vessels of wrath

[Iconoclast]

I agree that he offered some solid ideas. What part of his position do you disagree with?

VESSELS OF WRATH

In the first two verses God is represented as the Potter, and men as clay in His hands (Isa. 64:8; Jer. 18:1-6). As the potter has power over the clay to shape it in what form he pleases, so God has unlimited power over His creatures to make from the same lump of human clay vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. No truly saved person challenges that right of God. Rather, he most reverently bows to it as the Scripture of truth. What would the ability to fashion be worth, if God were under the dictation of that which is to be fashioned?

correct

I understand by "vessels of wrath" vessels which are destined to be objects of wrath, or vessels to be filled up with Gods wrath (Isa. 51:20). In I Thessalonians 5:9 Paul said: "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." These words suggest that God did appoint some to wrath who are called in my text "vessels of wrath."

it can be "suggested" but it is not conclusive.

Here is seen the doctrine of reprobation or rejection. Although this doctrine is sparingly mentioned in the Bible, it most assuredly is taught in my text and in other places. If God chose some to salvation (II Thess. 2:13), then common sense teaches us that others were unchosen.

the idea of preterition is that some are "left"...unchosen seems more active...

In Romans 11:7 Paul said: ". . .the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." In John 13:18 Christ said: "I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen," implying some were not chosen. According to John 17:6 the Father gave Christ a people "out of the world." Then there must be a world not given to Christ (II Peter 2:5; I John 5:19), and for which He will not pray (John 17:9). There can be no election without reprobation, for reprobation is the negative side of election

.

I would not word it as he has, but that is subjective. I prefer preterition...

The Divine decree of the rejection of some men is twofold: preterition and predamnation. Preterition is a mere leaving of the creature out of the bounds of Gods election. Predamnation is Gods appointment of the non-elect to everlasting wrath. Preterition is negative; predamnation is positive. Preterition is God withholding His grace to which no man has a claim. Predamnation is God considering man as a guilty sinner who deserved condemnation and wrath.

The words, "the same lump," speaks of man as lying in the mere mass of creatorship, pictured by unformed clay before being put into shape. While in this state some were rejected. God left them as He found them in the pure mass before they had done either good or evil (Rom. 9:11). This was an act of Gods sovereign will and pleasure. That is why Paul starts out by saying: "What if God, willing to shew his wrath. . ." God had a greater right to do this than any earthly potter.

Predamnation is Gods appointment of men Who He passed over to punishment for their sins (Jude 4). God gave some "over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" (Rom. 1:28). In Psalm 81:12 God said He "gave them up unto their own hearts lusts." The reprobate God left in their natural condition of enmity against God. He denied these the grace that could have cured their depraved hearts (Ezek. 36:26-27; Matt. 11:25-26). These are given up to believe a lie and be damned (II Thess. 2:10-12). Such wicked persons are "reserved to the day of destruction" and "shall be brought forth to the day of wrath" (Job 21:30). Job 20:29 says: "This is the portion of a wicked man from God, and the heritage appointed unto him by God."

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2;
FITTED TO DESTRUCTION

Some make the words, "fitted to destruction," to be a verbal adjective, or to mean fit for destruction. This leaves undetermined the agency by which this fitness is effected. This allows man to fit himself for destruction. It also permits one to escape supralapsarianism.[/QUOTE]

By saying it enables one to escape supralapsarianism .it seems as if he might be defending that position...

It cannot be denied that there is a sense in which men fit themselves for destruction. Hosea 13:9 says: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself. . ." Proverbs 6:32 reads: "But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul." In Romans 2:5 we are told: "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (cf. Hos. 14:1; I Thess. 2:16). There is also a sense in which Satan fits men for destruction (Luke 8:12; II Cor. 4:3-4). But I do not believe that Romans 9:22 points to the sinner or Satan.

here he rejects what the other men have said in what they taught by way of comparison.

The best interpretation is to allow the full participal force which makes the vessels of wrath prepared by God for destruction. The word "fitted" in the Greek is katartizo, and it means "to fit, to frame, to prepare." This sense is demanded by the context. God is compared to a potter who makes one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. The vessels do not make themselves. So it is God who prepares some for wrath and some for mercy. As I have already shown, the object of predestination is man as lying in the mere mass of creatorship, signified by unformed clay before being put into shape. There is probably an allusion to the creation of Adam out of the dust of the ground. The word "Adam" means "red earth" or clay.

This goes against what the others have said....it is not a crime, but someone is right and someone is wrong here.

The words, "the same lump," points to men not created, much less viewed as fallen creatures. If men were viewed here as fallen creatures, they could not be said to be made out of the same lump both to honor and dishonor. Rather, it would have been said that all were dishonorable and some were left in dishonor and some were made honorable. But this is not what the passage says. Paul tells us God made out of "the same lump" some to honor and others to dishonor.

This gives some support to his teaching and the language has to be accounted for.


[

 

[Van]

Lets agree to disagree, JonC. There is no point in further discussion.

 

[JonC]

Lets agree to disagree, JonC. There is no point in further discussion.

I agree . Not really. These differences are worth discussing, not merely dismissing on a few quick comments. We are speaking of a topic worth discussion.

I will sum up my point because I think you have misrepresented it:

You say that it is obvious that since God desires all men to be saved, Christ died as a ransom for all men. You misrepresented my words to be that we disagree in terms of this being logical. On the contrary, Van, I believe it very logical. God purchased what He desired - that makes sense. And I even agree with what you affirm (I disagree with what you deny).

But it is just as logical to say that since God desires all men to be saved, God saves all men. In fact, it is probably even more logical than your reasoning.

Another logical reasoning is that God desires all men to be saved but this desire is secondary to God's desire for His own righteousness. Therefore God purchases humanity, but atonement is applied only to those He elected and re-created.

And my question to you, Van:

You say that it is both obvious and logical that since God desires all men to be saved that Christ died as a ransom for all men. How is it less logical that since God desires all men to be saved He saves all men?

 

[JonC]

pt2;
FITTED TO DESTRUCTION

Some make the words, "fitted to destruction," to be a verbal adjective, or to mean fit for destruction. This leaves undetermined the agency by which this fitness is effected. This allows man to fit himself for destruction. It also permits one to escape supralapsarianism.

There are issues with "double predestination" that I cannot reconcile under the auspice of supralapsarianism, but that fade when examined in light of God electing out of a fallen race.

Martin Luther’s comment of Plato, that “he remains within the limits of metaphysical thought, like a cow staring at a new gate” comes to mind. The reason being is that we remain within the limits of human thought and dependent on God's own revelation.

I do find merit in examining Cockrell’s article. When we examine men being formed as vessels of wrath and others as vessels of mercy, and this in exclusion of the man but entirely based upon the will of God, then it strikes firmly in the realm of decrees of election and reprobation (and I believe “double predestination”). So there is a sense by which I believe God elected man before the Fall.

But I also say “double predestination” because not only was Christ the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), foreknown before the creation of the world (1 Peter 1:20), but also the Fall and the Cross were decreed before the foundation of the world. Here “double predestination” does not make God author evil as I believe that election is best viewed (in this context) as God electing out of fallen man (leaving some in their rejection, saving others).

The “logical order” is logical for our understanding (it reflects man, not God) – I don’t believe that God thinks through things as men do, through process, as this would call into debate other attributes).

 

[Van]

To return to topic. Everyone God places in Christ is "appointed" to salvation. Everyone not placed in Christ is condemned already.

No one was appointed to wrath before creation, but by the disobedience of Adam, all people were made sinners right after creation.

The assertion by some that Jesus was speaking about everyone's election for salvation rather than those chosen and given to Him up to that time, at John 17:6 is simply man-made speculation.

 

[Van]

JonC, it is pointless to discuss this. I do not need to defend that all men are not saved, scripture supports that fact. Logically, God desires all people to be saved according to His purpose and plan, which is everyone believing into Christ will be saved. Christ died for all people, but all people are not placed in Christ. This should not be this hard.

I have told you you are using the word atonement to mean something other than being at one with God. This just generates confusion, and is simply a word game. Reconciliation occurs when someone is placed in Christ and not before.

My view is quite simple, logical and biblical.

 

[JonC]

JonC, it is pointless to discuss this. I do not need to defend that all men are not saved, scripture supports that fact. Logically, God desires all people to be saved according to His purpose and plan, which is everyone believing into Christ will be saved. Christ died for all people, but all people are not placed in Christ. This should not be this hard.

I have told you you are using the word atonement to mean something other than being at one with God. This just generates confusion, and is simply a word game. Reconciliation occurs when someone is placed in Christ and not before.

My view is quite simple, logical and biblical.

I think that the problem with using “atonement” with the definition of “being one with God” is that quite simply this is not what the word always means in Scripture. We are using the English word, but we are also using English translations (or dealing with people who do). I think, for example, that using saying OT sacrifices were sacrifices that made people “one with God” is a bit confusing.

And we can actually get around the issue as I have also clarified that when I speak of the “doctrine of the Atonement” I am speaking of more than “being one with God” as I have included unrealized opportunity, soteriological implications, and even “logical orders”. Speaking with you, however, I can easily adapt to your definition. One problem is that you seem to also object on points where we agree. In fact, I've agreed with ninety percent of what you have said (probably more of what you've affirmed).

Your view is logical. It is simple, and I’ll even grant that what I understand you to affirm is biblical. It’s what you deny that seems to stray a bit from Scripture.

 

[Van]

What I deny, left undefined in your posts, are the unbiblical assertions such as reconciliation occurred when Christ died, rather than when individuals are placed in Christ. We have been all through this with no solution. Modern translations translate the Greek word as "reconciliation" or other forms such as reconciled. Once we separate (and I know you refuse to do it) Christ's sacrifice on the cross, from individuals being reconciled in Christ, we can have a discussion. Otherwise we get your vague assertions about ephemeral aspects of atonement defined as a mixture.

 

[JonC]

What I deny, left undefined in your posts, are the unbiblical assertions such as reconciliation occurred when Christ died, rather than when individuals are placed in Christ. We have been all through this with no solution. Modern translations translate the Greek word as "reconciliation" or other forms such as reconciled. Once we separate (and I know you refuse to do it) Christ's sacrifice on the cross, from individuals being reconciled in Christ, we can have a discussion. Otherwise we get your vague assertions about ephemeral aspects of atonement defined as a mixture.

Examining your comments, it may help to look at where I have agreed with you.

I agreed that:

1. God desires that none should perish. God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.

2. That everyone believing will be saved.

3. That Christ died for all people, but all people are not placed in Christ.

4. That everyone God places “in Christ” is “appointed” to salvation.

5. That everyone not placed “in Christ” are already condemned.

6. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is separate from reconciliation in Christ. You and I were not reconciled to God two thousand years ago…that’s just silly. Humanity was redeemed to God, but you and I were reconciled when through faith we were…as you say…”placed in Christ”.

Where I believe we disagree:

1. That the “doctrine of the Atonement” is broader than the “at-one-men” that you suppose as it incorporates doctrines and theories beyond effectively making one “at one with” God (like about every other doctrine within Christianity, the doctrine is broader than the definition of the word).

2. I believe that God did elect those who would be “placed in Christ” before the foundations of the earth.

3. I believe in “double predestination” as God electing and not electing a people from fallen and condemned men.

4. I believe that God draws men to Himself, and that men once drawn cannot but believe (e.g., God hardened Pharaoh’s heart because otherwise seeing he would believe).

5. I believe the topic is worth discussing even though entering into such a discourse will most likely change neither of our minds. I think that discussion between brothers is nonetheless edifying and helpful.

I am able to discuss the issue even with those differences, but I understand if you are not. As neither of us will change our minds, it is not worth it to me if the only thing produced by such a conversation would be hard feelings.

 

[Van]

JonC, the only thing I see ahead is hard feelings. I agree that we agree on the first part of your post.

1) Why not address the doctrine of reconciliation rather than atonement? Because one is found in scripture and one is mixture from the mind of men.
2) Of course God elected corporately those who would be redeemed before the foundation of the world. We still disagree, that God chooses for salvation people through faith in the truth. If 2 Thessalonians 2:13 means what it says, then your interpretation of Ephesians 1:4 is in error.
3) All that speculation based on God choosing individuals before creation is unbiblical, as I have demonstrated time and time again. James 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:13, 1 Cor. 1:26-30, 1 Peter 2:9-10.
4) Your view that draw means compel rather than attract, fails at John 12:32. If it had your meaning we would have universalism.
5) Discussion is not edifying when folks talk past each other.

 

[Iconoclast]

I do not read any verse that says any man is.....placed.....
What is that?
In the off topic verse......you leave out ......God from the beginning has chosen you........why is that?
Why do you add or take away from the word of God?

 

[JonC]

JonC, the only thing I see ahead is hard feelings. I agree that we agree on the first part of your post.

1) Why not address the doctrine of reconciliation rather than atonement? Because one is found in scripture and one is mixture from the mind of men.
2) Of course God elected corporately those who would be redeemed before the foundation of the world. We still disagree, that God chooses for salvation people through faith in the truth. If 2 Thessalonians 2:13 means what it says, then your interpretation of Ephesians 1:4 is in error.
3) All that speculation based on God choosing individuals before creation is unbiblical, as I have demonstrated time and time again. James 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:13, 1 Cor. 1:26-30, 1 Peter 2:9-10.
4) Your view that draw means compel rather than attract, fails at John 12:32. If it had your meaning we would have universalism.
5) Discussion is not edifying when folks talk past each other.

We cannot refrain from discussing topics out of fear that some cannot separate their feelings from their thoughts. There should be no “hard feelings” ahead because we should be discussing the topic. The problem arises several ways (e.g., emotionally charged words to defend or advance a position; ad hominem; assumptions of other’s). Sometimes things are worded poorly and it is taken wrong (or needs clarification). An example of this is my use of “atonement”. I knew from another conversation that you did not agree with my use of the word to incorporate the doctrine of the Cross, but it slipped my mind and I neglected to consider that when I replied to you.

1. Either way, brother. You set the stage and we can discuss it. Just please keep in mind that I may slip into using “atonement” simply because it is such a prevalent word to use in Christian theology. A kind reminder may get me back on track.

2. We do disagree on points here. If we did not disagree then there would be no room for discussion. I believe that God elected corporately the Church, but I also believe that this extends to individual election (not at the moment of reconciliation, but before the foundation of the earth). Yes, we disagree.

3. I disagree that it is unbiblical. Your interpretation of those verses are just as tied up in your theology as is mine. Neither are “unbiblical”, but both cannot be right. I think that it would be better to slowly work through entire passages rather than toss individual verses out to “prove”
a point. I am not sure that this forum, however, will end up allowing such an exploration.

4. You have made an assumption that I believe “draw” means “compel” rather than attract. I do not use the word to mean “compel” and I do not believe it means “attract” either. If you would like to start there, I suggest we integrate the account of Moses lifting the serpent, the provision, the reason, and the result. And then discuss what it means in John 12:32.

5. I agree. Discussion is not edifying when people talk past each other. This is why we need to slow down, define terms, and identify when we are using them differently. Instead of trying to make the other person think as we do, or accept our position, why not just try first to make sure the other is on the same page and then deal with the topic?

 

[JonC]

I do not read any verse that says any man is.....placed.....
What is that?
In the off topic verse......you leave out ......God from the beginning has chosen you........why is that?
Why do you add or take away from the word of God?

I've been thinking that his use of "placed" in Christ means that we are simply "in Christ" by God's doing.

I believe that we got there by the supernatural work of God in recreating us (giving us a new spirit, a new heart, putting His Spirit in us).

This is another point that Van may want to explain a bit more before going on.

 

[Van]

Hi JonC, I use the meaning of draw as defined in the lexicons. When used metaphorically it means attract.
See these OT verses, Exodus 5:4, Judges 20:32, and Jeremiah 31:3 for the idea embodied in John 6:44 and John 12:32.

What does it mean to be drawn? It means to be attracted. Christ suffering and dying on the Cross draws all men. Does this mean folks who have not heard of Christ's death on the cross are drawn? Of course not. Does this mean all men who have heard of the cross come to Christ? Of course not. Does this mean all men, all of mankind, are attracted to those who suffer and die for them? Of course.

How does the Father draw folks to Christ? By His word. He told of the coming Christ. All those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Christ. Does this mean all that know of the coming Messiah, the Christ and are attracted to the Messiah are saved? Nope. The rich young ruler came to Christ but could not turn loose of his worldly possessions. The Apostles came to Christ and turned loose of everything, possessions, relationships, everything because Christ had the words of eternal life. A pearl of great price. We are not drawn by some mystical inner persuasion, but by our awareness of God’s lovingkindness.

You can believe God's pre-creation election extends to individuals, but to do that you must have an explanation of why God says over and over He elects individuals during their lifetime.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van,

You can believe God's pre-creation election extends to individuals, but to do that you must have an explanation of why God says over and over He elects individuals during their lifetime.

You cannot show one verse or one confession of faith that says this. You say it...but no one else in church history believes this falsehood. Could you show where anyone believes this.
All the reputable confessions state the complete opposite of what you say.....show any support you have for this anti biblical concept.

 

[Van]

Hi Icon, I referenced four verses. Confessions of faith are not inspired, lets stick with what God says.

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, I use the meaning of draw as defined in the lexicons. When used metaphorically it means attract.
See these OT verses, Exodus 5:4, Judges 20:32, and Jeremiah 31:3 for the idea embodied in John 6:44 and John 12:32.

What does it mean to be drawn? It means to be attracted. Christ suffering and dying on the Cross draws all men. Does this mean folks who have not heard of Christ's death on the cross are drawn? Of course not. Does this mean all men who have heard of the cross come to Christ? Of course not. Does this mean all men, all of mankind, are attracted to those who suffer and die for them? Of course.

How does the Father draw folks to Christ? By His word. He told of the coming Christ. All those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Christ. Does this mean all that know of the coming Messiah, the Christ and are attracted to the Messiah are saved? Nope. The rich young ruler came to Christ but could not turn loose of his worldly possessions. The Apostles came to Christ and turned loose of everything, possessions, relationships, everything because Christ had the words of eternal life. A pearl of great price. We are not drawn by some mystical inner persuasion, but by our awareness of God’s lovingkindness.

You can believe God's pre-creation election extends to individuals, but to do that you must have an explanation of why God says over and over He elects individuals during their lifetime.

I think that Numbers 21:9 would be a good place to begin when we examine John 12:32. How do you see this parallel between the fairly obscure (as a whole) passage in Numbers that Jesus applies to Himself in John 12? Do you think that drawing here really means to “attract”, or as all who looked upon the serpent were healed, and all who did not (although it was there for all) would die, do you think that perhaps it means something else?

 

[Iconoclast]

Hi Icon, I referenced four verses. Confessions of faith are not inspired, lets stick with what God says.

none of which were on the topic...here is 4 verses also;
Ecclesiastes 7King James Version (KJV)
7 A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

2 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.

3 Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.

4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.


none of these have to do with the topic either but I referenced 4 verses

Confessions of faith are not inspired

no...but the verses they used are

 

[Van]

Hi JonC, I gave you five verses, why run away from addressing what scripture says.