post above.

In Christ,
Kenith

[ZiSunka]

Calvinism, arminianism, neither one is entirely correct, and most importantly, it doesn't matter. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that we aren't even trying to do, stuff that's a lot more important than calvinism or other man-made salvation issues, so why waste time hashing them around so much.

Here's the thing. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, and if you are, then you are. If not, don't use the excuse that you aren't one of the elect stand between you and God. Run to him with all your might and just watch and see if He doesn't choose you after all! :D

[BBAS 64]

It is true what they say, man can twist scripiure to support any view. I now worry least about Calvinist. I figure according to their doctrine, if I'm not a Cavinist, it's because God won't let me be. That's the biggest error of Calvinism it it removes man's responsibilty for his actions. If God made us sinners, then He actually did deserve to die for us.
I'm glad Jesus died for the whole world. Whosoever WILL.

Good Day, TwinCrier

A source that adheres to The Doctrines of Grace please?

Peace to u,

Bill

[Cajun Huguenot]

Calvinism, arminianism, neither one is entirely correct, and most importantly, it doesn't matter. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that we aren't even trying to do, stuff that's a lot more important than calvinism or other man-made salvation issues, so why waste time hashing them around so much.

Here's the thing. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, and if you are, then you are. If not, don't use the excuse that you aren't one of the elect stand between you and God. Run to him with all your might and just watch and see if He doesn't choose you after all! :D

I dont agree with the top of your post, but I do agree that this subject (while it is important because it is about items found in God's Word) can be blown way out proportion.

I was a good Southern Baptist and I knew Christ as my saviour and Lord long before I ever heard of Calvinism or Arminianism (much less Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism).

There are consequences to all doctrinal errors, so doctrine is important and needs to be discussed in a Godly way. But we also need to realise that Only God is perfect in His understanding of what the Scriptures teach. The rest of us all have some errors, and so we need to remember that when we speak and when we listen to our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

Most of

[TwinCrier]

Personal responsibility is highly stressed in Calvins writings as it is in the Bible.How can we possibly be resposible if we have no free will to chose salvation?
Joshua 24:15 (http://www.justbible.com/Chapters/b06C024.htm#V15) And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

[ZiSunka]

I dont agree with the top of your post, but I do agree that this subject (while it is important because it is about items found in God's Word) can be blown way out proportion.

I was a good Southern Baptist and I knew Christ as my saviour and Lord long before I ever heard of Calvinism or Arminianism (much less Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism).

So why wasn't it enough to be saved by faith in Christ without having to muddy it all up with following the teachings of Calvin? Were Christ's teachings insufficient for you?


There are consequences to all doctrinal errors, so doctrine is important and needs to be discussed in a Godly way.

Sure there are, but not following the teachings of Calvin is hardly a doctrinal error to anyone but a Calvinist. I never heard of Christ going through a crowd saying, "I choose you, but not you. You, you and you, but not you or you." He spoke to everyone as if they had an equal opportunity to be saved. Christ did say they didn't choose him, he chose them, but who was he speaking to? The apostles he choose. They didn't sign up to be apostles, Christ chose them to be apostles. There are as many verses to support one arminianism as Calvinism, and neither one takes the verses completely in context.

The fact is, if you think you are saved but fail to follow the teachings of Christ, you are as lost as anyone who doesn't ever hear of Christ at all. Calvin doesn't save, only Christ saves. I never read anywhere in the Bible where it says we are to have constant discussions about whether Calvin is right or Armen is right. In fact, it says that we should avoid constant bickering about little things, and I really, really don't see how it matters whether we are chosen or we choose.

[aReformedPatriot]

How did "whosoever wil"l apply to the American Indian, who did not have access to any version of the Gospel until 1500 years after Christ came? You have to here the Gospel inorder to recieve it:scratch: . But the first Indian did not even hear the Goslpel for a millennia and a half. (thats lots of people being born and dying with no chance to will anything about Christ, because they had no chance to hear.) And most would not hear it for several hundred years after that:eek: .

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

Have you never read the book of mormon? I believe that answers your question. :sick:

[Cajun Huguenot]

How can we possibly be resposible if we have no free will to chose salvation?
Joshua 24:15 (http://www.justbible.com/Chapters/b06C024.htm#V15) And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Hello Twin Crier,

I appreciate your question, but before getting to that I have to point out an observation. Neither you are any other critic on this tread has actually commented on what was said about Romans 9.

Y'all have criticised Calvinism, but none of you have tried to actually touch on the above exposition. :scratch:

I know you don't understand Calvinism. Which (BTW) is just a knick name given to what we Calvinists believe the Bible teaches about salvation, election predestination etc... We think it is Bible based and not a system of men. Calvin's name was tagged on to those of us who hold to that position by those that oppose the view.

If you and other critics will address what is actually written in the exposition that would be useful. Calvin is a good boggyman to beat up on, but how about actually addressing the article.:thumbsup:

Now to your question (in a round about way). We are to call all men to repentence. We are to be evangelical. When Calvin was in Geneva King Francis I of France complained the Geneva was raining missionaries on his kingdom.

The leaders of the 18th century Great Awakening in the American English Colonies were almost all Calvinists (Edwards, Whitefield, Davies etc...) THe great missionary work of the 19th century was lead by Calvinists like (John Livingstone and William Carey). I notice that you are Baptist; The Southern Baptists started as a Calvinistic denomination and fell away from those origins in the early 20th century.

The man acclaimed to be the greatest Preacher in the 19th century English speaking world (CH Spurgeon) was a Calvinist. Thats enough history (for now).

God calls all peoples to repent, and all men are responsible before God. Fallen man by nature rejects God. We believe ALL men would freely reject God if God did not sovereignly give new live (spiritually) to some. It is these who believe.


We know from Scripture that "he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" and that "predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

If you notice the verse you give Joshua is not speaking to pagans. Joshua is talking to the people of God. These people are in Covenant with God already. But even with that fact we are called to bring the Gospel to the World. God commands us do this. We are always reponsible before God to be about what he has commisioned us to do.

I await you comments.;)

Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith

[Cajun Huguenot]

Have you never read the book of mormon? I believe that answers your question. :sick:

Do you have even one little bit of historical/archaeological evidence to support the claims in the Book of Morman?

Kenith

[aReformedPatriot]

Do you have even one little bit of historical/archaeological evidence to support the claims in the Book of Morman?

Kenith

I wasnt being serious. :doh:

[Cajun Huguenot]

So why wasn't it enough to be saved by faith in Christ without having to muddy it all up with following the teachings of Calvin? Were Christ's teachings insufficient for you? .

I addressed this in a previous post but I will repeat some of it here. Calvinism is a name given to a particular understanding about what many Christians believe the BIBLE teaches about God and mans part in salvation.

Calvin was not the first nor last to teaches these things (i.e. predestination) from SCRIPTURE, but in the early 17th century his name was placed as a label on these views. You say that you most closely agree with the Mennonites. Does that mean you follow the teachings of men or does it mean that you think the Mennonites come pretty close to teaching what you believe the Bible teaches. I hope I am correct.

The same is true with those of us called Calvinists. We don't follow Calvin we, follow the Scriptures, but we do thing Calvin got it correct on this point. IT is the BIBLE that we believe teaches election and predestination.

Like I said above "Calvin is a good boggyman to beat up on, but how about actually addressing the article."

The fact is, if you think you are saved but fail to follow the teachings of Christ, you are as lost as anyone who doesn't ever hear of Christ at all.:amen:

I agree.:clap:

Calvin doesn't save, only Christ saves.:amen:

Again I agree so let's stop talking about Calvin:prayer:. With that said why don't you now address the substance of the exposition on Romans 9 above.:thumbsup:

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

[aReformedPatriot]

I addressed this in a previous post but I will repeat some of it here. Calvinism is a name given to a particular understanding about what many Christians believe the BIBLE teaches about God and mans part in salvation.

Calvin was not the first nor last to teaches these things (i.e. predestination) from SCRIPTURE, but in the early 17th century his name was placed as a label on these views. You say that you most closely agree with the Mennonites. Does that mean you follow the teachings of men or does it mean that you think the Mennonites come pretty close to teaching what you believe the Bible teaches. I hope I am correct.

The same is true with those of us called Calvinists. We don't follow Calvin we, follow the Scriptures, but we do thing Calvin got it correct on this point. IT is the BIBLE that we believe teaches election and predestination.

Like I said above "Calvin is a good boggyman to beat up on, but how about actually addressing the article."

:amen:

I agree.:clap:

:amen:

Again I agree so let's stop talking about Calvin:prayer:. With that said why don't you now address the substance of the exposition on Romans 9 above.:thumbsup:

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

Are you even allowed to be debating in here? Your profile says your a reformed lutheran/catholic. Not that I dont mind a good discourse or anything.

[Cajun Huguenot]

Are you even allowed to be debating in here? Your profile says your a reformed lutheran/catholic. Not that I dont mind a good discourse or anything.

I hope it is ok. I am not talking about anything anti-Baptist. Many Baptists are Calvinists. The largest Baptist denomination in the US (SBC) was Calvinistic in its inception.

My dad is a deacon at an SBC church. He thinks I've drifted away from things he believes to be correct on other matters like baptism. But I would not try to discuss that here because this is a Baptist site.

Spurgeon, James P. Boyce (founder of Southern Baptist Seminary) and countless other Baptist have been Calvinist, so I would not think it would be objectionable to discuss that stuff on a Baptist site.

I am Reformed. I recently moved and I am going to a Lutheran Church (LCMS) at the moment (which BTW is not favourable to Calvinism). I attend my parents church (First Baptist Church in Longville, La (http://www.beau.lib.la.us/~fbclv/)) several times a year and was Baptist from 8 years old until my mid twenties.

I hope all that means I can discuss this subject here, but if I am out of line let me know. I don't want to get in trouble for that.

Oh the Catholic part. I believe there is only one Catholic (universal) church and it is made up of many peoples from many Christian denominations/sects.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

[Cajun Huguenot]

I wasnt being serious. :doh:


Oh good. You had me worried. I did not think that Baptists were accepting the Book of Mormon;) . I was getting read to call my dad.

Kenith

[Cajun Huguenot]

The Lord's Envoy I noticed you were baptised on my dad's birthday.

Kenith

[aReformedPatriot]

Spurgeon, James P. Boyce (founder of Southern Baptist Seminary)

Boyce College (http://www.boycecollege.com), A school of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary :thumbsup: I do look forward to starting in a couple weeks. :D


I hope all that means I can discuss this subject here, but if I am out of line let me know. I don't want to get in trouble for that.


Who could blame ya (http://www.christianforums.com/t672766-important-forum-specific-rules-important.html). I don't mind, I was just making an observation as you seem the be the first OSAS Lutheran I've ever met :P. That's gotta be a little weird.

- Bro. Mark

[aReformedPatriot]

The Lord's Envoy I noticed you were baptised on my dad's birthday.

Kenith

:D Ha, sweet! It was a good day, that day.

[aReformedPatriot]

Oh good. You had me worried. I did not think that Baptists were accepting the Book of Mormon;) . I was getting read to call my dad.

Kenith

LOL, yea the day that happens is the day I drop the SBC like a slice of pizza with a cockroach on it. :sick:

[Cajun Huguenot]

Boyce College (http://www.boycecollege.com/), A school of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary :thumbsup: I do look forward to starting in a couple weeks. :D

Wow. That's awesome!!! Albert Mohler has done great things there.:thumbsup: You do know that Mohler is following in Boyce's footsteps. He, like Boyce, is a Baptist Calvinist.:eek:

A very good friend of mine is accepting a call (to be pastor) of a PCA church not far from the Seminary. He plans to go there for his Doctorate.


Who could blame ya (http://www.christianforums.com/t672766-important-forum-specific-rules-important.html). I don't mind, I was just making an observation as you seem the be the first OSAS Lutheran I've ever met :P. That's gotta be a little weird.

- Bro. Mark

Yea I have a scrambled denominational background. From French Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist, to now one who holds to the Reformed Faith attending a Lutheran Church in a town that is mostly Roman Catholic or Baptist.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

[aReformedPatriot]

Wow. That's awesome!!! Albert Mohler has done great things there.:thumbsup: You do know that Mohler is following in Boyce's footsteps. He, like Boyce, is a Baptist Calvinist.:eek:

Haha, I won't hold that against him. ;)

A very good friend of mine is accepting a call (to be pastor) of a PCA church not far from the Seminary. He plans to go there for his Doctorate.

Since I am a long term planner I too have looked into this. An MDiv in Higher Education doesnt sound half bad.


Yea I have a scrambled denominational background. From French Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist, to now one who holds to the Reformed Faith attending a Lutheran Church in a town that is mostly Roman Catholic or Baptist.

To say the least :D

[JM]

Hummm :scratch: I don't think so. See post above.

In Christ,
Kenith

My thoughts exactly! How did you twist anything?

It's up to God to decide when and where a person is born, if they will hear the Gospel, etc...:sigh: Not you and me.

[SumTinWong]

LOL, yea the day that happens is the day I drop the SBC like a slice of pizza with a cockroach on it. :sick:
MMMMMM Fear factor pizza!

[Leimeng]

~ If it is up to GOD to decide when a person is born or dies, then why do calvinists oppose Abortion and Murder? After all it is GOD's choice that a person dies or lives at a certain time.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

~ He that but looketh on a plate of eggs, ham and a cinnamon roll to lust after it, hath already committed breakfast with it in his heart.

[Gwenyfur]

LOL, yea the day that happens is the day I drop the SBC like a slice of pizza with a cockroach on it. :sick:
ROFL Race ya to the door!

[ZiSunka]

How did "whosoever wil"l apply to the American Indian, who did not have access to any version of the Gospel until 1500 years after Christ came? You have to here the Gospel inorder to recieve it:scratch: . But the first Indian did not even hear the Goslpel for a millennia and a half. (thats lots of people being born and dying with no chance to will anything about Christ, because they had no chance to hear.) And most would not hear it for several hundred years after that:eek: .

Many Native Americans, especially the Maidu and Pomo, have a tradition that the Son of the Great Spirit came to them to teach them the ways of peace, centuries before the first white man set foot in America. The believed the Son and put their faith in his ways of peace. I heard this from a man who was Maidu and Pomo who heard it from his great grandmother who had never seen a white man and who couldn't read. She had heard it from her grandmother, and so on. Richard told me that he knew of a place where the son of Grandfather Spirit put his hand on a rock near Lake Tahoe and left an imprint in the solid rock as proof that he had been there so they could always point to that place and tell the children about who had made it and why he came to them. :)

[Cajun Huguenot]

Many Native Americans, especially the Maidu and Pomo, have a tradition that the Son of the Great Spirit came to them to teach them the ways of peace, centuries before the first white man set foot in America. The believed the Son and put their faith in his ways of peace. I heard this from a man who was Maidu and Pomo who heard it from his great grandmother who had never seen a white man and who couldn't read. She had heard it from her grandmother, and so on. Richard told me that he knew of a place where the son of Grandfather Spirit put his hand on a rock near Lake Tahoe and left an imprint in the solid rock as proof that he had been there so they could always point to that place and tell the children about who had made it and why he came to them. :)

I've heard such stories before. If they are factual was the Gospel presented? Those are only two of hundreds of tribes.

Was there salvation in the Americas before Christian missionaries arrived? What of the Austalian aboriginal peoples?

Did these native peoples know about the need of repentance? I don't think so, but I would be interested to here some evidence that they did.:thumbsup:

I have more questions on that subject, but that can be looked at another time.

Doesn't anyone have an actual comment on the commentary of Romans 9, pro or con?

In Christ,
Kenith

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Doesn't anyone have an actual comment on the commentary of Romans 9, pro or con?

In Christ,
Kenith


I have a few questions.

What about the context of the rest of the book?

What about the context of the OT passages quoted int Romans?

Why did Paul write this words?

What was going on at the church at Rome?

How else could the passage be understood?

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have a few questions.

What about the context of the rest of the book?

What about the context of the OT passages quoted int Romans?

Why did Paul write this words?

What was going on at the church at Rome?

How else could the passage be understood?

Those are very good questions. Lets discuss them.

As to your first question, I think the commentary fits in perfectly with the rest of the book and with the whole of Scripture. If I did not think so I would not have posted it.

If someone does not think it fits contextually, I hope they will show where the exposition goes wrong.

I wrote what I think Paul is saying, I hope you will put some flesh and bone to your questions so we can discuss them.

Let discuss the rest of you questions just a little for now.


What about the context of the OT passages quoted int Romans? You need tell me if there is an error in the exposition on this point and why.

Why did Paul write this words? I think he wrote those words to Roman Church so that thew would understand these things is is mentioned in the commentary. This is why I think met the objections he knew would be raised. He objected for them "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" And then he answers strongly "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

I think those are strong words that would rub most of us (me included) the wrong way. God knew this, as did Paul, but it is God's truth and He wanted His people to know this truth, so His Spirit had Paul explain it to the Church at Rome.

What was going on at the church at Rome? To my knowledge nothing that would change the commentary. What do you think?

How else could the passage be understood? You tell me.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

[Cajun Huguenot]

~ If it is up to GOD to decide when a person is born or dies, then why do calvinists oppose Abortion and Murder? After all it is GOD's choice that a person dies or lives at a certain time.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

I missed this post earlier. Notice there is still no comment on the exposition.

God declares what is right and wrong and how we are to regard both. God tells us that murder is a heinous sin and abortion is murder. He tells what to think about that in His Word. I think that is a good enough reason. Don't you?

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

[Middlemoor]

pharaoh was told by Jesus himself to proclaim the Lord thy God. he didn't. God made him an example - yes. God didn't give him everything he'd need to accomplish salvation - no. just like God gives you everything you need to get your work done, God gave pharoah miracles, the messiah, in fact - well and truely beyond what is required to convert the average joe. did pharoah listen? no. because it is easier for a rich man to climb through the eye of a needle than it is to enter the kingdom of heaven. and that is the sad situation we have created on earth.

[theseed]

~ If it is up to GOD to decide when a person is born or dies, then why do calvinists oppose Abortion and Murder? After all it is GOD's choice that a person dies or lives at a certain time.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

~ He that but looketh on a plate of eggs, ham and a cinnamon roll to lust after it, hath already committed breakfast with it in his heart.
We oppose it because it is sinful.

[Leimeng]

We oppose it because it is sinful.

~ But the logical conclusion of the idea that people die and live at GOD'S will would be that it is GOD'S will that the individual dies at that time. So by being opposed to abortion or murder (or your other favorite sin), yet GOD willing that that a person dies or commits such sin at that time, you are in opposition to GOD'S will. Why would you oppose GOD'S will? In fact, if no one has free will, why would they care one way or another? We can't do anything about it...

~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

~ When dog food has a new and improved taste, who tests it?

[Cajun Huguenot]

~ But the logical conclusion of the idea that people die and live at GOD'S will would be that it is GOD'S will that the individual dies at that time. So by being opposed to abortion or murder (or your other favorite sin), yet GOD willing that that a person dies or commits such sin at that time, you are in opposition to GOD'S will.


Sorry, but you are just wrong, plus you did not address any of the commentary at the beginning of this thread. We can argue the logic on another thread if you like, but I would like one person to actually address the exposition at the beginning of this tread.

Let's drop back in the Bible and see on point where God actually commands one man to deliver a message to another man (Pharaoh) that he then "hardens" so that he will not do what the Lord commanded.

“Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.” (Ex. 3:10)

And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart [is] hardened, he refuseth to let the people go. (Ex. 7:13-14)

God wanted Israel to be let go from Egypt, but God actually hardens Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not do as the Lord had commanded through Moses. Was this logical. It is as God wanted.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

[theseed]

~ But the logical conclusion of the idea that people die and live at GOD'S will would be that it is GOD'S will that the individual dies at that time. So by being opposed to abortion or murder (or your other favorite sin), yet GOD willing that that a person dies or commits such sin at that time, you are in opposition to GOD'S will. Why would you oppose GOD'S will? In fact, if no one has free will, why would they care one way or another? We can't do anything about it...

~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

~ When dog food has a new and improved taste, who tests it?


The alternative to what your are proposing is open theism.

[Cajun Huguenot]

pharaoh was told by Jesus himself to proclaim the Lord thy God. he didn't. God made him an example - yes. God didn't give him everything he'd need to accomplish salvation - no. just like God gives you everything you need to get your work done, God gave pharoah miracles, the messiah, in fact - well and truely beyond what is required to convert the average joe. did pharoah listen? no. because it is easier for a rich man to climb through the eye of a needle than it is to enter the kingdom of heaven. and that is the sad situation we have created on earth.

What? I am sorry but you lost me on this one.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

[eutychus]

Wow. That's awesome!!! Albert Mohler has done great things there.:thumbsup: You do know that Mohler is following in Boyce's footsteps. He, like Boyce, is a Baptist Calvinist.:eek:

How refreshing...I read this thread just two days after I change my icon to Dr. Mohler.

Regarding Romans 9:

Romans 9 is the only passage Calvinists whip out that I cannot read any other way but by acknowledging God's sovereignty. The other night I even tackled Eph. 1-2 and was able to see where an Arminian could get his theology, but Romans 9...I doubt it. In its contexts it makes even more dangerous sense--that a Sovereign God would reach to his children and save them based on his will and works.

[Middlemoor]

it was very late, i got everything mixed up

pharoah should have been convinced by moses...pharoah was given alot of evidence to hear and still didn't listen.

jesus preached to people that didn't listen either.

if you and i, who didn't get either moses or jesus to preach at us face-to-face, or be shown amazing miracles and whatnot from God, were converted...then didn't the historical unbelievers have an even better chance?

if God gives everybody the ability to do what they must - for instance, believe and honour God. then nobody can say they were "unable" to accept God's word. nobody can say that God forces upon people a faith unattainable.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Those are very good questions. Lets discuss them.

As to your first question, I think the commentary fits in perfectly with the rest of the book and with the whole of Scripture. If I did not think so I would not have posted it.

If someone does not think it fits contextually, I hope they will show where the exposition goes wrong.

I wrote what I think Paul is saying, I hope you will put some flesh and bone to your questions so we can discuss them.

Let discuss the rest of you questions just a little for now.

You need tell me if there is an error in the exposition on this point and why. [/color]

I think he wrote those words to Roman Church so that thew would understand these things is is mentioned in the commentary. This is why I think met the objections he knew would be raised. He objected for them "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" And then he answers strongly "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

I think those are strong words that would rub most of us (me included) the wrong way. God knew this, as did Paul, but it is God's truth and He wanted His people to know this truth, so His Spirit had Paul explain it to the Church at Rome.

To my knowledge nothing that would change the commentary. What do you think?

You tell me.[/color]

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith


Thank you for the acknowlegement. I'll post my beliefs of Romans 9 later this week, some things have happened that need my immediate attention and prayer.

[Cajun Huguenot]

Thank you for the acknowlegement. I'll post my beliefs of Romans 9 later this week, some things have happened that need my immediate attention and prayer.

Hey Folks,

I've enjoyed conversing with y'all on this thread, but I have been informed that I may not "debate" on the Baptist/ Anabaptist (http://www.christianforums.com/f364) forum :cry:. I am no longer a Baptist and this is a forum for Baptist.

On this forum I may ask questions and fellowship only. I would be happy to continue this discussion on another forum, if any of you would like to do so. As I understand it I can't officially reply to any more stuff here, so if you have a reply I hope you will let me know and post it elswhere where I can discuss it with you.

I'm certain I will see y'all on other threads here at Baptist/ Anabaptist (http://www.christianforums.com/f364) and on other forums as well.

Sincerely your Reformed (but no longer Baptist) brother in Christ,
Kenith