• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Conditional Election vs. Unconditional Election

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,911
1,938
✟1,028,461.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
John Piper addresses the concerns you are expressing:
This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).
What Does Piper Mean When He Says He’s a Seven-Point Calvinist?

answer:
Is the difference between the “elect” and “non-elect” a desire to be saved?

John Piper would say: “No”, since we are all dead in sin and unwilling.

Christ is an expert in word selection and can chose any words He want to describe a parable and Christ chose to describe the prodigal son as being “dead” while in the foreign land even after the father knew the son was alive. Dead people, by Christ’s definition, can still do stuff like turn to their father.

I never suggested the unbelieving sinner was wanting to “seek” or “join” God or Christ, so I am not saying what John Piper is addressing at all!!! The sinner is wimping out, giving up on self and is a surrendering soldier of satan, yet still hating his enemy (God). He does not at the point he surrenders wanting to spend time (eternity) with his hated enemy God. God is the one who is allowing or causing him/her to spiral down into the pigsty of life (similar to the prodigal son and what his father allowed him to experience). Yes, the sinner fully deserves to be there and needs to pay the piper, so if the sinner is macho, he will take what he deserves. God is the one who has the sinner hell bound.

The only thing the unbelieving sinner is “doing”, is being humbly willing to accept undeserved pure charity from his enemy (God) as charity for selfish reasons, which can be anything better than the pigsty the sinner is in and the torturous death he is headed to.

I also do not agree with John Piper assessment that no unbelieving sinner would want “salvation”, since the alternative is hell. So, how is John Piper not saying the sinner wants to go to hell? Since most people do go to hell, then by John Piper’s understanding most people would want to go to hell, instead of heaven, but we all know how everyone will avoid pain as much as they can, so how would anyone want to go to hell?
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
390
39
Northwest
✟46,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).
What Does Piper Mean When He Says He’s a Seven-Point Calvinist?

answer:
Is the difference between the “elect” and “non-elect” a desire to be saved?

John Piper would say: “No”, since we are all dead in sin and unwilling.

Christ is an expert in word selection and can chose any words He want to describe a parable and Christ chose to describe the prodigal son as being “dead” while in the foreign land even after the father knew the son was alive. Dead people, by Christ’s definition, can still do stuff like turn to their father.

I never suggested the unbelieving sinner was wanting to “seek” or “join” God or Christ, so I am not saying what John Piper is addressing at all!!! The sinner is wimping out, giving up on self and is a surrendering soldier of satan, yet still hating his enemy (God). He does not at the point he surrenders wanting to spend time (eternity) with his hated enemy God. God is the one who is allowing or causing him/her to spiral down into the pigsty of life (similar to the prodigal son and what his father allowed him to experience). Yes, the sinner fully deserves to be there and needs to pay the piper, so if the sinner is macho, he will take what he deserves. God is the one who has the sinner hell bound.

The only thing the unbelieving sinner is “doing”, is being humbly willing to accept undeserved pure charity from his enemy (God) as charity for selfish reasons, which can be anything better than the pigsty the sinner is in and the torturous death he is headed to.

I also do not agree with John Piper assessment that no unbelieving sinner would want “salvation”, since the alternative is hell. So, how is John Piper not saying the sinner wants to go to hell? Since most people do go to hell, then by John Piper’s understanding most people would want to go to hell, instead of heaven, but we all know how everyone will avoid pain as much as they can, so how would anyone want to go to hell?

I am sorry if I haven't been following what you are saying. Do you accept or reject Calvinism? What Bible verses would you say disprove Calvinism?
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
390
39
Northwest
✟46,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
John 10:26 is probably one of the most convincing verses in the Gospels for unconditional election:
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Just as a sheep does not choose its shepherd, we do not choose whether or not we are of God.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
390
39
Northwest
✟46,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
I can also tell you that between Calvinism and Arminianism, Calvinism gives me more of an incentive to live a holy life. If I am saved by God's unconditional election alone, rather than any worthiness on my part, then I'm so thankful for God's choosing me unto salvation that I want to live in such a way that's pleasing to Him.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
390
39
Northwest
✟46,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
john-calvins-thug-life-68331693.png
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
390
39
Northwest
✟46,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
This is the clearest refutation of Arminianism that I've ever seen:

Romans 9
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 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?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

I don't believe that Arminians are unsaved. I just believe they are confused and intellectually inconsistent.

While Calvinism isn't mentioned in the Bible, neither is the Trinity. Calvinism and Trinitarianism are, however, both doctrines that are based on the Bible. If John Calvin had never lived, Calvinism would still be true, if the doctrine of Calvinism is based on what the Bible actually teaches.

A common objection to Calvinism is that it disincentivizes preaching the Gospel. The opposite is true, because we can't predict who is the elect and who isn't, and therefore we should preach to everyone so that God will then instill faith in anyone He so chooses. The ultimate result of evangelism, then, is not our accomplishment but God's alone.

The other common objection is that it makes God unfair or unjust, but His ways are not our ways, and neither are His thoughts our thoughts, so we do not have a right to tell God whom He should or shouldn't save. We should simply be thankful that God has chosen to save anyone at all, including wretches like ourselves.

This video answers the common objections to unconditional election:

Again, I don't believe that Arminians are unsaved. I just believe they are confused and intellectually inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
61
Tennessee
✟47,337.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've always said there's some Calvinists that believe their understanding about election can determine if one's saved and nearly all Calvinists have said that's no true but here you are...one which believes that's true.



I think you're one who doesn't have much company with your fellow Calvinists in believing that actual understanding of election is linked to one even being saved. Are you aware that's is true what I'm saying? Do you think all Calvinists agree with you?

I'm not a Calvinists, I have no fellowship with Calvinists.

I do believe the BIble teaches election but not the perverted unconditional election of certain select individuals which makes God a respecter of persons and culpable for the lost when He is neither. The Bible does teach corporate election, God foreknew and predetermend a GROUP (called 'Christian') would be saved and those who choose to obey the gospel becoming a Christian is of the elect group. Again, God foreknew and predetermined the GROUP, God does not determine for men which ones will or will not be in the group.
 
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
61
Tennessee
✟47,337.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think I should point out that if salvation is by grace alone, as the Reformation teaches, then unconditional election is the natural conclusion. If I'm wrong, please explain why.
If salvation is by "grace alone" then all men will unconditionally be saved, Titus 2:11. Again, unconditional election makes God a respecter of persons and culpable for the lost when He is neither.

In Romans 6 Paul refutes the idea that grace alone saves. Paul points out that because Christians are saved by grace that does not give license to the Christian to sin for Christians are those who are dead to sin. Therefore Christians are those who do not sin/transgress God's will but rather are obedient to God's will. If the Christian continues in sin then he is serving "sin unto death" rather than serving "obedience unto righteousness" (Romans 6:16).

Therefore salvation is a COMBINATION of man's obedience to God's will AND God's grace. Man's obedience to God's will is necessary to keep man from being a sevant of sin unto death. And God's grace is need because man's obedience will not be perfectly sinless. So man's obedience and grace are not antagonistic to each other but go together, like hand in glove.

Romans 6:16
Man has been given only 2 options 1) condemnation 2) salvation. Paul lays these 2 options out in Romans 6:16. Each of us, whether we know it or not or like it or not, is serving one of two masters. We each are serving either;
1) sin unto death (condemnation)
or
2) obedience unto righteousness (salvation)

I serve obedience unto righteousness. The man-made false idea of faith only denies serving 'obedience unto righteousness'. So which master does that leave faith only serving?
 
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
61
Tennessee
✟47,337.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
John 10:26 is probably one of the most convincing verses in the Gospels for unconditional election:


Just as a sheep does not choose its shepherd, we do not choose whether or not we are of God.
The context of John 10:27 is very clear that one cannot be a sheep of Christ if he does not first have a present tense, ongoing sustained hearing and following. No one can first be a sheep WITHOUT belief so John 10:26 cannot teach FIRST a sheep THEN believe.

Go back in the context to John 8. Here when Jesus began this discourse with the Jews those Jews did believe, John 8:30-31. Yet they did not abide in Christ's words but took exception to the words Jesus spake to them. Hence they remained in bondage and not set free per John 8:32.

Therefore John 10:26 does NOT mean one is a sheep before one believes for that idea contradicts many passages as John 10:27.
Again, in John 8 those Jews believed but then took exception to Jesus words about them being in bondage. Those Jews claimed they were never in bondage "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?"

To which Christ said "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you."

They (Jews) answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham....Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they (Jews) to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me...Ye are of your father the devil...."

So the CONTEXT is the Jews are arguring that they are of God and Jesus tells them they are not of God but the devil is their father.

In giving proof those Jews were not of God as they claimed Jesus tells them John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." Jesus spake the truth to these Jews and they could not deny it (v46) but the Jews were unwilling to hear God's words and their not obeying was proof they were not of God as they claimed.

Fastforward to context in question John 10:26:
"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." Once again Jesus is proving these Jews were not of God as they claimed as Jesus proved it in John 8:47. If those Jews were of God as they claimed they were back in John 8:41 they would have believed Christ's words and obeyed those words. The fact they did not continue in Christ words was proof they were not of His sheep therefore not of God as they claimed. So their not being sheep was not the cause of their unbelief but their not being sheep was PROOF of their unbelief therefore PROOF they were not of God as they claimed.

Jesus is not teaching Calvinism in John 10:26 but is providing proof those Jews were not of God as they claimed. For if those Jews did believe God and were of God as they claimed then they would have accepted and obeyed Christ's words and been of His sheep. The fact they were not of His sheep is PROOF they did not believe God therefore not of God as they claimed.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,911
1,938
✟1,028,461.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am sorry if I haven't been following what you are saying. Do you accept or reject Calvinism? What Bible verses would you say disprove Calvinism?
If you have to ask that question you have not been reading my posts and I cannot take the time to post unread posts.
 
Upvote 0

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,476
Raleigh, NC
✟464,924.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Conditional election teaches that the elect are predestined by God to salvation due to God's foreknowledge that they would believe on their own free will, while unconditional election teaches that God predestines the elect according to His sovereignty alone, without regard to the elect's free will.

What I'd like to know is why it even matters whether we accept unconditional vs. conditional election. How can we claim to know that one is true and not the other? And what difference does it make if both unconditional election and conditional election result in the salvation of the elect?

Romans 9 answers all of this.

If you're up for some "light" reading, Luther's Bondage of the Will addresses your questions directly in a written debate with Erasmus.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
26,191
8,495
Dallas
✟1,138,966.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Conditional election teaches that the elect are predestined by God to salvation due to God's foreknowledge that they would believe on their own free will, while unconditional election teaches that God predestines the elect according to His sovereignty alone, without regard to the elect's free will.

What I'd like to know is why it even matters whether we accept unconditional vs. conditional election. How can we claim to know that one is true and not the other? And what difference does it make if both unconditional election and conditional election result in the salvation of the elect?

Theres a huge difference that it makes if we believe that God makes the choice or we make the choice. Unconditional election makes God’s judgement upon those who will be condemned to the lake of fire unjust. Now you’ll see people saying oh but everyone deserved to be punished so God having mercy on some doesn’t make His judgement unjust. But it absolutely does make His judgment unjust because the word just means moral, fair AND IMPARTIAL. Calvinists omit impartiality from the definition of the word just. Furthermore in order for a person to be rightly and morally judged and punished for failing to meet God’s expectations the person must be capable of meeting those expectations. Calvinists specifically teach that a person cannot repent or believe unless God has granted them grace and if He has granted them grace then they are incapable of resisting. Furthermore they teach that man can do nothing to persuade God to grant him grace. So this means that God implemented His expectations knowing that no one would be capable of meeting them unless He granted them grace and intentionally decided to burn everyone else in the lake of fire for all eternity for failing to meet His “impossible”expectations which is ultimately the result of God Himself not enabling them to comply. There is nothing morally right about that at all. In order to rightly judge and punish someone for failing to meet expectations the person must be capable of meeting them. You cannot set expectations that are impossible to meet then punish everyone who does not meet those impossible expectations.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
390
39
Northwest
✟46,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
Martin Luther considered his most important works to be his catechism and The Bondage of the Will, in which he argued for unconditional election:

Luther, Bondage of the Will (1525), 7.18: “I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want ‘free-will’ to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavor after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my ‘free-will’ . . .; but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labor with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God, or whether he required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of his, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to his own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that he is faithful and will not lie to me, and that he is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break him or pluck me from him. . . . Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of ‘free-will’ none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.
Was Luther a Calvinist?

Luther taught that if salvation is based on grace alone, then our predestination unto faith is due to no merit of our own, including a free-will choice to believe.

John Calvin is easy for Arminians to use as a punching bag, because he wasn't as likable of a person as Luther. It seems to be rarely mentioned that Luther's views were very similar to Calvin's.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
390
39
Northwest
✟46,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
You cannot set expectations that are impossible to meet then punish everyone who does not meet those impossible expectations.

We are all sinners, deserving of God's wrath. That God chooses to save some and pass over others is not our prerogative to judge or condemn.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
390
39
Northwest
✟46,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
The context of John 10:27 is very clear that one cannot be a sheep of Christ if he does not first have a present tense, ongoing sustained hearing and following. No one can first be a sheep WITHOUT belief so John 10:26 cannot teach FIRST a sheep THEN believe.

Go back in the context to John 8. Here when Jesus began this discourse with the Jews those Jews did believe, John 8:30-31. Yet they did not abide in Christ's words but took exception to the words Jesus spake to them. Hence they remained in bondage and not set free per John 8:32.

Therefore John 10:26 does NOT mean one is a sheep before one believes for that idea contradicts many passages as John 10:27.
Again, in John 8 those Jews believed but then took exception to Jesus words about them being in bondage. Those Jews claimed they were never in bondage "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?"

To which Christ said "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you."

They (Jews) answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham....Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they (Jews) to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me...Ye are of your father the devil...."

So the CONTEXT is the Jews are arguring that they are of God and Jesus tells them they are not of God but the devil is their father.

In giving proof those Jews were not of God as they claimed Jesus tells them John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." Jesus spake the truth to these Jews and they could not deny it (v46) but the Jews were unwilling to hear God's words and their not obeying was proof they were not of God as they claimed.

Fastforward to context in question John 10:26:
"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." Once again Jesus is proving these Jews were not of God as they claimed as Jesus proved it in John 8:47. If those Jews were of God as they claimed they were back in John 8:41 they would have believed Christ's words and obeyed those words. The fact they did not continue in Christ words was proof they were not of His sheep therefore not of God as they claimed. So their not being sheep was not the cause of their unbelief but their not being sheep was PROOF of their unbelief therefore PROOF they were not of God as they claimed.

Jesus is not teaching Calvinism in John 10:26 but is providing proof those Jews were not of God as they claimed. For if those Jews did believe God and were of God as they claimed then they would have accepted and obeyed Christ's words and been of His sheep. The fact they were not of His sheep is PROOF they did not believe God therefore not of God as they claimed.

When John 10:26 is coupled with John 6:44, it gives a pretty clear case for predestination:
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. - John 6:44
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
26,191
8,495
Dallas
✟1,138,966.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We are all sinners, deserving of God's wrath. That God chooses to save some and pass over others is not our prerogative to judge or condemn.

How can someone be deserving of God’s wrath if they have been created by God incapable of meeting the expectations that He implemented knowing full well that they are incapable of meeting them?
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,911
1,938
✟1,028,461.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Romans 9 answers all of this.

If you're up for some "light" reading, Luther's Bondage of the Will addresses your questions directly in a written debate with Erasmus.
Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand How Paul uses diatribes and think since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?


Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
 
Upvote 0