Post by Dr James Ach on Aug 7, 2013 11:12:53 GMT 3
"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" Romans 9:20
So in thinking about Romans 9 as the Calvinist sees it, a thought hit me while responding to someone on the corrupted Baptist Board. The Calvinist sees the chapter as individual salvation and bases this partly on the statement of an individual "why hast thou made me thus?" But something to think about is that Calvinists admit that election can not be known, and certainly a persons NON election can not be known. Yet for Romans 9 to be about individual salvation, the individual making this statement "why hast thou made me thus" would have to know he was not elect! Otherwise what on earth is he questioning God about?
Thus if the Calvinist view of reprobation and inability is to have any credibility, then they must maintain that an unbeliever could not possibly know that he isn't elect. To know that one is elect would be a "spiritual thing" that if possible, could only be known to an elect. If therefore a Calvinist can admit that a non elect can not possibly know that he is NOT ELECT, then there is no possible way the statement made from an "individual" in Romans 9 is coming from a non elect individual. That fact alone completely destroys the entire Calvinist interpretation of unconditional election because the primary distinction used by Calvinists to separate elect from non elect is based in part on this out-of-context statement by an individual that they MUST assume is an unbeliever questioning God about his election or lack thereof, and since the individual making this statement could not possibly be an unbeliever, the Calvinist argument for election falls apart.
So in thinking about Romans 9 as the Calvinist sees it, a thought hit me while responding to someone on the corrupted Baptist Board. The Calvinist sees the chapter as individual salvation and bases this partly on the statement of an individual "why hast thou made me thus?" But something to think about is that Calvinists admit that election can not be known, and certainly a persons NON election can not be known. Yet for Romans 9 to be about individual salvation, the individual making this statement "why hast thou made me thus" would have to know he was not elect! Otherwise what on earth is he questioning God about?
Thus if the Calvinist view of reprobation and inability is to have any credibility, then they must maintain that an unbeliever could not possibly know that he isn't elect. To know that one is elect would be a "spiritual thing" that if possible, could only be known to an elect. If therefore a Calvinist can admit that a non elect can not possibly know that he is NOT ELECT, then there is no possible way the statement made from an "individual" in Romans 9 is coming from a non elect individual. That fact alone completely destroys the entire Calvinist interpretation of unconditional election because the primary distinction used by Calvinists to separate elect from non elect is based in part on this out-of-context statement by an individual that they MUST assume is an unbeliever questioning God about his election or lack thereof, and since the individual making this statement could not possibly be an unbeliever, the Calvinist argument for election falls apart.