Featured vessels of wrath

I do not know who those "folks" are to whom you continually appeal, Van, but when you make claims and arguments about what other people "really" believe up against what they tell you they believe then you cannot but generate heat.

For my part, there is no divisiveness. It seems that you are responding out of frustration because those whom you wish to argue are not in truth believing what you want to make them out to believe. In other words, you have created a strawman and can't find anyone to assume that role. So now you pretend that they are divisive (as if they are arguing against their true beliefs just to somehow invalidate your invalid argument).

Brother, just argue your position and let other's argue theirs. That would solve much of the "divisiveness" here.

 

Again, Van, I do not know these "folks" to whom you appeal.

But I also have no interest in playing word games. We can disagree about the meanings of words, but you are wrong to attribute a belief I deny to me. The passage that I provided says that all who are drawn are effectually drawn (they are raised in Christ). If you simply don't like using the word "drawn" then call it "attract".

And ..."folks"....ignore the foolish comments about what I believe coming from behind the curtain. If you want to know what I believe, ask me, not Van.

I believe in all three of those points in Van's posts (the ones he so foolishly declares I disbelieve). I just do not believe that those two verses constitute the whole gospel. All are drawn in the sense that all are called through the gospel (what I called a "general call"). But not all are effectually called/drawn to salvation.

 

Back to the OP:

We were all once objects deserving of God’s wrath. Paul tells us in Roman’s 5 that it was while we were God’s enemies that we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son.

But when Scripture speaks of vessels of wrath prepared for destruction contrasted against vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory, whom He has called – not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles, the latter group is not out of the former. Both were deserving of wrath, but those “vessels of wrath” were “prepared for destruction”. Those “vessels of mercy” were “prepared beforehand for glory”. They were the ones “whom He has called”. And they were called “not from the Jews only but from the Gentiles”.

If we let Scripture interpret Scripture, then I believe that there is absolutely no way that we can deny that God effectually draws a people to Himself. The “vessels of wrath” are not merely those deserving wrath as enemies of God, but those who are prepared for destruction. They exclude those “prepared beforehand for glory.”

 

Then your interpretation would be rendered: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him...Just like the Father draws every man...and I'll raise him up on the last day." Drawing, of course, becomes meaningless in this verse as you could easily substitute the work of the Father with anything common to man.

Your interpretation simply does not work, Van.

 

First, Van, I work for a living. Don't call me "sir" .

Second, when I look up ἕλκω, I get "literally - to drag". This word is used in John three times. Twice to describe what God does to men, and once to describe what the disciples did to the net full of fish. Unless you are supposing that the disciples had difficulty "attracting" the nets into the boat because of the great number of fish then you are changing the word to fit your theories. I simply don't see why John would use ἕλκω to mean "attract" and then shift to it's literal meaning in John 21.

I understand that I may not be the most articulate person on this board. I have lost "friends" over the years because of misunderstandings and assumptions...perhaps due to my lack of articulation. My request is that you accept my position as mine, not that you take it as yours. If you want to speak of what I believe, then I will demand accuracy. And I expect the same of you if I misstate what you believe. And yes, we disagree.

 

The lexicon that I used didn't agree at all. And Paul, speaking of God's effectual call, directs that call to "all kinds of people" instead of all people (Romans 9). Why do you think that John would not be doing the same?

 

It was built into a program (didn't pull out a hard book). Which one says "attract"? "Drawing by an inward power" seems to fit our meaning well.

 

By your definition we are not talking about "human response". By your lexicon definition, "draw" means to "drag", but metaphorically to "drag by an inward power." This is NOT "come by a human response". And I would add that this "dragging by an inward power" is one of loving kindness (Jeremiah 31:3) and not compulsion. Again, the only time "compulsion" has come into play has been in your argument against it.

 

I didn't notice ("drag" was the literal definition..."draw" vs. "drag" by an inward power...I was concentrating on the "inward power" being of God and not man...not whether it was "draw" or "drag"...but I appreciate the correction).

The verse indicates, then, that we were "drawn by an inward power"...but what is this power? Is it our own "human response"? Not according to Scripture - it is God's "drawing". God "draws us with an inward power". Does this mean that God attracts us? You could use that, but only if you are speaking of "attract" in such a way as to include an inherent "inward power".

Here you:

1. take "draw" remove it from a connection to it's literal definition ("drag"),
2. replace it with "draw" as a metaphoric definition ("draw with an inward power")
3. and then consult an English dictionary to make "draw" read "attract" ("attract with an inward power").
4. get rid of God's hand in the process ("with an inward power" being the work of the Father)
5. reduce the original "draw with an inward power" down to "attract"
6. and add "human response" to conclude that God attracts all men, who come as a human response.

And you denounce other interpretations as taking liberties with the text.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps God drawing people means exactly that? Maybe we do not have to change it to a metaphor, and then exchange part of the metaphor for another word, and then add "human response". Maybe if we pause a moment, simply looking at the "inward power" being (according to Scripture) of the Father and not a "human response" we can simply move on and know that God drew us to Himself.

 

Six Hour Warning

Some time after 2am Pacific, this thread will be closed.

 

This thread is closed.