Romans 9

[Charis kai Dunamis]

So God foreknew all the free will choices these saved individuals would make in accepting His Charity, so they are God's selected?

I didn't say anything about that. You are bringing up something entirely foreign to the subject and point.

God foreknew them. The persons. He had relation and experience with them.

 

[sdowney717]

How am I advocating a general call? I am calling only those who believe and the proclamation is only to those who believe. Those who believe are not all men. They are the Elect.

The "general call" doctrine teaches that God calls all men to salvation. He does not. Calvin himself did not teach this.

"Whom He [God] called, them He ALSO justified."

I consider calling as coming from 2 sources, in evangelism man tends to call all to repent and believe. God 's calling though is without repentance, as you said if God calls you then He justifies you.

1 Peter 5

10 But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you

When Jesus tells us in the great commission to preach to every creature, this does not mean God is effectually calling them. But man is calling them.

God does not waste effort with calling people who are not going to respond. But God tells His people to tell others to repent and believe the gospel.

Mark 16

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Can anyone see what I am saying? God is not calling people who do not respond to the message. However God says they are disobedient to the message, so they are still accountable. The calling of God leads to justification and salvation in every case 100% absolute no exceptions.

 

[shturt678]

You keep ignoring the point I am making. The blessing (Jacob) and the hardening (Pharaoh) are antithetical and yet identical; you are separating them and making the streamline of Paul's thought [that BOTH are God's sovereign choice apart from the will of man] disjointed. Both the blessing and the cursing are equally of God's sovereign choice, unconditional, uncaused, unswayed by the dispositions of man. Jacob: chosen before his birth, before he had done anything good or bad for blessing; Pharaoh: chosen for hardening before Moses ever even entered in to Egypt. They are both pictures of God's free choice over His clay, for honorable or dishonorable use.

At this point, all that I can say is that the exegesis and interpretation above IS the most probable and sensical reading of the text. The flow from chapter 8 and consummation of blessing for those in Christ into a foreseen objection by the Jews, and God's right to bless or curse whoever He wishes is the most obvious reading and accounts for all points of the text.

These promises cannot considered absolute decrees, ie, that which predestinates to salvation whom he will, and reprobates whom he will.

Rom.9:11, "the purpose accourding to election" God was conferring the partiarchal succession on the younger of these twins which was His purpose, which operated with an election on God's part, should continue.

In the new promise to Rebecca concerning the position of Jacob the same elective purpose remained which had operated in the original promise by which Abraham was granted the position of being the first patriarch, the original father of the Israelite nation; the same elective purpose remained which had granted the position of being second partriarch to Isaac.

This was now also true with regard to Jacob as the third and completed the triad. Only three individual men could hold these positions; in fact, God wanted just three obviously.

V.13 corroborates the former bring agape aboard.

Just ol' old Jack bringing forth older outdated Lutheran works, ie, I have nothing to offer, add, nor subtract, ie, glory to God, and them, ie, not me.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

These promises cannot considered absolute decrees, ie, that which predestinates to salvation whom he will, and reprobates whom he will.

Your whole post actually didn't give a reason for this statement. And necessarily, you have to answer for Pharaoh in that case, because he is clearly an example of reprobation as opposed to Jacob.

 

[Jack Terrence]

These promises cannot considered absolute decrees, ie, that which predestinates to salvation whom he will, and reprobates whom he will.

Jacob was a child of promise before he was born. Esau was not a child of promise before he was born. If Jacob's choosing was not an absolute decree, then Christ's birth was not an absolute decree.

It's that simple.

 

[OzSpen]

Our Lord had an uncomfortable discussion with me, ie, I didn't construe Rom.9:21 with Jer.18. Good job! The unlimited power of God over mankind is exercised according to man's conduct, not according to a decretum absolutum or unchangeable determination.

Most of my discussions have been with modern Lutherans, ie, against their post-1930 unionized modernization; however God impacted one Calvinist, not so recent, with the true interpretation of agape a little over 5 years ago and he's available of course, ie, haven't done too well with our Christian brothers Calvinist.

Thank you again brother Oz

Just ol' old Jack

You have taken some of your language from Keil & Delitzsch's commentary on Jeremiah 18:6-10:

In Jer 18:6-10 the Lord discloses to the prophet the truth lying in the potter's treatment of the clay. The power the potter has over the clay to remould, according to his pleasure, the vessel he had formed from it if it went wrong; the same power God possesses over the people of Israel. This unlimited power of God over mankind is exercised according to man's conduct, not according to a decretum absolutum or unchangeable determination. If he pronounces a people's overthrow or ruin, and if that people turn from its wickedness, He repeals His decree (Jer 18:7.); and conversely, if He promises a people welfare and prosperity, and if that people turn away from Him to wickedness, then too He changes His resolve to do good to it (Jer 18:9.) [in my hard copy edition it is Keil n d:295, emphasis added]

So are you saying that you have had some success in presenting this view of the potter and the clay with Lutherans? Interesting that you have not had a similar response with brother Calvinists. Any idea why?

I find the Jewish thinking of the potter and the clay between Rom 9:21 and Jeremiah 18 to be significantly strong and helped me in my hermeneutics of Romans 9.

I was originally alerted to this potter and clay connection between Rom 9:21 and Jeremiah 18 by Norman Geisler in his comments on Rom 9:21. He wrote:

The image this conjures up in a Western mind is often a deterministic, if not fatalistic, one where they have no choice but are overpowered by God....
However, a Hebrew mind would not think this way, knowing the parable of the potter from Jeremiah 18. For in this context the basic lump of clay will either be built up or torn down by God, depending on Israel's moral response to God. For the prophet says emphatically, 'If that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned' (18:8). Thus, the unrepentant element of Israel becomes a 'vessel for dishonour' and the repentant group a 'vessel for honour' (Geisler 1999:90, emphasis in original).

In Christ, Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Keil, C F n d. Jeremiah, Lamentations, in C F Keil & F Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol 8 (2 vols in 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. Jeremiah available online at: http://www.studylight.org/com/kdo/view.cgi?bk=23

 

[shturt678]

You have taken some of your language from Keil & Delitzsch's commentary on Jeremiah 18:6-10:

Amen, ie, try to just summarize, ie, don't agree with the whole Commentary of course. Use also H. Leupold and others.

So are you saying that you have had some success in presenting this view of the potter and the clay with Lutherans? Interesting that you have not had a similar response with brother Calvinists. Any idea why?

A Calvinist prior to the last one was a young 30 year old, I'm well over 70, and he was in profound shock when I put forward just a simple old outdated Lutheran definition of agape: The object intelligently understood with a higher divine intelligent purpose where both Calvinist and modern Lutherans reject of course. A few days latter he contacted me saying he couldn't find fault thus opened up Rom.8 & 9 where he become 'floored' having to sit down. My point over a simple interpretation,, ie a paradigm shift would send them to an early grave.

I find the Jewish thinking of the potter and the clay between Rom. 9:21 and Jeremiah 18 to be significantly strong and helped me in my hermeneutics of Romans 9.

Even after completing the basic 2 years Hebrew, and even continuing Hebrew, I still find K. - D. and others difficult to grasp, ie, I use Rom.9:21 to help me with Jer.18 and etc.

I was originally alerted to this potter and clay connection between Rom 9:21 and Jeremiah 18 by Norman Geisler in his comments on Rom 9:21. He wrote:
In Christ, Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Keil, C F n d. Jeremiah, Lamentations, in C F Keil & F Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol 8 (2 vols in 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. Jeremiah available online at: Jeremiah overview - Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament - Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Because Mr. Geisler is prior to 1950, really familiar and a head's up, ie, your going to become just as infamous as me as agree to a lot of his works although he is a Calvinist? Been awahile.

Just ol' old Jack that has to get back to the others, ie, have to run too for now

 

[OzSpen]

A Calvinist prior to the last one was a young 30 year old, I'm well over 70, and he was in profound shock when I put forward just a simple old outdated Lutheran definition of agape: The object intelligently understood with a higher divine intelligent purpose where both Calvinist and modern Lutherans reject of course. A few days latter he contacted me saying he couldn't find fault thus opened up Rom.8 & 9 where he become 'floored' having to sit down. My point over a simple interpretation,, ie a paradigm shift would send them to an early grave.

Because Mr. Geisler is prior to 1950, really familiar and a head's up, ie, your going to become just as infamous as me as agree to a lot of his works although he is a Calvinist? Been awahile.

I'm not quite getting your old Lutheran definition of agape. Would you please state it succinctly for me (I'm not yet 70, but heading in that direction).

Norm Geisler is aged 81 - born on 21 July 1932. He calls himself a 'moderate Calvinist', but his line of thinking is closer to mine as a Reformed Arminian.

I think I'm as infamous as you already - perhaps more so - as to oppose the absolute decree of unconditional election to salvation seems to be close to a cardinal sin here.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Jacob was a child of promise before he was born. Esau was not a child of promise before he was born. If Jacob's choosing was not an absolute decree, then Christ's birth was not an absolute decree.

It's that simple.

That's a big leap of logic for me.

The God who can absolutely choose the nations of Jacob (Israelites) over Esau, absolutely choose the incarnation and passion-resurrection, is absolutely able to affirm that 'if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it' (Jer 18:8 ESV)

This God can absolutely choose to grant salvation to these: 'If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved' (Rom 10:9 ESV).

Oz

 

[bling]

The God who can absolutely choose the nations of Jacob (Israelites) over Esau, absolutely choose the incarnation and passion-resurrection, is absolutely able to affirm that 'if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it' (Jer 18:8 ESV)

This God can absolutely choose to grant salvation to these: 'If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved' (Rom 10:9 ESV).

Oz

Jer. 18 potter analogy presents clearly from the beginning God is using this analogy of the potter to describe the nation of Israel, but Paul very specifically says: “verse 20: But who are you, a human being…” which means Paul is addressing an individual and not addressing a nation like God was in Jer. 18.

Also, individuals are being addressed like “one of you…”, Esua, Jacob, Pharaoh, Isaac, and really salvation is individualistic.

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.

But which human beings that Paul is very specifically addressing would have any feelings of God being unfair?

First who is Paul talking to “Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome during the first century prior most likely any apostle going to Rome.

Do you see how; a first century pagan gentile, that became a Christian, might perceived “injustice” in God’s preparing them from birth, as compared to highly moral well bible versed first century Jews that became Christians?

This Jew gentile conflict between Christians is a huge part of the Roman letter.


The bottom line (as we might all agree) is it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both had a hard time accepting God’s charity and new way of living.

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:



Paul uses two teaching methods taught in secular philosophy classes and Romans is 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 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!

Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with being considered the special group with a special purpose from their birth or would it be the Gentile Christians that saw themselves like Esau and Ismael?


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 (this “letter” is not 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?

The Gentiles might have felt like second class children of God compared to the “chosen” Jews, but Paul spends lots of words in Ro. 9-11 saying that even though the Jews were made for a special purpose, lots of them remain lost, so it is really no better being a Jew prior to conversion.

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).

All clay vessels become damaged over time and fit for destruction, but that is not the way the potter made them.

The Potter has to remake the honorable (special purpose) or dishonorable (common objective) vessels that have become damaged as only God the Potter can.

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.

 

[shturt678]

Rom.9:20, etc., The tertium comparationis of this figure,like every tertiium of a figure, deals only with one point, that of blame; as the potter cannot be blamed by any vessel which he turns out for dishonor instead of making it like another for honor, so also God cannot be blamed by any man whom He hardens instead of saving him.

After his case was concluded, Pharaoh could not demand of God: "Why didst thou make me thus?" The Jews, equally obdurate, could not in the end, when God had finished with them, blame God: "Thou didst make us thus!"

The tertium of the potter, and his two vessels extends no farther. For the figure of the potter and the clay could not picture the self-hardening of Pharaoh and of the Jews in permanent obduracy against God's mercy, which self-hardening called forth God's judicial hardening.

Just ol' old Jack's view

 

[OzSpen]

bling,

The simple point I was raising in comparing Rom 9:21 with Jeremiah 18 was to show how a Jew (Paul) would understand the potter and the molding of the clay analogy. God molding the clay would not take place without the nation (the clay) also involved. See Jer 18:8. If the nation turns from evil (human responsibility), God would relent and not send the disaster that He intended.

There is no autocratic determinism in God's actions in the Jewish thinking re potter and clay. Paul was a Jew and was coming from this framework of the potter and the clay of Jeremiah 18.

Oz

Jer. 18 potter analogy presents clearly from the beginning God is using this analogy of the potter to describe the nation of Israel, but Paul very specifically says: “verse 20: But who are you, a human being…” which means Paul is addressing an individual and not addressing a nation like God was in Jer. 18.

Also, individuals are being addressed like “one of you…”, Esua, Jacob, Pharaoh, Isaac, and really salvation is individualistic.

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.

But which human beings that Paul is very specifically addressing would have any feelings of God being unfair?

First who is Paul talking to “Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome during the first century prior most likely any apostle going to Rome.

Do you see how; a first century pagan gentile, that became a Christian, might perceived “injustice” in God’s preparing them from birth, as compared to highly moral well bible versed first century Jews that became Christians?

This Jew gentile conflict between Christians is a huge part of the Roman letter.


The bottom line (as we might all agree) is it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both had a hard time accepting God’s charity and new way of living.

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:



Paul uses two teaching methods taught in secular philosophy classes and Romans is 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 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!

Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with being considered the special group with a special purpose from their birth or would it be the Gentile Christians that saw themselves like Esau and Ismael?


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 (this “letter” is not 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?

The Gentiles might have felt like second class children of God compared to the “chosen” Jews, but Paul spends lots of words in Ro. 9-11 saying that even though the Jews were made for a special purpose, lots of them remain lost, so it is really no better being a Jew prior to conversion.

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).

All clay vessels become damaged over time and fit for destruction, but that is not the way the potter made them.

The Potter has to remake the honorable (special purpose) or dishonorable (common objective) vessels that have become damaged as only God the Potter can.

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.

 

[bling]

bling,

The simple point I was raising in comparing Rom 9:21 with Jeremiah 18 was to show how a Jew (Paul) would understand the potter and the molding of the clay analogy. God molding the clay would not take place without the nation (the clay) also involved. See Jer 18:8. If the nation turns from evil (human responsibility), God would relent and not send the disaster that He intended.

There is no autocratic determinism in God's actions in the Jewish thinking re potter and clay. Paul was a Jew and was coming from this framework of the potter and the clay of Jeremiah 18.

Oz

Oz, Paul uses an excellent analogy with the Potter completing different vessels (NIV) Ro. 9: Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? Where in Jeremiah God is talking about the clay while it is being formed and changed by the potter, also the clay (the nation of Israel) itself can change what the Potter (God) will form out of it: Jer. 18: 4…the clay was marred in his hands… 6… “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel.

Do you see the difference? One is being formed and changed by God as he forms it and the clay itself can affect the potter, but in Paul’s analogy the vessels are completed with no mention of the clay changing anything for the Potter.

Paul would be fully familiar with Jeremiah, but the Gentiles in Rome would not and the Jeremiah references deals specifically with the nation of Israel, which the Jews in Rome would be far removed from.

How do you get around the fact Paul is addressing individuals and not nations?

I am not suggesting that the truths in Jer. 18 could not be applied at all times and everywhere, but what issues has Paul been addressing with the Roman Gentile and Jewish Christians both before and after Ro. 9-11?

I think you are also allowing the translation of “atimia” from the Greek to “dishonorable” in the English makes you assume, these are made for destruction, but that is not what is being said by Paul. “atimia” is used by Paul in 2 Tim. 2: 20 to describe some vessels in a rich person’s home (and a rich person would not have clay pigeons on display in his home). The NIV and others translate “arimia” in these verses as “common” vessels (still very valuable and useful, but just not made for a special purpose).

 

[Jack Terrence]

bling,

The simple point I was raising in comparing Rom 9:21 with Jeremiah 18 was to show how a Jew (Paul) would understand the potter and the molding of the clay analogy. God molding the clay would not take place without the nation (the clay) also involved. See Jer 18:8. If the nation turns from evil (human responsibility), God would relent and not send the disaster that He intended.

There is no autocratic determinism in God's actions in the Jewish thinking re potter and clay. Paul was a Jew and was coming from this framework of the potter and the clay of Jeremiah 18.

Oz

Hold on there friend! Please read the verses which immediately precede. In Jeremiah God said that the potter at the wheel may make a vessel (singular) that turns out bad, but he may start again and mould that same vessel into another vessel that he likes. In this context God is NOT as the potter as he makes the spoiled vessel, but as he starts again and from the same vessel and makes a vessel he likes. The end result is ONE vessel that the potter likes.

But Paul was speaking about God making TWO vessels from one lump, one for honor and the other for dishonor. There is no starting again. God gets both vessels right the first time and makes them both exactly the way He wants them unlike His human counterpart who had to start again when making his one vessel. The end result is TWO vessels which serve God's purpose.

Please pay attention to context. The potter and clay analogies serve a different purpose in each text.

It is important to pay attention to details when you read the scriptures.

 

[sdowney717]

Hold on there friend! Please read the verses which immediately precede. In Jeremiah God said that the potter at the wheel may make a vessel (singular) that turns out bad, but he may start again and mould that same vessel into another vessel that he likes. In this context God is NOT as the potter as he makes the spoiled vessel, but as he starts again and from the same vessel and makes a vessel he likes. The end result is ONE vessel that the potter likes.

But Paul was speaking about God making TWO vessels from one lump, one for honor and one for dishonor. There is no starting again. God gets both vessels right the first time and makes them both exactly the way He wants them unlike His human counterpart who had to start again when making his one vessel. The end result is TWO vessels which serve God's purpose.

Please pay attention to context. The potter and clay analogies serve a different purpose in each text.

It is important to pay attention to details when you read the scriptures.

People's presuppositions means they can not see or believe what the scripture is saying as that is too horrible for the natural mind to understand, i.e. election and reprobation.

The truth is simply God reveals the explanation of how and why He saves us and not some others. How that truth is walked out in daily life should lead to peace in your heart that passes understanding that He has done so much on behalf of those He has chosen to be saved.

Peter exhorts them and testifies to them in Acts, to 'save yourselves from this wicked generation'. That generation included the unbelieving jews which God was about to destroy in a few years time.

40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly[g] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

 

[OzSpen]

Bling,

You are still missing my point. Perhaps I'm not communicating with clarity.

Paul, as a Jew, would not be using the potter and clay example without his the Jewish (God's) understanding of the clay's responsibility (as in Jeremiah 18) in the hands of the potter.

God did not let Israel off the hook as the potter. If the clay (Israel) responded, God would relent from his threatened disaster. He was not a deterministic God in action according to Jeremiah 18.

Therefore, Romans 9 is written from within the Jewish framework/worldview that Paul endorsed. No matter who the audience was, the potter and clay analogy was not written as a deterministic potter with the clay not responding to arrive at the final result. That's how it was for the Jewish worldview.

What you seem to be promoting here (and many Calvinists that I interact with try to do it) is a Western world imposition of determinism of God's actions in Romans 9.

The Jews do not see the potter and the clay that way, as Jeremiah 18 demonstrates. It matters not whether Paul is addressing individuals or nations. The Jewish worldview was that God and human responsibility (whether national or individual) go together. In my understanding, it's our Western world that wants to see determinism here.

Oz

Oz, Paul uses an excellent analogy with the Potter completing different vessels (NIV) Ro. 9: Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? Where in Jeremiah God is talking about the clay while it is being formed and changed by the potter, also the clay (the nation of Israel) itself can change what the Potter (God) will form out of it: Jer. 18: 4…the clay was marred in his hands… 6… “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel.

Do you see the difference? One is being formed and changed by God as he forms it and the clay itself can affect the potter, but in Paul’s analogy the vessels are completed with no mention of the clay changing anything for the Potter.

Paul would be fully familiar with Jeremiah, but the Gentiles in Rome would not and the Jeremiah references deals specifically with the nation of Israel, which the Jews in Rome would be far removed from.

How do you get around the fact Paul is addressing individuals and not nations?

I am not suggesting that the truths in Jer. 18 could not be applied at all times and everywhere, but what issues has Paul been addressing with the Roman Gentile and Jewish Christians both before and after Ro. 9-11?

I think you are also allowing the translation of “atimia” from the Greek to “dishonorable” in the English makes you assume, these are made for destruction, but that is not what is being said by Paul. “atimia” is used by Paul in 2 Tim. 2: 20 to describe some vessels in a rich person’s home (and a rich person would not have clay pigeons on display in his home). The NIV and others translate “arimia” in these verses as “common” vessels (still very valuable and useful, but just not made for a special purpose).

 

[bling]

Bling,

What you seem to be promoting here (and many Calvinists that I interact with try to do it) is a Western world imposition of determinism of God's actions in Romans 9.
Oz

You obviously have not read much of what I said (or I am not explaining it well for you.)
At least read this:

Roman 9-11 is Paul’s explanation to the gentile Christians with the Jews listening in, why it is not significant in relation to the individuals salvation that the individual was born a Jew or a Gentile! Paul does this by first acknowledging the differences between the way a Jew was raised (apparently wonderfully [for a special purpose]) and a gentile was raised (apparently poorly). The bottom line will be: even though a Jew had such wonderful up bring most seem to be rejecting Christ and maybe as much as the gentiles are rejecting Christ, so it just does not matter.

If you could than: please answer the following questions before going on some tangent:
Did God form the biological Jewish people for a very special objective (preparing them to not only be the family for the Messiah, but also to be fertile ground for the Messiah and the Church)?
Do you see the similarities between the way an individual Jew was prepared by God and the work of a potter making a vessel for a special purpose?
Do you see a difference between the way a normal Jew was prepared (made from their beginning for a special purpose) and the way a normal gentile was prepared?

 

[OzSpen]

Nice try!

I do pay attention to the details when I read Scripture and that applies to the Hebrews' worldview of the potter and the clay. There was no deterministic God in action (that seems to be Western thinking), but the God who requires human responsibility, whether that be nation or individual.

Your presuppositions seem to be clouding your understanding of God, the potter, and the nation or individual as the clay. God is not the determinist in the Jewish understanding of the potter and the clay.

Oz

Hold on there friend! Please read the verses which immediately precede. In Jeremiah God said that the potter at the wheel may make a vessel (singular) that turns out bad, but he may start again and mould that same vessel into another vessel that he likes. In this context God is NOT as the potter as he makes the spoiled vessel, but as he starts again and from the same vessel and makes a vessel he likes. The end result is ONE vessel that the potter likes.

But Paul was speaking about God making TWO vessels from one lump, one for honor and the other for dishonor. There is no starting again. God gets both vessels right the first time and makes them both exactly the way He wants them unlike His human counterpart who had to start again when making his one vessel. The end result is TWO vessels which serve God's purpose.

Please pay attention to context. The potter and clay analogies serve a different purpose in each text.

It is important to pay attention to details when you read the scriptures.

 

[OzSpen]

Bling,

This is a red herring.

You are wanting me to go on your tangent when you don't seem to want to understand the Israelite worldview and God's understanding that he gave them of the potter and the clay throughout the OT and especially in Jeremiah 18.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart at the same time as Pharoah hardened his own heart.

To further understand God, the potter, and the nation/human being as the clay from a Jewish worldview (which was the apostle Paul's background) - the sovereignty of God and the human responsibility of human beings - see the article, 'Who Hardened Pharaoh's Heart?' by Dave Miller & Kyle Butt.

In Christ,
Oz

You obviously have not read much of what I said (or I am not explaining it well for you.)
At least read this:

Roman 9-11 is Paul’s explanation to the gentile Christians with the Jews listening in, why it is not significant in relation to the individuals salvation that the individual was born a Jew or a Gentile! Paul does this by first acknowledging the differences between the way a Jew was raised (apparently wonderfully [for a special purpose]) and a gentile was raised (apparently poorly). The bottom line will be: even though a Jew had such wonderful up bring most seem to be rejecting Christ and maybe as much as the gentiles are rejecting Christ, so it just does not matter.

If you could than: please answer the following questions before going on some tangent:
Did God form the biological Jewish people for a very special objective (preparing them to not only be the family for the Messiah, but also to be fertile ground for the Messiah and the Church)?
Do you see the similarities between the way an individual Jew was prepared by God and the work of a potter making a vessel for a special purpose?
Do you see a difference between the way a normal Jew was prepared (made from their beginning for a special purpose) and the way a normal gentile was prepared?

 

[bling]

Nice try!

I do pay attention to the details when I read Scripture and that applies to the Hebrews' worldview of the potter and the clay. There was no deterministic God in action (that seems to be Western thinking), but the God who requires human responsibility, whether that be nation or individual.

Your presuppositions seem to be clouding your understanding of God, the potter, and the nation or individual as the clay. God is not the determinist in the Jewish understanding of the potter and the clay.

Oz

OK, Oz, I have no problem with every Jew and all humanity having the same understanding of: “the potter and the clay”, everyone (Jew and gentile) knows: while the clay remains as clay with the Potter “working at the wheel…” he can make anything he wants from it (that is what Jeremiah is presenting 18:6 “…Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel”). But everyone also realizes once the potter takes the clay and makes a completed vessel for a special purpose or a common purpose, it cannot be switched (that is the way Paul is using the potter analogy “…some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” and “…Shall what is formed). Paul is not talking about the forming process, but the completed vessel.

Do you see the difference between Paul’s analogy and Jeremiah’s analogy being two different times in the Potter’s creation process?

What “presuppositions” do you think I have? Is it a presupposition to notice people are born into different families and cannot change their ancestry, so is our ancestry “determined” by God?