How 'bout dis?

But if God alone determines who will or will not have faith, then God IS culpable for the faithless.
Incorrect.



Correct.



No it doesn't.



Incorrect.



Certainly He can.

Rom. 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Rom 9:20 does not prove your point. Who are you, O man, to make God culpable for the faithless!!! God cannot act against His own holy just nature and doing something unholy, unjust as in requiring men to have faith to be saved, then make it impossible for some men to have faith by not giving faith to them. By the way, he context of Rom 9 is not about Calvinism but about Paul proving God was just and righteous in casting off elect people (Jews) because of their unbelief/disobedience.
Worthless rationalization.



Incorrect.



That is an errant understanding of "respecter of persons".



Yes, God does choose. That is the message from Genesis to Revelation.
Do a study on "choose", "chosen", and "elect".



No, because as I already explained to you (please pay attention, I don't like having to repeat myself) God being "a respecter of persons" means that God's choice is based on something a person is or does. It is the belief that God chooses for salvation those who believe that makes God "a respecter of persons".
You evidently do not understand what respect of persons means. Respect of person carries the idea of showing partiality yet God has no respect of persons, therefore God shows no partiality when it comes to salvation for God has set THE SAME STANDARD for salvation for ALL MEN....(Phil 3:16--'walk by the SAME RULE'). Men who of their own free will choose to meet God's standard will receive God's free gift while those who choose not to fail to receive God's free gift. God therefore is not a respecter of persons for setting the same standard for all.

The context of Acts 10:34-35 the Jews had a bias against Gentiles and tho't salvation was just for the Jews, that God had respect of persons for the nationality of Jews over Gentiles. Hence Peter's vision showing God has no such partiality/respect of person for in EVERY NATION, ANYONE that meets God's standard ("fear God and worketh righteousness") is accepted with God. God choosing the Jews for salvation over the Gentiles based on nationality would be showing partiality/respect of persons. God choosing to give one person faith over another would be showing partiality/respect of persons. Yet God setting the same standard for all means "God is no respecter of persons" which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
As Rom. 9 says, God makes from the SAME lump of clay vessels for honour, and vessels for dishonour.



Wrong context.
Scripture throughout teaches that salvation is "not by works" (Eph. 2:8-9, Tit. 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 4:1-6, 9:11-13, 11:5-6, etc. etc.)
The works of Eph 2:8 refer to works of merit not obedience to God's will. Obedience and works of merit are two completely different things. Nowhere ever does the Bible eliminate obedience while it does eliminate works of merit, works of the OT law. All works are obviously not the same.
 
Indeed if God controls all then God if the ultimate cause of sin and unbelief

There is no escaping it
Yes.

The WCOF Part III, Section 1 states:
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)"

If God ordains "whatsoever comes to pass" then God is culpable for everything that comes to pass but the WCOF contradicts itself in trying to get around that by saying "as yet as thereby neither is God the author of sin". Obviously the WCOF faith cannot have it both ways, on one hand have God ordain all that comes to pass which would include sin then contradicts itself by saying God is not the author of sin.
 
But if God alone determines who will or will not have faith, then God IS culpable for the faithless.

Rom 9:20 does not prove your point. Who are you, O man, to make God culpable for the faithless!!! God cannot act against His own holy just nature and doing something unholy, unjust as in requiring men to have faith to be saved, then make it impossible for some men to have faith by not giving faith to them. By the way, he context of Rom 9 is not about Calvinism but about Paul proving God was just and righteous in casting off elect people (Jews) because of their unbelief/disobedience.

You evidently do not understand what respect of persons means. Respect of person carries the idea of showing partiality yet God has no respect of persons, therefore God shows no partiality when it comes to salvation for God has set THE SAME STANDARD for salvation for ALL MEN....(Phil 3:16--'walk by the SAME RULE'). Men who of their own free will choose to meet God's standard will receive God's free gift while those who choose not to fail to receive God's free gift. God therefore is not a respecter of persons for setting the same standard for all.

The context of Acts 10:34-35 the Jews had a bias against Gentiles and tho't salvation was just for the Jews, that God had respect of persons for the nationality of Jews over Gentiles. Hence Peter's vision showing God has no such partiality/respect of person for in EVERY NATION, ANYONE that meets God's standard ("fear God and worketh righteousness") is accepted with God. God choosing the Jews for salvation over the Gentiles based on nationality would be showing partiality/respect of persons. God choosing to give one person faith over another would be showing partiality/respect of persons. Yet God setting the same standard for all means "God is no respecter of persons" which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

The works of Eph 2:8 refer to works of merit not obedience to God's will. Obedience and works of merit are two completely different things. Nowhere ever does the Bible eliminate obedience while it does eliminate works of merit, works of the OT law. All works are obviously not the same.
Wonderfully edifying, especially your comment about the context of Romans 9!

God bless
 
But if God alone determines who will or will not have faith, then God IS culpable for the faithless.

Nope.
Using the term "culpable" suggests God did something bad.
He didn't.

Rom 9:20 does not prove your point.

We will have to agree to disagree, since you're wrong.

You evidently do not understand what respect of persons means.

We will have to agree to disagree, since you're wrong.

The works of Eph 2:8 refer to works of merit not obedience to God's will.

We will have to agree to disagree, since you're wrong.
 
Yes.

The WCOF Part III, Section 1 states:
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)"

If God ordains "whatsoever comes to pass" then God is culpable for everything that comes to pass but the WCOF contradicts itself in trying to get around that by saying "as yet as thereby neither is God the author of sin". Obviously the WCOF faith cannot have it both ways, on one hand have God ordain all that comes to pass which would include sin then contradicts itself by saying God is not the author of sin.
No way of escaping it
 
Nope.
Using the term "culpable" suggests God did something bad.
He didn't.



We will have to agree to disagree, since you're wrong.



We will have to agree to disagree, since you're wrong.



We will have to agree to disagree, since you're wrong.
If the only way one can have faith is by God giving one faith, then for those who are faithless are due so to God's culpability, God would be to blame for their lack of faith. You certainly cannot place blame on the faithless for what was out of their control.
 
If the only way one can have faith is by God giving one faith, then for those who are faithless are due so to God's culpability, God would be to blame for their lack of faith.

Simply repeating a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.
What is it about anti-Calvinists that make them need to repeat the same thing over and over again ten milliion times?

Learn these four simple words:
"Let's agree to disagree".
 
If the only way one can have faith is by God giving one faith, then for those who are faithless are due so to God's culpability, God would be to blame for their lack of faith. You certainly cannot place blame on the faithless for what was out of their control.
Why?

It depends on the Logical Order of things. If we can say that All are Condemned already, as prevening God Giving Faith; God has no Culpability for not giving All the Gift of Faith...
 
Why?

It depends on the Logical Order of things. If we can say that All are Condemned already, as prevening God Giving Faith; God has no Culpability for not giving All the Gift of Faith...
If an employer requires an employee to move a ton load but does not give the employee what is needed to move the load and then fires the employee for not moving the load is that fair and just in any sense of the words???

If man can only have faith if it's given to him by God, how then can it be fair and just for God to command men to believe (as in Acts 16:31) but then not give one belief? God is causing men to sin against the command for man to have faith.
 
Simply repeating a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.
What is it about anti-Calvinists that make them need to repeat the same thing over and over again ten milliion times?

Learn these four simple words:
"Let's agree to disagree".
I repeat things sometimes because what I post never gets addressed.
 
If an employer requires an employee to move a ton load but does not give the employee what is needed to move the load and then fires the employee for not moving the load is that fair and just in any sense of the words???

So you expect us to reject Biblical truth simply because you are able to invent a rationalization?
 
I repeat things sometimes because what I post never gets addressed.

But there's nothing TO "address".

Your position is basically, "Your doctrine makes God culpable because I SAY SO!!!!!!"
And that's not a valid argument.
 
If an employer requires an employee to move a ton load but does not give the employee what is needed to move the load and then fires the employee for not moving the load is that fair and just in any sense of the words???

If man can only have faith if it's given to him by God, how then can it be fair and just for God to command men to believe (as in Acts 16:31) but then not give one belief? God is causing men to sin against the command for man to have faith.
Your example is unfair to the employee...

But I say it isn't unfair for God to not grant Faith to the Condemned. The Bible says that the Potter has this Right in the world. Therefore the employer in your example does not have the same Right that God has...
 
Why?

It depends on the Logical Order of things. If we can say that All are Condemned already, as prevening God Giving Faith; God has no Culpability for not giving All the Gift of Faith...
Not if they were unconditionally condemned from before the foundation of the earth and their destiny determined before they were ever born
 
Your example is unfair to the employee...

But I say it isn't unfair for God to not grant Faith to the Condemned. The Bible says that the Potter has this Right in the world. Therefore the employer in your example does not have the same Right that God has...
God has COMMANDED the condemned to have faith. What is fair about giving a command that is impossible for the condemned to obey? This is unjust, unfair and not in God's nature to be sadistic as this.

How the Potter fashions the clay depends on how the clay behaves in the Potter's hands, Jer 18:4. If the clay obeys it will be a vessel of honor but if it disobeys (mars) in the Potter's hand it will be a vessel of dishonor (Jer 18:8-10; 2 Tim 2:21).

The context of Rom 9 is Paul proving God was just and righteous in casting off elect people, the Jews. In Rom 9:21 the Potter making two vessels (vessel of dishonor the Jew & vessel of honor the Gentile) from the same lump. The Jews falsely tho't that since they were descendants of Abraham, they had a right to tell the Potter (God) that God must make them vessels of honor and those 'dog' Gentiles must be made vessels of dishonor. Just being physical descendants of Abraham could not make the Jews children of God (Rom 9:7-8) for it takes obedience (Jer 18:8) purging oneself (2 Tim 2:21) to be a vessel of honor. Yet the Jews would not obey God whereas the Gentiles did.


Points:
---Jews had no right to make demands upon God because of their physical birth being descendants of Abraham. (Rom 9:8)
---being made a vessel of honor or dishonor is not capricious or baseless but is conditionally based upon obedience in "turning from evil" Jer 18:8 and 'purging oneself' 2 Tim 2:21.
---the Jews refused to obey thus God was just and righteous in casting them off for their unbelief (Rom 11:23). The Jews unbelief was a result of their own free will choice thus God was just and righteous in casting them off for THEIR own choice. But if the only way the Jews could believe was by God "giving" them belief, then the Jews would have a valid argument against God for casting them off, unjustly making them vessels of dishonor and Paul's whole argument in Rom 9 that God was just and righteous in casting off the Jew is fallacious, illogical and dead.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top