| Re: |
These two lines of thought and scripture, were before the foundation, from the foundation and to New foundation of the world, and God is at the beginning of both lines and at the end of both lines. Surprisingly, only to man, He is in the in between also. It is God who made us, it is God who keeps us. Who are we to say that we have done anything. Is not God the head of all His creation, which He can do as He pleases, oh! Clay pot.
Romans 9:18-33 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?))))))))))))))-------Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 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, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Seems pretty clear who is in Charge.
In Christ, By God, "our Father", by the Cross of Christ and His Incorruptable Seed, of which we are rebirthed into the Family of God:
| 2009/12/3 21:49||Profile|
Las Vegas, NV
| Re: Anger / Hatred of God|
ChristInYou, when you say, "Who are we to say that we have done anything. Is not God the head of all His creation, which He can do as He pleases, oh! Clay pot"; what exactly do you mean?
It would appear that, even though you did not express yourself clearly, you are implying that God is the [i]Author of man's sin[/i] for, taking your own words, we may just as easily say "who are we to say that we have done (sin)." For what can we do that God was not pleased to work in us, just as the potter has power over the clay. However, since that is not the proper exposition of the parable of the potter (see Jeremiah 18:5-10), it is little wonder if you should think Paul's rebuke, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" should be referring to men who are indignant that God made them sinners. This line of thinking is sometimes known as "Equal Ultimacy."
Consider these words from the intro of Matthew Henry's Commentary on James 1:13-18
[size=11]We are here taught that God is not the author of any man's sin. Whoever they are who raise persecutions against men, and whatever injustice and sin they may be guilty of in proceeding against them, God is not to be charged with it. And, whatever sins good men may themselves be provoked to by their exercises and afflictions, God is not the cause of them. It seems to be here supposed that some professors might fall in the hour of temptation, that the rod resting upon them might carry some into ill courses, and make them put forth their hands unto iniquity. But though this should be the case, and though such delinquents should attempt to lay their fault on God, yet the blame of their misconduct must lie entirely upon themselves. For, 1. There is nothing in the nature of God that they can lay the blame upon: [i]Let no man say, when he is tempted[/i] to take any evil course, or do any evil thing, [i]I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil[/i]. All moral evil is owing to some disorder in the being that is chargeable with it, to a want of wisdom, or of power, or of decorum and purity in the will. But who can impeach the holy God with the want of these, which are his very essence? No exigence of affairs can ever tempt him to dishonour or deny himself, and therefore he cannot be tempted with evil. 2. There is nothing in the providential dispensations of God that the blame of any man's sin can be laid upon (James 1:13): [i]Neither tempteth he any man[/i]. As God cannot be tempted with evil himself, so neither can he be a tempter of others. He cannot be a promoter of what is repugnant to his nature. The carnal mind is willing to charge its own sins on God. There is something hereditary in this. Our first father Adam tells God, [i]The woman thou gavest me[/i] tempted me, thereby, in effect, throwing the blame upon God, for giving him the tempter. Let no man speak thus. It is very bad to sin; but is much worse, when we have done amiss, to charge it upon God, and say it was owing to him. Those who lay the blame of their sins either upon their constitution or upon their condition in the world, or who pretend they are under a fatal necessity of sinning, wrong God, as if he were the author of sin. Afflictions, as sent by God, are designed to draw out our graces, but not our corruptions.[/size]
I would definitely recommend reading for yourselves the rest of Matthew Henry's commentary on this portion of Scripture. And, if I may, to add another quotation in place of my own; read the following excerpt from the introductory chapter of John Forbes' book, [i]Predestination and Freewill and the Westminster Confession of Faith: with Explanation of Romans ix[/i].
[size=11]The following observations are offered not in the vain expectation of solving the intrinsic difficulties necessarily connected with mysteries far transcending the grasp of our finite minds, but in the humble hope of clearing away some of the factitious difficulties which human speculations have superadded; and more particularly for the purpose of pointing out the palpable distinction, which has been so generally overlooked, between predestination to good, and foreordination to evil; between election as originating with God, and reprobation as originating with the creature; and thence deducing the consequences which flow from this important distinction.
The distinction itself is manifestly implied in the following carefully weighed statement of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. iii. 1. (1) "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet (2), so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Here both sides of the question seem to receive their due weight. (1) God's free predestination is strongly asserted, and yet (2) man's freewill duly maintained. [i]All[/i] things are declared to be ordained from eternity by God, good or bad, yet with this most important distinction, that while God is the [i]author[/i], that is, the [i]originating[/i] cause of all that is good, He is not "the author of sin," that is, the originating cause of the evil in the hearts of His creatures.
But if God is not "the author of sin," the creature must be its author. God has delegated to man a portion of His own power, however small, yet sufficient to constitute him an independent agent by giving him a will which can [i]originate[/i] an act opposed to God's will. Sin is the breaking off of the creature's will from God's will. But God's will cannot oppose His own will; it must therefore be the self-willed and self-originated act of the creature. God is the source of all good, and of good only. Hence we deduce the universal principle
[b]All good originates from God.[/b]
[b]All evil originates from the creature.[/b]
If this principle be kept steadily in view, it will dissipate much of the error and difficulty that have gathered around the subjects of our inquiry.
Predestination is thus divested of its most objectionable aspect. All things are predestinated by God, both good and evil, but not pre[i]necessitated[/i], that is, [i]causally[/i] preordained by Him, unless we would make God "the author of sin". Predestination is thus an indifferent word, in as far as the [i]originating[/i] author of anything is concerned,* God being the originator of good, but the creature of evil. Predestination, therefore, means that God included in His plan of the world every act of every creature, good or bad. Having decreed to create freewill beings, that is, creatures having the power of breaking off, or not breaking off, that state of creaturely dependence of their wills on His holy will, and of union to Himself in which He had formed them, and knowing what each in the exercise of his freewill would choose, even though it were the evil, He included it in His plan, and to this extent foreordained it, overruling it to subserve His own wise and holy purposes. If in one sense, therefore, He may be considered as the first cause of all, yet is He but the [i]permissive[/i], not the [i]causative[/i] or [i]originating[/i] author of sin.
Predestination, as [i]generally[/i] understood, includes both good and evil. The distinction (afterwards adverted to) made by the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and of the Authorised Version, between Predestination and Foreordination, by confining the former to the foreordination of the Elect only, while Foreordination includes evil as well as good, has not been generally observed; otherwise it might perhaps have prevented the neglect of the important distinction on which we insist.
... In predestination the more frequent conception regards the foreordination of the [i]Elect[/i] to salvation, and because with it is also combined (though a perfectly distinct question) a direct [i]causal[/i] influence of God, which originates, carries on, and perfects the work of salvation in the Elect, the idea has been improperly extended to the predestination of the reprobate, as if some [i]causal[/i] influence were exerted by God in His decreeing or permissively preordaining their foreseen perseverance in sin and consequent condemnation.[/size]
| 2009/12/7 2:02||Profile|