Romans 9:22, and 1 Peter 2:8.

How are they to be truly understood? For instance, in Romans 9:22, many Baptists will say that its the people themselves that make themselves vessels of wrath because they do not believe, their basis is on the word "prepared (esv), or fitted (kjv)" and they'll say that this is a Greek Middle-Voice.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that render the preceding verse nonsensical?:

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Click to expand...

Also, with 1 Peter 2:8, how is that to be properly understood? Are the people appointed or ordained by God to destruction, or are they appointed because they refuse to believe?

And if these passages are to be taken in the sense that they're appointed based on their own disbelieve, then would that not imply that man has a free-will, and can believe? I would hope that God isn't saying one thing in scripture, and doing something else,as in pleading with people to be saved, but they cannot because God hasn't elected them.

Click to expand...

I don't believe God is pleading with anyone to be saved, but rather is commanding them to repent:

Act 17:30-31 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Click to expand...

In 1Peter 2:8 he is explaining to believers why it is that unbelievers stumble and are offended by Christ - because they were appointed to this.

The next question might be why God would find fault with those who are unable to resist His will. Romans 9 gives you the answer.

When looking at the word "tasso" what really is the question here is how do you stand on the Sovereignty of God and your views of predestination. Because these two weigh in heavily on this topic.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Bob Jones Student said:

How are they to be truly understood? For instance, in Romans 9:22, many Baptists will say that its the people themselves that make themselves vessels of wrath because they do not believe, their basis is on the word "prepared (esv), or fitted (kjv)" and they'll say that this is a Greek Middle-Voice. (I do have some knowledge of Greek, and understand their argument). But, if that is to be taken in a passive sense, wouldn't it make God the preparer? Obviously it's not an active verb. I've yet to find anyone give a proper explanation or exegesis of Romans 9:22. Baptists will come at it with the free-will of man, but still, we know man isn't free.

So could someone properly exegete this passage, and tell me how it is supposed to be properly understood? (Or point me to a good written document explaining it? Hopefully in contemporary English, and not Archaic).

Click to expand...

I think the idea that Rom 9:22 can be middle makes nonsense of the very question Paul is trying to answer in Rom 9:19.

If this is middle tense, then Paul isn't even answering his own, self-made rhetorical question.

Bob Jones Student said:

Also, with 1 Peter 2:8, how is that to be properly understood? Are the people appointed or ordained by God to destruction, or are they appointed because they refuse to believe?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the answer here is "Yes."

Calvinism has never been "equal, positive predestination". Calvinism has always been the concept that people are predestined to salvation by God's grace and power, but -- very differently -- ordained to reprobation by corrupted human nature made so by Adam's sin, combined with a preordained sentence of eternal punishment for that sinfulness.

Often people mistake this for "single predestination". Scripturally, reprobation is not called "predestination" in Scripture, so there's a precedent for that. But both are destined beforehand -- iow, "predestined".

Calvinism sees the rules have changed when it comes to saving sinners. Non-Calvinists (incl. Arminius as far as I can tell) generally think the rules haven't changed, or haven't changed enough to really reach goals by different methods.