3 Questions

[nobdysfool]

It is NOT an odd question, particularly based on what you stated in #24: 'Predestination is more correctly a theological concept. It has no separate existence apart from theological discussion'.

My point was that it has no objective, physical existence, such that one could say, "There, right over there! That's predestination, in the flesh, right out in the open! Quick! Take a picture!" Or some other such nonsense.

 

[Patmos]

....

You willingly did what you were predestined to do, because you did it. God didn't make you do it. But he knew you would.

Sounds amore like run of the mill foresight faith view!

 

[EmSw]

My point was that it has no objective, physical existence, such that one could say, "There, right over there! That's predestination, in the flesh, right out in the open! Quick! Take a picture!" Or some other such nonsense.

Magnetism has no physical existence either, nor thought, nor intentions, nor electricity. What is your point?

 

[Patmos]

1. According to Calvinistic thought, does predestination exist?

2. According to Calvinistic thought, did God predestine everything?

3. According to Calvinistic thought, does God's predestination change?

1. According to Calvinistic thought, does predestination exist?
Nearly all Modern Lutheran scholars insist that while John Calvin and his followers (Beza, Bucer, Knox, etc.) affirm the doctrine of double predestination, Martin Luther and his followers affirm the doctrine of single predestination.

2. According to Calvinistic thought, did God predestine everything? YES
Double predestination affirms that in eternity past, prior to the creation of the universe, God chose and elected a people for himself whom he would actively save in the outworking of history, but at the same time, chose to pass over the remaining number of mankind, thus handing them over to their sinful state, and reprobating them to the consequences of their sin: eternal hell. Double predestination affirms both God's election and His reprobation of certain men in eternity past. That is, God decreed that some would be saved, and others would be lost. Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof defines reprobation as "[T]hat eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operations of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice."

3. According to Calvinistic thought, does God's predestination change?
CHANGE !


Quotes from https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html

 

[EmSw]

1. According to Calvinistic thought, does predestination exist?
Nearly all Modern Lutheran scholars insist that while John Calvin and his followers (Beza, Bucer, Knox, etc.) affirm the doctrine of double predestination, Martin Luther and his followers affirm the doctrine of single predestination.

2. According to Calvinistic thought, did God predestine everything? YES
Double predestination affirms that in eternity past, prior to the creation of the universe, God chose and elected a people for himself whom he would actively save in the outworking of history, but at the same time, chose to pass over the remaining number of mankind, thus handing them over to their sinful state, and reprobating them to the consequences of their sin: eternal hell. Double predestination affirms both God's election and His reprobation of certain men in eternity past. That is, God decreed that some would be saved, and others would be lost. Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof defines reprobation as "[T]hat eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operations of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice."

3. According to Calvinistic thought, does God's predestination change?
CHANGE !


Quotes from https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html

Thank you Patmos. I see it wasn't that difficult for you.

 

[com7fy8]

Hi, EmSw

1. According to Calvinistic thought, does predestination exist?

yes, meaning that God controls who gets saved and who doesn't.

2. According to Calvinistic thought, did God predestine everything?

I don't know for sure how much Calvinists believe God has predestined and therefore is in absolute control of all things. I personally understand that God has control of all things, and all is according to . . . in keeping with . . . how He has predestined His children "to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (in Romans 8:29)

Therefore, in my opinion, predestination is first about being conformed to the image of Jesus, and not only about how much God controls what becomes of each human. But . . . about control . . . I consider Romans 9:21. You might read the Bible and see what God's word says about predestination and God's all-control. People can be arguing back and forth about ideas which are not what you can find in the Bible; I mean, both sides of an argument can be wrong or lacking, compared with all you can discover in prayer and God's word and with people who are not stuck with ideas they got from people who have been their idols.

3. According to Calvinistic thought, does God's predestination change?

I don't know what Calvinists believe; I would guess they believe God does not change from what He has destined, and I personally trust that whatever God has destined will not change. But did God consciously predetermine every detail of every thing? I can't say He consciously knew every detail of every atom and molecule or every moment's action of every spiritual being; but now I trust that God is in absolute control, always with His love purpose and practical benefits intended.

But I think we can get sidetracked, by worrying about who controls; this can really be an ego problem issue.

I think we need to deal with what predestination should mean in our relating with God and one another.

Therefore > again I offer > the centerpiece of predestination is not how God has control of who gets saved, but that God will change His children into the image of Jesus . . . so we are pleasing to Him like Jesus is. So, in talking about predestination, I trust that first our attention needs to be to how God has predestined us to be conformed to the image of Jesus, and what this means for us, and all we need to do with God.

The Bible says plenty about this > how to become in love (1 Corinthians 13, how to relate in love (Ephesians 4:31 - Ephesians 5:2, 1 Peter 3:8-9), and how to be pleasing to our Father > among other scripture >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

I do not know how much Calvinists emphasize how we become because of being predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus.

I have asked these questions on other threads, but didn't receive any answers. So, I started this thread to get other's ideas concerning these questions. Thanks.

I you want the input of Calvinists, you might select some members here who are Calvinists, and private message them, in case they have not responded in forums.

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi, EmSw yes, meaning that God controls who gets saved and who doesn't.

I don't know for sure how much Calvinists believe God has predestined and therefore is in absolute control of all things. I personally understand that God has control of all things, and all is according to . . . in keeping with . . . how He has predestined His children "to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (in Romans 8:29)

Therefore, in my opinion, predestination is first about being conformed to the image of Jesus, and not only about how much God controls what becomes of each human. But . . . about control . . . I consider Romans 9:21. You might read the Bible and see what God's word says about predestination and God's all-control. People can be arguing back and forth about ideas which are not what you can find in the Bible; I mean, both sides of an argument can be wrong or lacking, compared with all you can discover in prayer and God's word and with people who are not stuck with ideas they got from people who have been their idols.

I don't know what Calvinists believe; I would guess they believe God does not change from what He has destined, and I personally trust that whatever God has destined will not change. But did God consciously predetermine every detail of every thing? I can't say He consciously knew every detail of every atom and molecule or every moment's action of every spiritual being; but now I trust that God is in absolute control, always with His love purpose and practical benefits intended.

But I think we can get sidetracked, by worrying about who controls; this can really be an ego problem issue.

I think we need to deal with what predestination should mean in our relating with God and one another.

Therefore > again I offer > the centerpiece of predestination is not how God has control of who gets saved, but that God will change His children into the image of Jesus . . . so we are pleasing to Him like Jesus is. So, in talking about predestination, I trust that first our attention needs to be to how God has predestined us to be conformed to the image of Jesus, and what this means for us, and all we need to do with God.

The Bible says plenty about this > how to become in love (1 Corinthians 13, how to relate in love (Ephesians 4:31 - Ephesians 5:2, 1 Peter 3:8-9), and how to be pleasing to our Father > among other scripture >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

I do not know how much Calvinists emphasize how we become because of being predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus.

I you want the input of Calvinists, you might select some members here who are Calvinists, and private message them, in case they have not responded in forums.

I don't think he's really interested in serious substantive discussion He already has decided that Calvinism is wrong, top to bottom, side to side, so he engages in verbal games and twisting what others say, and saying things calculated to anger and frustrate Calvinists, because he knows that in a serious discussion, he would lose.

 

[EmSw]

I don't think he's really interested in serious substantive discussion He already has decided that Calvinism is wrong, top to bottom, side to side, so he engages in verbal games and twisting what others say, and saying things calculated to anger and frustrate Calvinists, because he knows that in a serious discussion, he would lose.

Enough NF. If you can't reply to the post, then refrain yourself from saying anything. Please conform to forum rules and do not reply to the poster. How many times have you been told this?

 

[EmSw]

Hi, EmSw yes, meaning that God controls who gets saved and who doesn't.

I don't know for sure how much Calvinists believe God has predestined and therefore is in absolute control of all things. I personally understand that God has control of all things, and all is according to . . . in keeping with . . . how He has predestined His children "to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (in Romans 8:29)

Therefore, in my opinion, predestination is first about being conformed to the image of Jesus, and not only about how much God controls what becomes of each human. But . . . about control . . . I consider Romans 9:21. You might read the Bible and see what God's word says about predestination and God's all-control. People can be arguing back and forth about ideas which are not what you can find in the Bible; I mean, both sides of an argument can be wrong or lacking, compared with all you can discover in prayer and God's word and with people who are not stuck with ideas they got from people who have been their idols.

I don't know what Calvinists believe; I would guess they believe God does not change from what He has destined, and I personally trust that whatever God has destined will not change. But did God consciously predetermine every detail of every thing? I can't say He consciously knew every detail of every atom and molecule or every moment's action of every spiritual being; but now I trust that God is in absolute control, always with His love purpose and practical benefits intended.

But I think we can get sidetracked, by worrying about who controls; this can really be an ego problem issue.

I think we need to deal with what predestination should mean in our relating with God and one another.

Therefore > again I offer > the centerpiece of predestination is not how God has control of who gets saved, but that God will change His children into the image of Jesus . . . so we are pleasing to Him like Jesus is. So, in talking about predestination, I trust that first our attention needs to be to how God has predestined us to be conformed to the image of Jesus, and what this means for us, and all we need to do with God.

The Bible says plenty about this > how to become in love (1 Corinthians 13, how to relate in love (Ephesians 4:31 - Ephesians 5:2, 1 Peter 3:8-9), and how to be pleasing to our Father > among other scripture >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

I do not know how much Calvinists emphasize how we become because of being predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus.

I you want the input of Calvinists, you might select some members here who are Calvinists, and private message them, in case they have not responded in forums.

Thank you for your answers com7fy8. You have been very cordial.

 

[com7fy8]

Thank you for your answers com7fy8. You have been very cordial.

Well, thank you, Em, for the encouragement And God bless you

Now, I am not a TULIP person, except I do use two with my lady friend and I notice when rabbits eat them

Romans 9:21 possibly is a scripture which Calvinists include in their consideration of if God has destined us >

"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:21)

How people interpret this can be effected by which belief they already have accepted - - before coming to use this verse to help them. A free will person might say, oh this is not talking about how God deals with individual people, but how God destined the Jews to be His people but then arranged for us Gentiles to get included. Meanwhile, a person already ready for help with predestination can readily find Romans 9:21 to mean God decides if each of us is a vessel for His honor or for His wrath.

But if you approach this scripture with beliefs or choices already predestined by yourself I might ask three questions >

(1) If God is each person's Potter, do we see how this means God is hands-on with each of us?

A potter has very personal involvement with each lump of clay. This is very intimate, with actual contact. This can mean and show how personal God is with every person, and that God is not only distant and a theoretical subject.

With each person, you can discover if Romans 9:21 means arguing a belief or if it means the person is becoming humble and gentle and discovering how to be submissive to our Father, and not putting our hope in our own control. And yes, I too can make a doctrinal idol and look down on anyone who does not worship my idol

(2) And do we consider that we all were made "from the same lump"?

This would mean each of us comes from the same basic stuff as Paul our Apostle, and Mary who sat at Jesus' feet, and Abigail to straightened David out so he did not make a disastrous choice, and John the beloved disciple. But it also means we come from the same stuff that Saddam Hussein and those pedophile predators and Adolph came from. I see, then, that it could have been me. Because I started "from the same lump" as any and all evil people; I have not been somehow superior so I got my own self to come out better than anyone else.

Now, to my knowledge, a knowledgeable Calvinist would say this shows the "T" item of TULIP > total depravity > but not in the sense only of being totally evil, but totally dependent on God's ability . . . like how a lump of clay has no nature or ability of its own to get itself to become what is good and useful for nicer things. And we do have 2 Corinthians 3:4-6.

(3) Do we consider how much this means God is the One who really is in control, how He is not only almighty, but all controlling, all-managing . . . all according to His own good judgment? This can show how at every moment we need to be submissive to God in all there is within us, all through and through us, not to try to take anything into our own hands > Philippians 2:13 > or in our own understanding > Proverbs 3:5-6. And we desire for You, O God our Father, to have us Your way in all our being and feelings and thinking and emotions and attitude . . . all ruled in Your peace > as You say we are "called in one body" (Colossians 3:15) to be.

"But that would mean we are just puppets."

Puppets are dead; in sin we were "dead in trespasses and sins", we do have in Ephesians 2:1. But God has made us alive in His own love > Romans 5:5. And even if we are puppets of God, it is better than being puppets of our own wills and being our own dictators. And in sin we were indeed puppets of the devil, of "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2, Acts 26:18) We were love-dead. But now God has made us alive in Jesus > Ephesians 2:1-2. And so we have compassion for anyone, if God has made us alive in His all-loving love which had Jesus suffering and dying on the cross with hope for any evil person, at all.

Now, this is where a Calvinist might not agree with me - - if one's idea of "L" . . . limited atonement . . . means Jesus on the cross was not there with hope for any and all souls. But I consider 1 John 2:2, along with how love "hopes all things" (in 1 Corinthians 13:7); love has me have hope for any person, at all . . . including myself. Our Apostle Paul says "we all" "were by nature children of wrath, just as the others", in Ephesians 2:3.

So, who am I to look down on anyone? >

"He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness." (Hebrews 5:2)

 

[EmSw]

Well, thank you, Em, for the encouragement And God bless you

Now, I am not a TULIP person, except I do use two with my lady friend and I notice when rabbits eat them

Thank you for your kindness. TULIPS do not grow here, so I have never had the opportunity to grow and admire them. But like all other flowers, I am sure they have bugs in them, they fade, and they do not live forever.

Romans 9:21 possibly is a scripture which Calvinists include in their consideration of if God has destined us >

"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:21)

How people interpret this can be effected by which belief they already have accepted - - before coming to use this verse to help them. A free will person might say, oh this is not talking about how God deals with individual people, but how God destined the Jews to be His people but then arranged for us Gentiles to get included. Meanwhile, a person already ready for help with predestination can readily find Romans 9:21 to mean God decides if each of us is a vessel for His honor or for His wrath.

But if you approach this scripture with beliefs or choices already predestined by yourself I might ask three questions >

I am quite sure they use this passage from Romans. And yes, interpretation is quite essential to one's doctrine.

I have discussed this elsewhere, but I will give you a summary of how I see it.

(1) If God is each person's Potter, do we see how this means God is hands-on with each of us?

A potter has very personal involvement with each lump of clay. This is very intimate, with actual contact. This can mean and show how personal God is with every person, and that God is not only distant and a theoretical subject.

With each person, you can discover if Romans 9:21 means arguing a belief or if it means the person is becoming humble and gentle and discovering how to be submissive to our Father, and not putting our hope in our own control. And yes, I too can make a doctrinal idol and look down on anyone who does not worship my idol

My first attempt at interpretation is to see where Paul got this message, and to see if any other scriptures say anything about it. In my search, I found these passages -

Isaiah 29 -
13 Wherefore the Lord said, forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Jeremiah 18
1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.


These look like the places Paul got his inspiration for what he wrote. So, I want to see in what context it was written.

In Isaiah, we see the clay compared to turning things upside down. In verse 13, it says, 'this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men'. In verse 15, it says, 'Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, who seeth us? and who knoweth us?'

From Isaiah, we see of whom the Lord is speaking, and it involves their works.

From Jeremiah, we see the clay was marred in the hands of the potter. And yes, the potter can do as he desires with the clay. But, it goes on to explain how the potter (God) decides what to do with the clay. Verses 7 and 8 say, at the moment God speaks concerning a nation or kingdom, to tear it down and destroy it, IF THAT NATION TURN FROM THEIR EVIL, He will repent of the evil that He thought to do to them.

From this we see, the clay was marred from the evil it did. Therefore, God will make a vessel of dishonor for its evil. However, if the clay turns from its evil, He will not do what He thought to do to them.

It also says, at the moment God speaks concerning a nation and kingdom, to build and plant it, that is, make a vessel of honor, if it does evil in His sight, and not obey His voice, God will repent of the good which would benefit them.

I see it depends upon the actions and deeds of the clay which determine a vessel of honor or dishonor.

We also see this in 1 Thessalonians 4 -
2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

And this in 2 Timothy 2 -
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

We not only see that we should know how to possess (acquire, get, procure) our vessel in honor, we should depart from iniquity in order to be a vessel unto honor.

From all these things, I believe a man can choose to be a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor.

I think I said enough for one post. I will get to your other two point later.

 

[com7fy8]

@EmSw I understand that you make that connection of scriptures. Also, we have >

"But now, O LORD,
.You are our Father;
.We are the clay, and You our potter;
.And all we are the work of Your hand."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Isaiah 64:8)

And, about being a sanctified vessel, Paul and Silvanus and Timothy write > that it is God's will that each of us possesses our own vessel >

"in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust" (in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6).

And lust would be deeper than our works. So, God does not only evaluate us by our works, but by how we are inside ourselves. And we are accountable, no matter what we may believe about free will and destiny.

 

[EmSw]

@EmSw I understand that you make that connection of scriptures. Also, we have >

"But now, O LORD,
.You are our Father;
.We are the clay, and You our potter;
.And all we are the work of Your hand."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Isaiah 64:8)

And, about being a sanctified vessel, Paul and Silvanus and Timothy write > that it is God's will that each of us possesses our own vessel >

"in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust" (in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6).

And lust would be deeper than our works. So, God does not only evaluate us by our works, but by how we are inside ourselves. And we are accountable, no matter what we may believe about free will and destiny.

I say we are accountable, even if not shown in our works. God judges the intents of the hearts.

 

[bling]

Thank you for your kindness. TULIPS do not grow here, so I have never had the opportunity to grow and admire them. But like all other flowers, I am sure they have bugs in them, they fade, and they do not live forever.



I am quite sure they use this passage from Romans. And yes, interpretation is quite essential to one's doctrine.

I have discussed this elsewhere, but I will give you a summary of how I see it.



My first attempt at interpretation is to see where Paul got this message, and to see if any other scriptures say anything about it. In my search, I found these passages -

Isaiah 29 -
13 Wherefore the Lord said, forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Jeremiah 18
1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.


These look like the places Paul got his inspiration for what he wrote. So, I want to see in what context it was written.

In Isaiah, we see the clay compared to turning things upside down. In verse 13, it says, 'this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men'. In verse 15, it says, 'Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, who seeth us? and who knoweth us?'

From Isaiah, we see of whom the Lord is speaking, and it involves their works.

From Jeremiah, we see the clay was marred in the hands of the potter. And yes, the potter can do as he desires with the clay. But, it goes on to explain how the potter (God) decides what to do with the clay. Verses 7 and 8 say, at the moment God speaks concerning a nation or kingdom, to tear it down and destroy it, IF THAT NATION TURN FROM THEIR EVIL, He will repent of the evil that He thought to do to them.

From this we see, the clay was marred from the evil it did. Therefore, God will make a vessel of dishonor for its evil. However, if the clay turns from its evil, He will not do what He thought to do to them.

It also says, at the moment God speaks concerning a nation and kingdom, to build and plant it, that is, make a vessel of honor, if it does evil in His sight, and not obey His voice, God will repent of the good which would benefit them.

I see it depends upon the actions and deeds of the clay which determine a vessel of honor or dishonor.

We also see this in 1 Thessalonians 4 -
2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

And this in 2 Timothy 2 -
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

We not only see that we should know how to possess (acquire, get, procure) our vessel in honor, we should depart from iniquity in order to be a vessel unto honor.

From all these things, I believe a man can choose to be a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor.

I think I said enough for one post. I will get to your other two point later.

I have written a rather long explanation of Romans 9, but bottom line (Rm 9: 14 What then shall we say?Is God unjust? Not at all!...) God is totally fair and as just as any being could be. Paul is for the rest of Romans 9-11 explaining how God is just/fair even when it seems to humans God is not being just/fair.

Rm 11: 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

The bottom line is: it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both were judged by their heart condition. We do know there was a “law” written on the hearts of the Gentiles, but the OT scripture is only addressing the Jews with little glimpses of Gentiles (like Nineveh).

As far as Romans 9 this is what I have written as an introduction before:

Verses are pulled out of Romans 9 to support the idea God makes people a particular way so He will save them and makes others a particular way so they will be eternally lost. That is not what is being conveyed by these particular verses.

To best interpret any verse good hermeneutics would have you first understand the context, context, context and context. Who is writing, to whom is he writing, why, where, when is he writing. The questions for Romans 9 would include:

1. Was there a time when Jewish Christians (elect) taught that a good Christian: also had to be a good Jew (following especially the dietary requirements, Sabbath and circumcision)?
   
   
2. Was there at the same time some Jewish Christians teaching a good Christian (elect): you did not have to follow the old Jewish Laws (esp. Sabbath, circumcision, and food)?
   
   
3. Was this a significant issue in the first century church, did Paul address this problem in his letters, and when did this problem cease to be addressed by Paul in the Roman letter?
   
   
4. Could there have been and were there Jewish Christians (elect): teaching other Gentile Christians (elect) they had to (be circumcised, obey the Sabbath, and/or fool the Old Jewish dietary requirements)?
   
   
5. Was Paul’s letter to the Romans written to non-Christians or to some non-Christians (non-elect)?
   

Paul uses two teaching methods that are taught in secular philosophy classes and are used even in secular classes 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 giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more of a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.


The main 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!

The whole “issue” Paul is addressing in all of Romans is the Jewish/Gentile Christians issue of the gentiles see the Jews as being better prepared by God to live the Christian life and perceiving that as being “unjust/unfair”.

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.

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?

That is what is at 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?”

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual and this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?

Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?

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

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 born 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.

We could get into a long discussion of “ honorable and dishonorable vessels” which some equate the dishonorable as being like “clay pigeons” made for destruction, but that is not the best translation of these words. Paul uses the same words conveying the same idea in 2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

In Tim. Paul talks about these same “dishonorable vessels” in a rich person’s house (definitely not clay pigeons) and these dishonorable vessels (common vessels) can be made “holy” (which fits the Gentiles being made holy).

Those that will be destroyed come from both the common and special vessels that fail to meet their objective.

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.

 

[EmSw]

I have written a rather long explanation of Romans 9, but bottom line (Rm 9: 14 What then shall we say?Is God unjust? Not at all!...) God is totally fair and as just as any being could be. Paul is for the rest of Romans 9-11 explaining how God is just/fair even when it seems to humans God is not being just/fair.

Rm 11: 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

The bottom line is: it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both were judged by their heart condition. We do know there was a “law” written on the hearts of the Gentiles, but the OT scripture is only addressing the Jews with little glimpses of Gentiles (like Nineveh).

As far as Romans 9 this is what I have written as an introduction before:

Verses are pulled out of Romans 9 to support the idea God makes people a particular way so He will save them and makes others a particular way so they will be eternally lost. That is not what is being conveyed by these particular verses.

To best interpret any verse good hermeneutics would have you first understand the context, context, context and context. Who is writing, to whom is he writing, why, where, when is he writing. The questions for Romans 9 would include:

1. Was there a time when Jewish Christians (elect) taught that a good Christian: also had to be a good Jew (following especially the dietary requirements, Sabbath and circumcision)?
   
   
2. Was there at the same time some Jewish Christians teaching a good Christian (elect): you did not have to follow the old Jewish Laws (esp. Sabbath, circumcision, and food)?
   
   
3. Was this a significant issue in the first century church, did Paul address this problem in his letters, and when did this problem cease to be addressed by Paul in the Roman letter?
   
   
4. Could there have been and were there Jewish Christians (elect): teaching other Gentile Christians (elect) they had to (be circumcised, obey the Sabbath, and/or fool the Old Jewish dietary requirements)?
   
   
5. Was Paul’s letter to the Romans written to non-Christians or to some non-Christians (non-elect)?

Paul uses two teaching methods that are taught in secular philosophy classes and are used even in secular classes 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 giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more of a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.


The main 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!

The whole “issue” Paul is addressing in all of Romans is the Jewish/Gentile Christians issue of the gentiles see the Jews as being better prepared by God to live the Christian life and perceiving that as being “unjust/unfair”.

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.

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?

That is what is at 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?”

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual and this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?

Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?

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

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 born 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.

We could get into a long discussion of “ honorable and dishonorable vessels” which some equate the dishonorable as being like “clay pigeons” made for destruction, but that is not the best translation of these words. Paul uses the same words conveying the same idea in 2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

In Tim. Paul talks about these same “dishonorable vessels” in a rich person’s house (definitely not clay pigeons) and these dishonorable vessels (common vessels) can be made “holy” (which fits the Gentiles being made holy).

Those that will be destroyed come from both the common and special vessels that fail to meet their objective.

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.

Bling, thank you for your explanation. Since you, like me, want to interpret within context, please explain how the potter and clay fit within the context of Jeremiah 18. It is very apparent Paul took this from Jeremiah.

 

[bling]

Bling, thank you for your explanation. Since you, like me, want to interpret within context, please explain how the potter and clay fit within the context of Jeremiah 18. It is very apparent Paul took this from Jeremiah.

Paul will sometimes quote the prophets, but here Paul did not say: “Jeremiah said” so I do not know if Paul is referring directly to Jeremiah at this time and there are some big differences:

1. In Jeremiah the potter is forming something (it is still clay) and it is not completed. The potter intended to make one thing, but it is the clay that he is working with that is marred (it is not the potter’s fault but the clay itself and the process of being molded). The potter than has to make something else from the clay. The idea has to do with the entire nation of Israel and God having great intentions for their outcome, but the people mar (cannot work in God’s hands) what God wants to do with them and He is force to do something else with them.
   
   
2. In Ro. 9 you have a different pottery stage being allegorically used: it is not the changing while in the process of making, but the final pots that are made. It has nothing to do with the quality of the clay or the easy of the working with the clay. Both pots: one made for a special purpose (like a pot to hold the temple oil) and one made for a common purpose (like a pot to hold water for washing your clothes), have the potters perfect handiwork. Now either pot after leaving the potter’s shop can become cracked and worthless (meant for destruction), but each has great value.
   

 

[com7fy8]

Bling, thank you for your explanation. Since you, like me, want to interpret within context, please explain how the potter and clay fit within the context of Jeremiah 18. It is very apparent Paul took this from Jeremiah.

You could ask me the same thing, I think.

Paul can bring us to more than what we understand by only seeing what Jeremiah 18 says. He is not only repeating what has already been said, but showing more.

And, again, I find it interesting how we all have been made "from the same lump".

And there is other scripture which I think can be included in the context. Jesus says that only God is good. So, to me it is theo-logical, that only God has the goodness to produce a good choice. So, only thanks to God has any evil person changed to choose what is good. And we all have been evil, according to what I see in Ephesians 2:1-3 which plainly says "we all" "were by nature children of wrath" > it was not our nature to make a right choice, then. And Romans 6:17 says the thanks is to God; the thanks is not to us!!!!

And my personal logic is that if we all came "from the same lump", how could one have the nature to make an evil choice, while another from the exact same lump and nature would have the nature to choose what is good? I understand, though, that this is just logic.

But I have shown I have various scripture as context.

Anyway . . . another thing > just my sort of scholarly logic, though, I admit > if God can be the Potter of a whole group of people, then He is being the Potter of each individual in that group, in order to have the sum total result of being the Potter for the group. It's kind of hard to effect a whole group, without personally effecting every individual in that group.

And God is personally relating with every human, in some way >

"God resists the proud,
.But gives grace to the humble,"

we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. And with this we have that "He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." (in Romans 9:18) This, I would say, supports that God personally deals with each person, as each one's personal Potter . . . while, of course, there can be group effects which are the sum total to how God deals with individuals.

 

[OzSpen]

My point was that it has no objective, physical existence, such that one could say, "There, right over there! That's predestination, in the flesh, right out in the open! Quick! Take a picture!" Or some other such nonsense.

Of course predestination is not something physical. It is an action of God before the world began (Eph 1:4). Therefore, it cannot be seen as an action by God.

What can be seen is the evidence in those who are born again who have been elected to salvation and demonstrate that salvation with fruit of the Spirit.

Your sarcasm about predestination being 'Quick! Take a picture' misses the mark completely. Can I see your faith? James 2 makes it clear that genuine faith cannot be seen but genuine faith needs to be demonstrated by works that follow salvation. The works will be seen.

What will be seen of genuine predestination? We see the predestination through the works that follow that predestination to salvation.

Oz

 

[nobdysfool]

Of course predestination is not something physical. It is an action of God before the world began (Eph 1:4). Therefore, it cannot be seen as an action by God.

What can be seen is the evidence in those who are born again who have been elected to salvation and demonstrate that salvation with fruit of the Spirit.

Your sarcasm about predestination being 'Quick! Take a picture' misses the mark completely. Can I see your faith? James 2 makes it clear that genuine faith cannot be seen but genuine faith needs to be demonstrated by works that follow salvation. The works will be seen.

What will be seen of genuine predestination? We see the predestination through the works that follow that predestination to salvation.

Oz

I completely agree with you. My sarcasm was directed at one individual who was being least equally sarcastic. Sorry you didn't catch that. That's what happens when you come late to the discussion, and don't read the backstory. My remark was completely on the mark within the context of what was being said to me.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I have asked these questions on other threads, but didn't receive any answers. So, I started this thread to get other's ideas concerning these questions. Thanks.

1. According to Calvinistic thought, does predestination exist?

2. According to Calvinistic thought, did God predestine everything?

3. According to Calvinistic thought, does God's predestination change?

Yes.

Yes.

No.