Predestination: Concept or Doctrine

[holdon]

"Or does not the potter have the right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Romans 9:21-22 NASB

Folks, Holdon says I misrepresented scripture when I said scripture say God prepared vessel of wrath. Judge for yourself.

I realize that you have been tainted by much of a certain doctrine that says exactly what you think, namely that this text says that "God prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction".

However, the verse does NOT say that. It says: "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". Please note that the subject (who prepared?) is not disclosed here.
Sloppy reading may lead to believe that it is God. But careful examination and reading reveals that it does not say so.

Let me quote Kelly here again on these verses of Romans 9:​

The absolute authority of God over the creature has been so laid down that none can fairly dispute it. But this is far from being the whole case: His power is unlimited, His title incontestable. "And if God, wishing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory, us whom he also called not from among Jews only but from Gentiles?" (Ver. 22-24.)

The mind of God was to display His wrath in this evil world and to make known His power where men easily and willingly forget Himself. But the way adopted was admirable and worthy of His nature. Arbitrariness there was none, but "much long-suffering." So He bore long with the corruption and violence of guilty man. Could man then justly tax God either with lack of compassion for himself or with haste to mark his iniquities? Impossible that a holy God could have fellowship with evil or be indifferent to it! But instead of promptly blotting out of this life the rebellious creatures who make of the world a field for incessant warfare against what they know of God, or who at least live negligent of His will though He has revealed it fully, the history of the world since nations began is the fullest proof of endurance on God's part. He never made them as they are; but the sin of man now fallen He endured spite of countless and constant provocation. They sinned, they transgressed, they despised His mercy, they braved His wrath; but He endured with much long-suffering.

Sinful men thus living in enmity against God are here styled "vessels of wrath," on the one hand; as those who believe are designated "vessels of mercy" on the other. They are objects respectively of wrath and of mercy, and are figuratively supposed to contain each that quality which will issue in destruction or in glory.

But there is a shade of difference as distinct as it is refined and profoundly true which no reader should overlook. The vessels of wrath are said to be "fitted for destruction." But it is neither said nor implied here, or anywhere else, that God fitted them for it. They were fitted by their sins, and most of all by their unbelief and rebelliousness against God. But when we hear of the faithful, the phrase is altogether different, "vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory." The evil is man's, and in no case is it of God; the good is His and not our own. Not the saints, but God prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. More strictly He prepared them beforehand with a view to glory. That is, it was not their preparation while on earth, His only when the glory arrives. The apostle affirms here that God prepared them before unto glory. It was His doing. None doubts that they became by grace obedient, holy, and thus morally conformed to His nature; but it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to dwell here only on God's preparation of the vessels of mercy beforehand for glory. Thus the riches of His glory are made known upon the vessels of mercy, for so they are called, not vessels filled with these or those spiritual qualities, however true this might be, but vessels of mercy.

 

[pcwilkins]

Kelly also says, on Romans 8.29: "It is important to observe that the apostle does not speak of a passive or naked foreknowledge (ver. 29) as if God only saw beforehand what some would be, and do, or believe. His foreknowledge is of persons, not of their state or conduct; it is not what, but "whom" He foreknew. Further, those whom He foreknew, all of them and no others, He also fore-ordained to be conformed to the image of His Son."

He also believed in partial redemption. From what I understand of your views, Holdon, I would have thought he was one of the last people you would rely on for interpreting scripture...unless I've misunderstood you, in which case I apologise.

Peter

 

[holdon]

He also believed in partial redemption. From what I understand of your views, Holdon, I would have thought he was one of the last people you would rely on for interpreting scripture...unless I've misunderstood you, in which case I apologise.

Peter

Not sure where Kelly says: "partial redemption"....

But indeed you must have misunderstood me. And this is what happens all the time. When I denounce some error supported by Calvinists, they think I don't believe in predestination or election, etc.. I think I have never said that, because I do....

But I don't buy into these errors that grace is only for sins; or that redemption is the same as purchase; or that God planned the Fall; or that God hated Esau before he was born; or that God doesn't not want all people to be saved; or that Christ did not die for all; or that the atonement was not for all; etc. etc..

And I think Kelly wouldn't either...

 

[Van]

Not to put too fine a point on it but the passage is dealing with the actions of God, what God has a right to do. Back up to who molded from the lump of clay the vessels of wrath in the first place. The best I can do with your argument is to say the consequence of the Fall is how God prepared the vessels of wrath (referring to mankind) for destruction. Or in other words, God placed us in Adam as a consequence of the Fall. We become vessels of mercy when we are placed by God in Christ. Thus from the same lump -mankind - are molded vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.

Final point, ask yourself why mankind was referred to as vessels of wrath before they were prepared for destruction? My answer is because that was God purpose and plan from all eternity.

 

[pcwilkins]

Not sure where Kelly says: "partial redemption"....

But indeed you must have misunderstood me. And this is what happens all the time. When I denounce some error supported by Calvinists, they think I don't believe in predestination or election, etc.. I think I have never said that, because I do....

But I don't buy into these errors that grace is only for sins; or that redemption is the same as purchase; or that God planned the Fall; or that God hated Esau before he was born; or that God doesn't not want all people to be saved; or that Christ did not die for all; or that the atonement was not for all; etc. etc..

And I think Kelly wouldn't either...

In that case I apologise again.

But I am at a loss to see how you can reconcile a belief in election with the belief that God wants all people to be saved. If He did, would he not have elected everybody - predestinated everybody to eternal life?

Peter

 

[holdon]

Not to put too fine a point on it but the passage is dealing with the actions of God, what God has a right to do. Back up to who molded from the lump of clay the vessels of wrath in the first place. The best I can do with your argument is to say the consequence of the Fall is how God prepared the vessels of wrath (referring to mankind) for destruction. Or in other words, God placed us in Adam as a consequence of the Fall. We become vessels of mercy when we are placed by God in Christ. Thus from the same lump -mankind - are molded vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.

The Potter works on the same lump (mankind). But He never makes bad pottery.... He couldn't. But how does bad pottery come then? Because of the lump going bad: they that harden themselves (see the link to Pharaoh?), become useless and and ready for destruction. Read Jeremia 18 and 19:11,15.

 

[holdon]

But I am at a loss to see how you can reconcile a belief in election with the belief that God wants all people to be saved. If He did, would he not have elected everybody - predestinated everybody to eternal life?

Peter

Because the election is in Christ Jesus. And being in Christ Jesus, is based on faith. Not all believe....

 

[Van]

God could not make bad pottery? What has this to do with the discussion. God makes vessels of wrath. Deal with it.

 

[holdon]

God could not make bad pottery? What has this to do with the discussion. God makes vessels of wrath. Deal with it.

Wow? I see you get irritated?

No, God could not make bad pottery, because He is a good potter. Would you say the contrary?

 

[pcwilkins]

Because the election is in Christ Jesus. And being in Christ Jesus, is based on faith. Not all believe....

So it's conditional election, which is completely different to that which Calvinists believe. This is also where you differ from Kelly; he said that

"It is important to observe that the apostle does not speak of a passive or naked foreknowledge (ver. 29) as if God only saw beforehand what some would be, and do, or believe. His foreknowledge is of persons, not of their state or conduct; it is not what, but "whom" He foreknew. Further, those whom He foreknew, all of them and no others, He also fore-ordained to be conformed to the image of His Son."

In other words, those who were foreknown and predestinated were not foreknown because of what they would do.

At any rate, we come down to the same old question (which you're probably getting really bored of now ); why do some believe when some don't?

The question I always put is, do you ever thank God that you believed?

Belief is, if not God's word, dependant on God's work. Because none can believe without hearing, and none can hear without a preacher, and none can preach without being sent - they can preach the Gospel in word only, but not in power, and in the Holy Ghost. And hearing the Gospel in word only is not adequate.

Peter

 

[holdon]

So it's conditional election, which is completely different to that which Calvinists believe. This is also where you differ from Kelly; he said that

"It is important to observe that the apostle does not speak of a passive or naked foreknowledge (ver. 29) as if God only saw beforehand what some would be, and do, or believe. His foreknowledge is of persons, not of their state or conduct; it is not what, but "whom" He foreknew. Further, those whom He foreknew, all of them and no others, He also fore-ordained to be conformed to the image of His Son."

In other words, those who were foreknown and predestinated were not foreknown because of what they would do.

No, because of what Christ would do. Answer me this: would they have been elected if Christ had not come?

At any rate, we come down to the same old question (which you're probably getting really bored of now ); why do some believe when some don't?

The question I always put is, do you ever thank God that you believed?

Belief is, if not God's word, dependant on God's work. Because none can believe without hearing, and none can hear without a preacher, and none can preach without being sent - they can preach the Gospel in word only, but not in power, and in the Holy Ghost. And hearing the Gospel in word only is not adequate.

Peter

Had you read Kelly, you might have found the answer:

But when we hear of the faithful, the phrase is altogether different, "vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory." The evil is man's, and in no case is it of God; the good is His and not our own. Not the saints, but God prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. More strictly He prepared them beforehand with a view to glory. That is, it was not their preparation while on earth, His only when the glory arrives. The apostle affirms here that God prepared them before unto glory. It was His doing. None doubts that they became by grace obedient, holy, and thus morally conformed to His nature; but it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to dwell here only on God's preparation of the vessels of mercy beforehand for glory. Thus the riches of His glory are made known upon the vessels of mercy, for so they are called, not vessels filled with these or those spiritual qualities, however true this might be, but vessels of mercy.

 

[pcwilkins]

No, because of what Christ would do. Answer me this: would they have been elected if Christ had not come?

If people are elect because of what Christ has done, why are only some elect? Because Christ only did stuff for some people or what?

Had you read Kelly, you might have found the answer:

But when we hear of the faithful, the phrase is altogether different, "vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory." The evil is man's, and in no case is it of God; the good is His and not our own. Not the saints, but God prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. More strictly He prepared them beforehand with a view to glory. That is, it was not their preparation while on earth, His only when the glory arrives. The apostle affirms here that God prepared them before unto glory. It was His doing. None doubts that they became by grace obedient, holy, and thus morally conformed to His nature; but it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to dwell here only on God's preparation of the vessels of mercy beforehand for glory. Thus the riches of His glory are made known upon the vessels of mercy, for so they are called, not vessels filled with these or those spiritual qualities, however true this might be, but vessels of mercy.

I did read it, with difficulty. It says that the vessels of mercy are made so by God. What it doesn't say is whether this is because they believed, or whether this is the reason for them believing - in other words, where they vessels of mercy subsequent to or prior to their believing?

Peter

 

[Van]

Deal with God making vessels of wrath, rather than change the subject to bad pottery. Why not say oops I was wrong, scripture does imply God prepared vessels of wrath for destruction.

 

[holdon]

Deal with God making vessels of wrath, rather than change the subject to bad pottery. Why not say oops I was wrong, scripture does imply God prepared vessels of wrath for destruction.

Before I say "oops I was wrong" you need to provide a trigger from Scripture.

You now say "subtily" that scripture does "imply" that God prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction.

So, now you have gone from a hard fact to something you think is implied. I can appreciate that.

But I still don't agree it is implied either. Because the constrast couldn't be greater between the fact that we're expressly told that God had before prepared the other vessels to glory, we are not told that He did so with the vessels of wrath for destruction. Moreover a different word is used in either clause. And God endures with much long-suffering these vessels of wrath, which is hardly explainable if He prepared them for destruction. Why inflict suffering upon one-self.
So, we have three reasons why God is NOT the preparer of destruction:
A. The subject is absent in the clause "fitted for destruction"; and the closest subject "God" belongs to a differen action: "endures".
B. The contrast between the clause concerning the vessels of mercy and the one concerning the vessels of wrath, where the first ones are expressly said to have God's involvement and a different word used and the latter not.
C. The argument of self-infliction which makes God look insane.

 

[Van]

Before I say "oops I was wrong" you need to provide a trigger from Scripture.

Try Romans 9:20-22.

You now say "subtily" that scripture does "imply" that God prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction.

So, now you have gone from a hard fact to something you think is implied. I can appreciate that.

when a verse presents an idea by implication, it is a common practice to say it says it. It is appropriate to point out its an implication, rather than a direct statement, but to go beyond that is not useful.

You are still not addressing who made the vessels of wrath before they were prepared for destruction. Deal with it.

And God endures with much long-suffering these vessels of wrath, which is hardly explainable if He prepared them for destruction. Why inflict suffering upon one-self.

Great question! What does the passage say, He is enduring the vessels of wrath to make known to the vessels of mercy the riches of His glory. Because the vessels of mercy come from the vessels of wrath, it makes sense.

The subject is absent in the clause "fitted for destruction"; and the closest subject "God" belongs to a differen action: "endures".

Yes the preparer is not identified directly by the grammar. But contextually, with God's actions being the subject of the passage, the natural inference is it is God who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction. And this argument avoids the problem of who made the vessels of wrath. Note also verse 23, "and to make known the riches of HIS glory..." Thus contextually, God prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction.

The contrast between the clause concerning the vessels of mercy and the one concerning the vessels of wrath, where the first ones are expressly said to have God's involvement and a different word used and the latter not.

I do not see a contrast but a continuation. God's actions are in view throughtout. And to be redundant, who made the vessels of wrath? God did.

The argument of self-infliction which makes God look insane.

No, God enduring with long suffering the vessels of wrath makes God look compassonate. The key again is to understand why God arranged the Fall. It is not a mystery. Scripture explains it in Romans 8:18-25. Read it with the idea in mind that the word translated either creation or creature refers not to all creation but to mankind.

 

[holdon]

Yes the preparer is not identified directly by the grammar. But contextually, with God's actions being the subject of the passage, the natural inference is it is God who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction.

Yes, if have a God who can come up with evil plans, I guess such an inference is "natural" isn't it?

So, when grammar doesn't do it, you have to come up with your own inventions?

 

[Van]

No more snide remarks about my reading comprehension, I said inference, not invention.

Still waiting for you to answer the question, who made the vessels of wrath???????? God did is my answer. What is your????

 

[holdon]

No more snide remarks about my reading comprehension, I said inference, not invention.

Why would I continue to discuss Scripture with you if you can change it anytime to suit your fantasy? Because that's what you have demonstrated to do over and over again. And now grammar doesn't mean anything. And you have shown that it is not just "reading incomprehension" but unwillingness to accept the plain written word.

Tell me, do you take Scripture as the inspired Word of God? Yes or no?

 

[Van]

More changing the subject to me and still not answering the question, who made the vessels of wrath.

I did not say grammar does not matter - I said grammar does not identify who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction. In other words, the very nearly the same thing your stated. But rather than move on, you slander me.

Then since I do not agree with you, you question whether I believe the Bible is the inspired Word on God.
The answer is that I believe God inspired men who wrote the original documents, and those documents were the Word of God. I also believe God has superintended the transmission of His Word, so that what we have today is sufficient for His purpose of conveying His revelation to our generation. I base my views on what scripture actually says, based on contextual study. Just because my views do not mesh with what you have been taught, does not indicate my views are not closer to the original author's intended message than yours. We simply need to study the scripture and come to a common understanding. But we can make no progress if you avoid addressing scripture, and instead attack me as someone who is biased, and cannot comprehend scripture.

 

[holdon]

I did not say grammar does not matter - I said grammar does not identify who prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction. In other words, the very nearly the same thing your stated. But rather than move on, you slander me.

I did not slander you. If you're that sensitive....

I am really wondering whether I should continue any discussion with somebody who in my opinion holds to the very heretical view that God set up the Fall. The more I think about it, the more I find it utterly repulsive. Let's say it's much stronger than bad breath....