Featured The potter and the clay.

Tell me, what were the words of the Lord given Jeremiah immediately after this object lesson? The words right after v. 5, "Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:"

Or what is the subject of the interpretation Paul gives this passage when he paraphrases it in Romans 9?

 

I get answering a question with a question. But this was just obtuse.

 

Now, how do you know he's obtuse? Have you seen him eating? Saw his weight on a scale? Noticed he took up too much space sitting on the pew?

Wait, you said "obtuse", and I was thinking "obese"....awwww skip it....:tonofbricks: :smilewinkgrin:

 

Not a valid criticism. Those two questions are exactly spot on the OP.
Also, if you're not going to answer the questions, why post to it?
Finally, can you answer the questions?

 

Hypocrite much?

I'm sure you think it is not valid. But you ask a question which you could have gone ahead and provided the text for. And the 2nd one is such a broad question, w/ much theological baggage and debate, that it can't be answered satisfactorily for you to provide your answer to the OP. It would just cause a rabbit trail and divert the thread.

And you dodged his question completely.

Valid criticism? I feel it is.

So in answering the OP, the potter has the rights over the clay to do whatever he wants with it. Reprobation and all.

 

Slander much? (My two-word question is as "valid" as yours.)

And asking what went "right after v. 5" didn't direct attention to what went "right after v. 5"? How so?

The context is found just a few verses before Paul speaks of the potter allegory. Anyone could find it, because there are only two mentions of the word "potter" in the New Testament, one of which is in Matthew. Paul didn't write Matthew.

No. I answered the question with a question, which you acknowledged is a valid response, providing such questions are not obtuse. My questions were not obtuse. You could have answered them with ease, and likely knew exactly where to go to find what I was talking about. You just didn't want to deal with the reality.

I'm sure you do. But you felt my questions were obtuse, too, and we've established they were not.

So God is reciprocital, capricious, and whimsical? I'd love to see you explain a support for that opinion from Scripture.

In the interest of hastening along this discussion -- knowing no one who agrees with the obviously-sought response of the OP will answer them: Both allegories point not to man, individually, but to Israel, the nation. A man is molded, shaped, made fit for use by God, not turned against God's desires by the very God who desires a relationship with all His creation. The nation of Israel is the type for humanity. All were chosen for creation, but only those who respond to the drawing, calling and opening of their hearts by and to God will receive His reward -- which is first to serve Him, and secondly to spend eternity in awe of Him. Faithful Israel is not rejected, just as faithful man is not rejected. All the faithful will receive His reward.

 

I'm going to ignore all the banter above (though you were a hypocrite... you said "if you're not going to answer the questions, then why post it" when you didn't answer the OP question!!! hypocrisy! And slander doesn't mean telling the truth. Get a dictionary).

Let's just skip to Rom. 9. It is easy to simply write off that clear teaching of it by saying "israel" as if that solves the issues. Obtuseness (by the way, "we" have not determined anything about your obtuseness. Don't lump me in with your opinion. That is closer to slander). What you need to demonstrate is that Paul is NOT talking about individual salvation. If he is, and he is, then you have a problem in that God is choosing some for destruction, not whimsically, but to demonstrate his wrath and mercy. God is motivated by his glory more than anything else. He loves himself more than he loves you. So there really is no problem w/ reprobation.

 

What does Jeremiah 18 actually show? It shows that if God has spoken well of a nation to build them up, if they sin against him he will repent of the good he was going to do for them.

Likewise if God has spoken against a nation to tear it down and destroy it, if that nation repents of their sin and turns to God, then God would repent of the evil he intended toward that nation.

So, this is not teaching unconditional election whatsoever, it is teaching the exact opposite.

No potter purposely make defects, that would be pure foolishness and he would be out of business quick.

 

The illustration is not about what you think the potter would do. It is about what the potter has rights to do. But what God would do is explained as displaying his mercy and wrath for his glory. So not only does he have the right over the clay, but then he goes and makes some for destruction (wrath) and some for honor (mercy).

 

...us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles Ro 9:24

It's 'us' d-CON, 'us'. Why do you needlessly struggle such with this passage? It's so plain.....

Look at the pronouns percho, the pronouns...

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Ro 9

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

 

For those who want a more scholarly read, Thomas Schreiner wrote an article on election in Rom. 9 in JETS (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society). It can be accessed online too: Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?

EDIT: Maybe it can't be accessed online? I'm having trouble with it now. This link will take you to that JETS issue. However, I have it already on my puter. If you would like to read it, pm me and I will email it to you.

 

Yes, it was a very good read and very well articulated.

 

I understand the potter has a right to destroy a marred piece, nevertheless, Paul was referring back to Jeremiah 18 in Romans 9 which clearly shows Gods election is CONDITIONAL. God builds up those that believe and obey, he tears down those who do not believe and are rebellious.

Pharaoh was rebellious from the beginning;

Exo 4:1 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

The Pharaohs thought they were descended from the gods, and this Pharaoh was no different. He mocked God to Moses's face.

Moses was the exact opposite, from a young man he believed God and gave up the riches of Egypt for the true God.

Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

This is why God was merciful to Moses, because he had great faith in God. And the reason God tore Pharaoh down was because of his stubborn and obstinate unbelief, even after he personally witnessed many miracles.

This is what Paul is explaining in Romans 9, it does not support Unconditional Election whatsoever, in fact, it refutes it.

 

:laugh: I don't struggle. Why do you make it so needlessly contradictory to the rest of Scripture?

Please note, Romans 9 doesn't start with v. 24. It starts with v. 1. Paul isn't talking about salvation-- not in terms of individuals going to heaven or being with Christ in eternity. From v. 1 all the way through chapters nine, ten, and eleven, Paul is speaking of the fate of Israel, which is not destruction, as covenant theologists believe, but for eventual restoration in the millennial kingdom.

"Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" (v. 13) is not about God literally hating a human being that He created-- any more than when Jesus said we must "hate" our father and mother and even our own life in order to follow Him (Luke 14:26), He was speaking of literal hate.

The "vessels of wrath" are not individuals, nor is the reference to eternity. It is regarding the nations in God's plans on the earth -- and the "vessels of mercy" are all believers whom he has called into a new covenant nation that is not of this world but part of the entire body of Christ which extends back to Adam and (at Paul's writing) into the First Century, all having "confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the Earth (Hebrews 11:13b).

The destinies of these vessels are destruction vs. mercy on earth as nations -- but even though Earthly nations may be "vessels of wrath," Paul goes on to show in Chapter 10 that "whoever believes in Me will not be disappointed." Whether from the Jewish nation or any other an individual can receive eternal salvation and become part of the new covenant without being encumbered by his/her nationality, past, upbringing, environment, or birthright. This is not something they accomplish on their own, obviously, but "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Chapter 10:17). Then Paul talks about how some form of "the word of God" has gone forth to everyone on earth -- through nature, when they cannot hear the the gospel (10:18).

In Chapter 11 Paul returns to the subject of Israel's calling as a nation, describing how a partial hardening has happened to that nation while mercy is being extended to the Gentiles to become part of the new "holy nation" which is the kingdom of God. In other words, God's earthly callings of nations, not the eternal destiny of individuals, is the topic of Romans 9. We miss this because of our overly individualistic mindset in the West. We tend to think it's all about individuals going to heaven -- but God is most interested in His kingdom, His holy nation, spreading on the Earth, and to that end is concerned about how His gospel reaches the peoples of this Earth.

 

I think that view holds no water at all. 10:1 shows that he is praying for their individual salvation. The issue is taken up w/ God's faithfulness (theme of Rom. 1-8) and how he can be faithful if so many Israelites reject Jesus. Answer: sovereignty.

I dare you to read that article I linked to. I dare you to give one solid line of reason against it.

 

How are you going to make the Greek ekeinos, a plural possessive pronoun, fit an individual? Hint: You can't.

You're right about Romans 1-8. Not so regarding 9-11.

That's laughably easy. Schreiner purports to give a balanced reasoning for why those who hold to the view that these three chapters in Romans based on his "analysis" of how Paul is feeling at the time he writes, and insists on putting Israel's faith -- all of Israel's faith -- in the past tense. By the end of the second page he has rejected the "nations" view of election, "vessels of wrath," etc., and gives virtually no foundation for his conclusions.

He mentions vv. 1-5 as being inextricably tied to salvation based on the fact the rest of the chapter deals with the fact Israel is not saved. But in doing so, he ignores Paul's statement at the end of the chapter that Israel had not, at his writing, arrived at righteousness by faith because they made the attempt to receive righteousness through works. Schreiner ignores Paul's explanation that the reason Israel has been temporarily set aside is because they, attempting self-righteousness, have never called on Him because they have never believed in Him, have never believed because they have never heard the gospel as a nation (Romans 10:6-16).

But Paul emphasizes they will not be abandoned. Even though they have been temporarily hardened (Romans 11:7), their transgression being a blessing to the Gentiles (v. 11) and their fulfillment as a nation will be great (v. 12). Throughout these three chapters Paul speaks of Israel as a nation, and the why is simple, a simplicity Schreiner misses completely: As God's chosen nation that acted as a type for humanity throughout the Old Testament, they will not be abandoned as a nation, but receive special attention and reward, unlike the other nations who merely witnessed Israel's blessing and failed utterly to understand how the hand of God was on Israel to lead the rest of the world to Him, through Christ.

 

random smiley
:sleeping_2: