Posted on 10/21/2005 5:37:01 AM PDT by sheltonmac
That topic, if not the same verses, was brought up before on this thread: the Jews' rejection of Christ is a part of the economy of salvation, and thus is evil from which God produced good. The allegory of potter and clay speaks of hardening of the pot, but it does not make the potter resist the good, it makes the pot able to resist and actually resisting, due to hardness (not an evil quality in a pot). Despite the clay allegory, which superficially seems to support your notion of man as robot, God the Potter is said to endure "with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction". If men are pots, they are pots able to test the potter.
Read verse 19 again. If your reading was correct, Paul wouldn't have asked the question.
19 Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will?It is St. Paul's rhetorical opponent asking the question: -- if God directly caused the evil act, why does He then condemn the actor? Paul gives the answer:
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,God did not make the Jews reject Christ, he mercifully endured their rejection.
23 That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?
And then you suspiciously jump right past verses 20 and 21, citing verses 22 and 23 as if to say the "vessels of wrath" and the "vessels of mercy" were actually the same vessel at different points in time. Paul makes it clear they are not one vessel, but two - and that they have no right (or ability, for that matter) to refuse the potter's designs for them at any point in time...
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?Now let's contrast verse 21 with your #421:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?
" The allegory of potter and clay speaks of hardening of the pot, but it does not make the potter resist the good, it makes the pot able to resist actually resisting, due to hardness (not an evil quality in a pot). Despite the clay allegory, which superficially seems to support your notion of man as robot, God the Potter is said to endure "with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction". If men are pots, they are pots able to test the potter."And back to Romans 9:21 again, for comparison:
21 Or does not the potter have a right the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?
That should have read with your #481:, not 421. Do I do penance or repentance for that kind of error?
Indeed they are two different sets of pots, and I did not imply otherwise.
God does not create evil in the clay, it is already there. He takes some of the sinful clay and by granting mercy fashions it into a vessel of honor. The remainder is fit for destruction because of what it already is.
Am I mistaken, does everyone already see this and I am slow to catch on?
To look at it another way, they might think that the Potter hasn't decided on a design/fate/purpose (mercy or wrath) when He first creates said vessel. I agree with your conclusion, regardless: a neutral vessel, one not already tainted or purposed.
Another similar interpretation might be where the vessel itself rebels against the Potter, and is capable of creating/altering it's own design/fate/purpose, conceivably changing back-and-forth from a vessel of mercy to a vessel of wrath to a vessel of mercy etc etc etc. annalex appears to be arguing from this view - annalex, please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, the view you ascribe to me is too strong and contains the Pelagian heresy. Man (the allegorical pot) cannot alter his nature without God's grace, but an ability to choose for evil or for good is a part of that God-given nature.
In Genesis 1:31 God declared man, made in God's image, good. In Genesis 3:17 and on God cursed the "earth in [man's] work" and He cursed the serpent; but He did not curse the man. In Genesis 3:15 man is promised to prevail over the serpent, crushing its head. Thus man, while wounded in the Fall, and powerless outside of God's grace, remains of good nature and is ordered to sainthood.
Catholicism rejects man as a godlike rebel agains God, and it rejects total depravity of man.
Also, fro your second paragraph, would it be accurate to conclude that (unless otherwise altered by a life of bad choices) all men eventually attain some level of sainthood?
No to both. If justufied, man reaches his inherent nature. If in a state of mortal sin, he fails on the journey to realize his true nature.
We reserve the term "saint" to those who proceed immediately to heaven after physical death, as they have purged themselves from the effects of their sins through martyrdom on earth. Most men who die in the state of grace nevertheless need to undergo purgation before they can enjoy union with God in Heaven, and they are not traditionally called saints.
I read Calvin's essay on 1 Timothy 2.
It offers that "all men" in verse 4 refers to all nationalities and social conditions, rather than all men individually. Calvin then proceeds to show how that particular interpretation fits the predestination of the reprobate, and, of course, he succeeds.
His theory ingores the context of 1 Timothy 2. St. Paul instructs Timothy on the purpose and organization of a Christian church. "All men" appears in verse 1 first, which says "I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men". It goes on to single out the kings and others in high station, who are responsible for peace. No mentioning is made of people in lower stations, nor of diverse nationalities. If "all" referred to diversity of station or tongue, one would expect St. Paul to mention diverse stations and tongues alongside the kings and the nobility. He does not do so, and asserts, in v. 4, that God wishes the salvation of all. In v. 6 "all" appears again as Christ died for "all". If "all" in 1 Timothy 2 referred to kinds of men rather than to simply men, then we'd have to conclude that while Christ died, perhaps, for the poor also, the church must minister exclusively to the powerful.
Moreover, if "all" according to Calvin is supposed to really mean "the elect of all ethnic and social kind", then how is such prayer of supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving possible, especially if the powerful are to be included, seemingly, even if they are reprobate, for the sake of peace. "Lord, please save those who you elected to save and also the reprobate in high stations"? Somehow I doubt that this is how they prayed in Geneva.
In fact, I don't understand the concept of an supplicative or intercessory prayer at all if the division between the elect ad the reprobate is set for all eternity. The only meaningful prayer is that of thanksgiving: "Lord thank you that you did not make me like those reprobates"... I think I read this prayer somewhere... But I digress.
What do you mean by "inherent nature?"
You seem to be saying man's nature is inherently good, and Christ's justification brings out or amplifies or facilitates man's basic goodness.
What was the Fall, if man's nature remains inherently good? A stumble? And what is the work of the Holy Ghost? Mere suggestion?
Keep reading Calvin. It will do you good.
How's that for "concise?" 8~)
The Fall was a wound that brought about death, concupiscent disordered will prone to sin, and pain, but it did not bring about total depravity as man remains made in the image of God and loved by God.
Keep reading Calvin
Extrascriptural speculation about Christianity is a common occurence, -- why should I single out Calvin for my reading, when I already know his fruits?
You mean something along the lines of "There, but for the grace of God, go I"? Seems reasonable to me.
You may be recalling this sermon by C.H. Spurgeon:
"I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace. Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done! I have thought, if God had left me alone, and had not touched me by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should I have stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me. I feel that I should have been a very king of sinners, if God had let me alone. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life—no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon me—warnings were cast to the wind—thunders were despised; and as for the whispers of His love, they were rejected as being less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I am, I can say now, speaking on behalf of myself, "He only is my salvation." It was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees before Him. I can in very deed, say with Doddridge and Toplady— "Grace taught my soul to pray, And made my eyes o'erflow;" and coming to this moment, I can add —
"'Tis grace has kept me to this day,
And will not let me go."
Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man—that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."
A wound? Wounds are self-healing boo-boos.
There was a time when the Roman Catholic church held a much stronger line on man's utter and complete desolation apart from the will of God. Sadly, the line seems to have given way to the Pelagian way of thinking -- that man is basically good and it's the world that's bad and mucks up all God's well-intentioned plans.
Some do come to the light. But listen to what John 3:20-21 says about them. "Every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." Yes there are those who come to the light -- namely those whose deeds are the work of God. "Wrought in God" means worked by God. Apart from this gracious work of God all men hate the light of God and will not come to him lest their evil be exposed -- this is total rebellion. "No one seeks for God...There is no fear of God before their eyes!""It is a myth that man in his natural state is genuinely seeking God. Men do seek God. But they do not seek him for who he is. They seek him in a pinch as one who might preserve them from death or enhance their worldly enjoyments. Apart from conversion, no one comes to the light of God.
No, I don't have much affinity for the weepy-eyed 19c sentimentalism and do not retain much of what I read in that genre. I was recalling Luke 18
11 The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.self-healing boo-boos
That is your words, not mine. The wound of the original sin is not self-healing and is only healed through Christ. My Church condemned Pelagius, whose heresy you ascribe to me, in the 5c.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." -- Luke 18:19-14"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
Pity you didn't read the sermon by Spurgeon. This is precisely the point he was making. All acts of righteousness are from God alone, and the only thing that saves a man is God's unmerited mercy.
By virtue of your cooperative salvation, you're the one arguing the case of the Pharisee. "Look at all the good things I've done to "cooperate" with God and win His approval."
You start with a speculative theological assumption about the relationship between grace and work, and proceed to fit this parable into your theology. A plain reading of the parable does not support your interpretation.
The pharisee does acknowledge that all good that he accomplished comes from God. The good works that he mentions are unremarkable, -- routine fasting and tithing. His is a prayer of thanksgiving for the divine grace that prevented him from visible sins. For all we know, the pharisee might be regarding his tithing and fasting as fruits of his faith, as a good Calvinist does today.
The point of the parable is not works versus grace. It is presumption versus humility. The pharisee presumes that he is one of the elect and thanks God for it. He presumes that extortioners, adulterers and the rest are reprobates. This is the attitude Christ rebukes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.