Romans 9

[kross]

Since I believe that no one would be saved if GOD did not intervene with an irresistible touch of love that results in loving HIM in return,

God's love is not irresistable.

We love HIM because HE first loved us" And "We are HIS workmanship created for good works that HE prepared before that we should walk in them" I would rather give HIM the glory for the good works HE does through me.

Precisely. That is what we are prepared beforehand for. We are foreordained to good works, to the process of sanctification that makes us more like Jesus.

I do not have a problem with the notion that GOD makes some vessels for the purpose of showing HIS wrath.

That is a problem because the Bible nowhere says that God makes some vessells for the purpose of showing His wrath. It says he makes some for more noble purposes and some for less noble purpose. No Scriptre says God makes anyone to be the object of His wrath.

These will be the most vial of people (those who Satan has full control over and uses for evil) and they will be very good people (those who are destroyed because they think they are righteous enough to demand they be allowed in heaven)

But it is not God who made them that way. They became vessels fitted for wrath due to their own rebellion not to any purpose attributable to God.

Since i believe GOD is in control and is exercising that control, I extrapolate that HE intends what is going on. HE doesnt have to cause anyone to rape and murder, HE just has to not intervene.

That is not interally consistent. If God intends what is going on, then he does bear some causal responsibility. He cannot be said to intend but not actually cause it to happen. Either God intends it, or simply permits it. It cannot be both.

GOD's love was irresistible to me. I can ot imagine that anyone touched by the love of GOD could not be changed. After all, that is how HE calls those HE predestined. I love HIM because HE first loved me is like saying "the window broke because the rock hit it hard enough to break it. There simply is no other effect that can come from the cause. The word because, despite it's current weaker understanding, indicates the only response possible. My love for HIM was caused by HIS love for me. There is no other response possible. It is a definite, specific statement of cause and effect. There is no other response possible to the particular stimulous other than what the response is. This is not only true with the english word "because" It is even more true of the picture word hoti from the greek.

You state that GOD doesn't make the vessels for dishonor that are going to show HIS wrath. I believe that is exactly what PAul states when he says that GOD makes one vessel for dishonor and one for honor. One vessel that will show HIS wrath and one that will show HIS mercy. Ro 9:22-24

I do not have a problem with the idea that you cannot separate GOD from HIS creation. HE made it and HE is responsible for how it turned out. I do not stand in judgement of HIM because of what HIS creation is. HE has the right to create what HE chooses. Your point here is like saying an artist has no resposibility for his art. Or an inventor can not be held responsible for what his invention does. Except with GOD, HE knew evrything that would be before HE even create anything. So, HE is responsible for what HIS creation is.

This does, after all, return to the very first question and statement of this thread. Who are you, O man, to reply aginst GOD? Does HE not have the right...?

It seems that these discussions always come back to Paul clearly asking and answerring that question, which proves to me that is exactly what Paul is teaching.

[Guest shiloh357]

GOD's love was irresistible to me. I can ot imagine that anyone touched by the love of GOD could not be changed.

Really? Because most of humanity resists the love of God all of the time.

After all, that is how HE calls those HE predestined. I love HIM because HE first loved me is like saying "the window broke because the rock hit it hard enough to break it. There simply is no other effect that can come from the cause. The word because, despite it's current weaker understanding, indicates the only response possible. My love for HIM was caused by HIS love for me.There is no other response possible. It is a definite, specific statement of cause and effect. There is no other response possible to the particular stimulous other than what the response is. This is not only true with the english word "because" It is even more true of the picture word hoti from the greek.

You are taking that further than the text allows. The Bible does not say that loving God is the irresistable response to God's love. In fact, the text of 1 John 4:19 reads thus: "We love because He first loved us." The point in the context of 1 John 4 is that the greatest evidence of God's love is our love for the bretheren. If we hate the bretheren we cannot claim to love God. Nothing in the text inidcates that love is compulsory because of God's love. Rather our love reflects His love.

You state that GOD doesn't make the vessels for dishonor that are going to show HIS wrath. I believe that is exactly what PAul states when he says that GOD makes one vessel for dishonor and one for honor.

That is not what the text says, and it makes a differentiation between between vessels God predestines for different kinds of service and those vessels that have fitted themselves for wrath and made themselves the object of God's wrath.

One vessel that will show HIS wrath and one that will show HIS mercy. Ro 9:22-24

Those verses do not say that God made them fit for wrath or mercy. That is something you are penciling into the text. You are not really defending Scripture. You are defending the view you are trying to insert into Scripture. The notion that God creates some to be destroyed contradicts His revealed character. God may allow people to rebel and then judge them for that, but He does not force them to rebel and MAKE them objects of wrath.

I do not have a problem with the idea that you cannot separate GOD from HIS creation.

??? What???? What are you talking about?

HE made it and HE is responsible for how it turned out. I do not stand in judgement of HIM because of what HIS creation is. HE has the right to create what HE chooses. Your point here is like saying an artist has no resposibility for his art. Or an inventor can not be held responsible for what his invention does. Except with GOD, HE knew evrything that would be before HE even create anything. So, HE is responsible for what HIS creation is.

The idea that sin was hardwired into creation is simply not biblical and to date, you have never actually offered any Scriptural support for that notion just a lot of human reasoning. You subscribe to an unbiblical hyper-sovereignty view that falls outside the pale of the Scripture and biblical, New Testament Christianity.

This does, after all, return to the very first question and statement of this thread. Who are you, O man, to reply aginst GOD? Does HE not have the right...?

Yes, but that question pertains to complaints pertaining to God's choice of type of service one will carry out and the position one holds in the Body of Christ. It does not come as response to the unbiblical assertion that God chooses some people to go to hell and thus we are out of line for challenging it.

It seems that these discussions always come back to Paul clearly asking and answerring that question, which proves to me that is exactly what Paul is teaching.

It would not appear that you are accurately reflecting the point Paul was making. Paul was not a hyper-calvinist.

[BlindSeeker]

I can't follow your logic at all. Paul is speaking to Jews. Fine. HE states "We know that..." and you believe that "We know.." refers to the knowledge GOD gave to the Jews. Fine.

Actually, you have it backwards. The

[BlindSeeker]

. . . Paul was not a hyper-calvinist.

Nor does it appear Calvin correctly understood the Pauline epistles . . .

[kross]

. . . Paul was not a hyper-calvinist.

Nor does it appear Calvin correctly understood the Pauline epistles . . .

OR else y'all don't?

[Guest shiloh357]

When it comes to Predestination and the Baptism of infants, Calvin simply got it wrong.

[EricH]

. . . Paul was not a hyper-calvinist.

Nor does it appear Calvin correctly understood the Pauline epistles . . .

Maybe before any of us claim high ground on this one, we might want to check our "understanding" as well.

If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it. (1Corinthians 8:2 HCSB)

[EricH]

When it comes to Predestination and the Baptism of infants, Calvin simply got it wrong.

Probably, in terms of a complete and accurate understanding of predestination, all of us have it wrong at some level.

[EricH]

God knows who will and will not be saved. He knows in advance who will reject the gospel when it is presented to them. He also knows who will receive it. Those whom God foreknows will receive the gospel, he predestines to conformed to the image of His Son. It does not say he predestines to them to salvation.

In these verses, predestination is linked to what happens AFTER a person is saved. It pertains to what God has predestined for the person He knows will receive the gospel. Neither of these verses claim that God predestined who will or will not be saved, but that He predestines that those who are saved will be conformed to the image of His Son.

It is wrong to change the order of events. God foreknows who will receive the Gospel. He has predestined that all who receive the gospel will be conformed to the image of His Son (sancification). He calls them, justifies them and will also glorify them (the meaning of "adoption" in Rom. 8). Nothing in these verses claim that God predetermines whom He will or will not allow to be saved.

The problem with this interpretation (which some to hold to) is that it does not appear that the word prognosko (forknew) is used in the sense simply knowing someting intellectually beforehand, in the NT. A statement like that would be a needless truism since God knows all things in advance. In the NT the verb and its related noun do not conform to the idea of simply a knowing intellectual facts before hand. The verb is used 6 times in the NT. All of them that have God as the subject do not seem to carry with them the nuance of to know something (intellectual knowledge) beforehand. Rather, they speak to entering into a relationship beforehand (Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20, Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:2).

[BlindSeeker]

. . . Paul was not a hyper-calvinist.

Nor does it appear Calvin correctly understood the Pauline epistles . . .

Maybe before any of us claim high ground on this one, we might want to check our "understanding" as well.

If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it. (1Corinthians 8:2 HCSB)

I know the verse . . . but I have not taught a limited atonement either.

Nor have I sought the condemnation and execution via burning at the stake of those who disagree with me as Calvin did to Michael Servetus . . .

You know the tree by its fruit.