The potter and the clay.

[quantumfaith]

GT, would it be possible for you to suggest any "side by side" comparison of Romans 9,10,11 say Schriener vs. some other respected "non-cal" scholar?

 

[Iconoclast]

random smiley
:sleeping_2:

yes....this is check and mate:laugh::laugh::laugh:

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

You are taking issue over the fact that a plural pronoun can't refer to individual people? So if I said, "All you non-Calvies here are completely wrong." I would not be referring to each and everyone on of you individually b/c I was using the plural? Is that what you are saying? Cause if it is, I wonder if you have any Greek grammarians that back you up. Hint: You don't!

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

ex cathedra... and this is a problem that Pauline and Romans scholars have dealt with at length. If it is "not so", then Romans is an incoherent letter in that 9-11 has no place. It is as random as a drunk trying to tell a story. The theme of God's faithfulness (or righteousness) is carried over to 9-11. And if that is the case, the issue would not then be the national rejection and thus national restoration. The issue would be a nation that rejected Jesus and on their way to destruction... complete and final destruction. If not that, then Rom. 9-11 doesn't fit 1-8 of Romans. You have then a context problem.

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" By putting this in quotations, are you saying that it wasn't really an analysis? That's fair and balanced. 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.

Well, actually if you read past the 2nd page, you'd see he gives many reasons why he affirms his view and thus rejects yours. After all, what do you think he was going on about for 16 pages? Methinks you didn't read the entire article. Not surprising really. I didn't think you would actually take me up on the challenge.

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).

Really don't think you refuted his view. And you only dealt with one of his points, a middle point. But he set up a contextual point. He does deal with the entire context. I think his interpretation is the only way to account not just for 9-11 but for 1-11 of Romans. How can God be a faithful God if God's people, Israel, has rejected the Messiah and dying and going to hell? Answer: sovereignty?

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.

I don't think Schreiner missed that at all. In fact, 9:6 would seem to argue that the issue is not simply national as a corporate unit but individual ethnic Jews who are unsaved. The nation, by and large by this time was unsaved. Jewish Christianity, if I may use such a term w/out the F. C. Baur baggage, was on the decline by the time Paul wrote this.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

random smiley
:sleeping_2:

yes....this is check and mate

Glad you two are so self-congratulatory in your mutual admiration society. Same old Cals, same old nonsense. You think you checkmate a non-Calvin position because you repeat old arguments that haven't held water from the first time you used them. You wouldn't listen to reason if it hit you over the head with a hammer.

A few quick observations of Tim's response, then I'm done here, because obviously you care more about a man's doctrine than you do about God's Word.

1. The ex cathedra statement is ridiculous, given that Paul's dealing with Israel in ch. 9-11 answers questions anticipated by his lengthy treatise on grace in the first eight chapters. He must explain why Israel hasn't received the blessings of faith -- it is because they haven't believed based on faith through grace -- in order to avoid controversy over what would otherwise appear to be a dichotomy, in that Israel's "chosenness" had not delivered her from God's chastisement.
2. The supposed "reasons" Schreiner gave on page two had no support, only his opinion.
3. I don't have to deal with all of Schreiner's views, if I can knock the pegs out from under one, they being mutually self-supporting, which makes for a very weak argument.
4. Both of your last two points are your opinion, based on Schreiner's opinion, which invalidates the defense.

God bless both of you, be well in your delusions.

 

[Greektim]

Glad you two are so self-congratulatory in your mutual admiration society. Same old Cals, same old nonsense. You think you checkmate a non-Calvin position because you repeat old arguments that haven't held water from the first time you used them. You wouldn't listen to reason if it hit you over the head with a hammer.

A few quick observations of Tim's response, then I'm done here, because obviously you care more about a man's doctrine than you do about God's Word.

1. The ex cathedra statement is ridiculous, given that Paul's dealing with Israel in ch. 9-11 answers questions anticipated by his lengthy treatise on grace in the first eight chapters. He must explain why Israel hasn't received the blessings of faith -- it is because they haven't believed based on faith through grace -- in order to avoid controversy over what would otherwise appear to be a dichotomy, in that Israel's "chosenness" had not delivered her from God's chastisement.
2. The supposed "reasons" Schreiner gave on page two had no support, only his opinion.
3. I don't have to deal with all of Schreiner's views, if I can knock the pegs out from under one, they being mutually self-supporting, which makes for a very weak argument.
4. Both of your last two points are your opinion, based on Schreiner's opinion, which invalidates the defense.

God bless both of you, be well in your delusions.

More ex cathedra non sense which demonstrates more (1) you didn't understand my points (My point about page 2 was that you need to keep reading, he gives foundation to his views; but you simply dismess them b/c you apparently speak doctrine ex cathedra) & (2) you didn't read Schreiner's article passed page 2. If you had, you would know that the "peg" you think you knocked over was firmly supported w/ context and solid exegesis. And I noticed that you didn't deal w/ the big issue, how 9-11 relates to 1-8. Not surprising. It probably doesn't fit together with your view. Why would Paul spend so much time talking about God's faithfulness in individual salvation and all of the sudden focus so much on Israel's status as God's people? It doesn't work... unless 9-11 is about the individual salvation of Israelites... you know "not all Israel is Israel" seals it.

While you are done with me, the fact is, you are really done with dialogue and academically fair research. And when you keep touting that "a man's doctrine than you do about God's Word" foolishness, you come off as a belligerent, conceded, and a doctrinal know-it-all. That is why I keep accusing you of basing your arguments on a RCC notion: ex cathedra. You can assert truth all you want, but that doesn't make it truth.

At least have enough huevos to admit the possibility that you might be wrong!!! All this confidence is a typical fundamentalist attitude: certainty is more important that dialogue and ascertaining truth and admitting "I might be wrong."

PS-I knew you couldn't produce an evidence to back up your assertion about the Greek pronoun εκεινος. Hint: as I said above, you can't. So don't throw your hat into the ring when you haven't even studied enough to understand the hat itself.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Does the potter create the vessel according to his will or does the vessel get to choose what type of vessel he wants to be?

The vessel was already there, but it took the potter to see it and form it.

It was the same with Michelangelo when he said, "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."

 

[Greektim]

GT, would it be possible for you to suggest any "side by side" comparison of Romans 9,10,11 say Schriener vs. some other respected "non-cal" scholar?

I did a quick search on EBSCO/ATLA; I found this recent article but I'm not so familiar w/ the author. If you can't access it, I can get it for you. Just PM me.

Shellrude, Glen. "The freedom of God in mercy and judgment: a libertarian reading of Romans 9:6-29." Evangelical Quarterly 81, no. 4 (October 1, 2009): 306-318.

 

[Greektim]

The vessel was already there, but it took the potter to see it and form it.

It was the same with Michelangelo when he said, "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."

That is taking the metaphor and stretching far beyond its ancient meaning. Notice you had to use a medieval parallel. Pottery was not artwork in the ancient world. It was a trade that was used by anyone who wanted to drink water... i.e. everyone. Some people could purchase pottery w/ artistic elements, but the cheap stuff was simple and plain.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That is taking the metaphor and stretching far beyond its ancient meaning. Notice you had to use a medieval parallel. Pottery was not artwork in the ancient world. It was a trade that was used by anyone who wanted to drink water... i.e. everyone. Some people could purchase pottery w/ artistic elements, but the cheap stuff was simple and plain.

All that reflects more on the potter than the clay. Masterpieces were just waiting to be released.

Anyway, man has freewill and God is there, as the potter, to help shape us through our choices. Some choices lead to beauty, some to .... well not so beautiful. It is not God's fault when we make bad choices that results in flaws in the "pot", us he is trying to shape into beauty.

 

[kyredneck]

Well, you can't argue with that! (talk about having your mind made up, 'don't bother me with the facts'...) With this sort of reasoning you can make the bible to mean anything you want it to. Incredible.

 

[Greektim]

All that reflects more on the potter than the clay. Masterpieces were just waiting to be released.

Anyway, man has freewill and God is there, as the potter, to help shape us through our choices. Some choices lead to beauty, some to .... well not so beautiful. It is not God's fault when we make bad choices that results in flaws in the "pot", us he is trying to shape into beauty.

That misses the point of Paul's illustration! It is not the pot that is affecting how the potter shapes it and beautifies it. It is the opposite!!!

Can the pot say to the potter, "Why have you made me like this"? Rhetorical question assuming the answer: No the pot can't say that to the potter!

You would have it be: Yes, the pot can tell the potter how to shape him. You miss completely the point of the illustration. Can creation tell the creator how to shape him? Of course not. That is asinine.

 

[kyredneck]

Don't think he cares in the least about 'the point of the illustration'; the point is going to be whatever he wants it to be. There's no arguing with that.

 

[percho]

All that reflects more on the potter than the clay. Masterpieces were just waiting to be released.

Anyway, man has freewill and God is there, as the potter, to help shape us through our choices. Some choices lead to beauty, some to .... well not so beautiful. It is not God's fault when we make bad choices that results in flaws in the "pot", us he is trying to shape into beauty.

Was Judas Iscariot necessary for the will and prophesy of God, even to the extent of the following to come to pass: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world 1 Peter 1:19,20; Which resulted in this: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him; Which means that Jesus the Christ inherited the promise of God: In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;?

Who's vessel was Judas?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Good grief, I get tired of this mindless adherence to nonsense!!

If Judas had no choice it means that God is a liar. For a person to be born for the purpose of a single evil act and to be condemned to eternal torment would be cruel beyond imagining and our God is opposite to cruel. That isn't the God I know, it isn't the God of the Bible, and I really wish the people who tout this nonsense would give God credit for being bigger than the box they've stuffed him in.

We are born to a life of choices, to millions of possibilities and God sees every single one of them for every single human being living today, and throughout history, both past and future. It boggles the mind to realize how many outcomes today could have depending on who makes what decisions, but what is truly amazing is that God has laid down his plans for every one of them. Nothing surprises God.

In the case of Judas we hold to the understanding that he made a choice. He entertained Satan himself.

Luke 22, NASB
3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
4 And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them.​

Is Satan sovereign? Can he force his way into an unwilling sinner? NO!!!! And neither does God create a man for a single, solitary act of evil. Your question is obscene!

It was his choice born out of whatever motivation pushed him in that direction, probably greed, for we know he stole from the till, and as a Zealot (he shows every sign of being one) was likely a nefarious type for most of his adult life. Only one thing was certain in those days and that was the cross to which Jesus was heading. The cross was certain but the path to it did not need to include Judas' betrayal. It could have been anyone or it could have been in a different manner but it did not have to be Judas.

Matthew 26
24 "The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."​

The cross was a definite but Jesus also knew that Judas had made his decision, that he had already taken action. Jesus knew and He also knew what the outcome would be. This was not a curse! It is a simple statement of fact. Jesus knew the condition of Judas' heart, He knew the actions he had already taken and He knew the despair that would destroy him. Some may question why he did not make a final plea with Judas, but that is the same as asking why God doesn't prevent us from doing wrong.

Judas had spent three years with Jesus, watching, listening, learning and participating. If he did not understand after three years of attending the world's first seminary, how would any plea from Jesus change things then? God has given His all to us. He speaks to us in everything around us. He speaks clearly through His Word. We are possessed by the Spirit who teaches us. While Judas was possessed of the Holy Spirit, He saw the actions, he heard the words of Christ. Other than the Holy Spirit, there is no greater instrument of conviction available than what Jesus provided His disciples, including Judas.

Judas should not be viewed as a "vessel of wrath" created to obatin God's plan. He had a choice and he made his choice. God simply did what He always does. He used what the dark powers intend as bad to bring about good. The truly sad thing about Judas, the thing for which we can have pity, is that he removed the possibility of repentance and restoration by giving into his despair and ending his life. Jesus knew the outcome for Judas because He could see the condition of Judas' hardened heart. That did not have to be his outcome, and it does not have to be our outcome.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Good grief, I get tired of this mindless adherence to nonsense!!

If Judas had no choice it means that God is a liar. For a person to be born for the purpose of a single evil act and to be condemned to eternal torment would be cruel beyond imagining and our God is opposite to cruel. That isn't the God I know, it isn't the God of the Bible, and I really wish the people who tout this nonsense would give God credit for being bigger than the box they've stuffed him in.

We are born to a life of choices, to millions of possibilities and God sees every single one of them for every single human being living today, and throughout history, both past and future. It boggles the mind to realize how many outcomes today could have depending on who makes what decisions, but what is truly amazing is that God has laid down his plans for every one of them. Nothing surprises God.

In the case of Judas we hold to the understanding that he made a choice. He entertained Satan himself.

May be a surprise for you, but I completely agree. It is that type of thought, the one you correctly object to, made by Calvinists, that caused me to come to the conclusion that they are wrong. They make a monster of God ... and God is not a monster.

 

[Greektim]

Good grief, I get tired of this mindless adherence to nonsense!!

If Judas had no choice it means that God is a liar. For a person to be born for the purpose of a single evil act and to be condemned to eternal torment would be cruel beyond imagining and our God is opposite to cruel. That isn't the God I know, it isn't the God of the Bible, and I really wish the people who tout this nonsense would give God credit for being bigger than the box they've stuffed him in.

We are born to a life of choices, to millions of possibilities and God sees every single one of them for every single human being living today, and throughout history, both past and future. It boggles the mind to realize how many outcomes today could have depending on who makes what decisions, but what is truly amazing is that God has laid down his plans for every one of them. Nothing surprises God.

That is not making God a liar. That just means God cares more about his glory than he does about his creation. That is a principle I am totally fine with.

People tout about being God-centered so long as they serve a God who is man-centered. If God creates vessels to destroy them, that is the prerogative of the creator. They are his to do with what he pleases.

The potter illustration stands. God can do whatever he likes to the pottery as long as it brings him glory (glorified in his wrath or in his mercy as Rom. 9 says). That is his goal. And God does all that he pleases. What pleases him most is his glory. That or God values something more than the most valuable thing in the universe (himself) making him the first idolater.

This is the ultimate issue here, exemplified. People don't like the perception of a sovereign God in control of EVERYTHING. So they can do 2 things: throw out the Bible and walk away OR make a god in their image that doesn't ruffle their feathers so much. But if the Bible is true about God having AND USING his absolute authority at all times, then we are only left w/ the clear conclusion: He ordains it all.

Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. God's supremacy
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. God's sovereignty

 

[Crabtownboy]

That is not making God a liar. That just means God cares more about his glory than he does about his creation. That is a principle I am totally fine with.

Am I correct, you would be fine with a man who cared more about his own glory than the welfare of his son or daughter?

 

[Greektim]

Am I correct, you would be fine with a man who cared more about his own glory than the welfare of his son or daughter?

Not a match. This can only be applied to God. For God to love and promote himself is an action of love. He is promoting that which will bring us the most lasting and enduring happiness: God himself. When we care more about our glory, we distract people from what will bring them the most happiness: God.

God is for God more than he is for you or me. FACT!

 

[quantumfaith]

That is not making God a liar. That just means God cares more about his glory than he does about his creation. That is a principle I am totally fine with.

People tout about being God-centered so long as they serve a God who is man-centered. If God creates vessels to destroy them, that is the prerogative of the creator. They are his to do with what he pleases.

The potter illustration stands. God can do whatever he likes to the pottery as long as it brings him glory (glorified in his wrath or in his mercy as Rom. 9 says). That is his goal. And God does all that he pleases. What pleases him most is his glory. That or God values something more than the most valuable thing in the universe (himself) making him the first idolater.

This is the ultimate issue here, exemplified. People don't like the perception of a sovereign God in control of EVERYTHING. So they can do 2 things: throw out the Bible and walk away OR make a god in their image that doesn't ruffle their feathers so much. But if the Bible is true about God having AND USING his absolute authority at all times, then we are only left w/ the clear conclusion: He ordains it all.

Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. God's supremacy
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. God's sovereignty

GT, I have great respect for you, but I think here you are wrong. I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with "not liking or wanting God to be completely sovereign". I just don't see it that way. I think most recognize the COMPLETE sovereignty of God, knowing whenever he so chooses to "do something" he certainly can, may and will. But that is not the norm, rather he more often than not expresses his sovereignty in freedom for his sentient creatures. A scholarly (sort of) book that has spoken to me greatly in this way is :

Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View (Gary Friesen)

 

[Crabtownboy]

Not a match. This can only be applied to God. For God to love and promote himself is an action of love. He is promoting that which will bring us the most lasting and enduring happiness: God himself. When we care more about our glory, we distract people from what will bring them the most happiness: God.

God is for God more than he is for you or me. FACT!

What kind of glory is it to create so that creation will suffer eternally. To me that turns God into a monster. There is no glory there.

 

[Iconoclast]

What kind of glory is it to create so that creation will suffer eternally. To me that turns God into a monster. There is no glory there.

At the root of all such objections that you and others post here...is unbelief that the God of all the earth will do right. You want to whittle out your own god who does what you permit Him to do.

We are to take God as he has revealed Himself,trusting he knows what he is doing.

Gt said it here:

This is the ultimate issue here, exemplified. People don't like the perception of a sovereign God in control of EVERYTHING. So they can do 2 things: throw out the Bible and walk away OR make a god in their image that doesn't ruffle their feathers so much. But if the Bible is true about God having AND USING his absolute authority at all times, then we are only left w/ the clear conclusion: He ordains it all.