Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[Drew]

Here are some texts demonstrating the Old Testament precedent of the potter metaphor. All of them are about the nation of Israel. From Isaiah 29:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?" 16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

This is about the Jews - the nation of Israel.

This next text is from Isaiah 30. The NIV translators gave the title "Woe to the Obstinate Nation" to this chapter. Again, this is about Israel:

Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
"Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression
and depended on deceit,

13 this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant. 14 It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly

Note that in the above text from Isaiah 30, the connection to Romans 9 is even tighter. Not only do we note Isaiah’s identification of the pot with Israel, we can appeal to the more refined point that this pot has broken or shattered. This coheres perfectly well with the argument in chapter 9 where Paul not only invokes the potter / pot metaphor, he makes the further point that some pots are “fitted for destructionâ€. Therefore, seeing the pots “fitted for destruction†as Israel maps cleanly to Isaiah 30 both in regard to the identity of the pot and in regard to what happens to it.

And this one from Jeremiah is particularly clear:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Here we have another example of a correlation to Romans 9 that works at multiple levels. First, we have the pot clearly identified as Israel. But beyond this, we have the potter marring the pot in order to make another pot. Note how, in Romans 9, Paul is making the very same point about the pots – the vessels of destruction are “fitted for destruction†precisely for the benefit of the vessels of mercy:

if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory

 

[Drew]

Let's make this clear again.

ALL Gods Words are FOR BELIEVERS. Every last one of them. Every JOT and TITTLE.

Clearly not true. There are many specific instructions that God gave to specific persons or groups of persons in the entire story we see in the Bible.

 

[Drew]

Your sights of these matters are more than woefully shortsighted. Sorry.

s

How is this a response to the text?

What does the text say? It says something that only makes sense if the Law of Moses is for Jews only.

 

[smaller]

The reason I get away with this is because this is what Paul's argument actually is. So unless mods are going to say that we cannot agree with Paul.....

Except for the Gentiles that are displayed as hardened and hated in Romans 9 & 11 which makes the JEW ONLY argument not only lame, but unsupportable except by jaded assertions.

Look - I will try to explain this to you yet again: To agree with Paul that some Jews have been hardened is no more Anti-Semitic than it would be anti-Egyptian to agree with Paul that God hardened Pharaoh. Or being "anti-Edomite" for agreeing with Paul that God "hates" Esau.

And that is exactly the VIEW brought forth, that it is NOT JEWS ONLY.

Your arguments here are shaky enough in their own right. When I argue that Paul is saying that some Jews have been hardened, you need to engage the actual arguments, not make clearly spurious claims that I am "anti-Semitic".

Logical fallacies are apparent on their face. It has been pointed out repeatedly that you defeat your own position, but we certainly don't want to address that do we Drew? No, we just want to say unbelieving JEWS only.

Hardly likely anyway since I come from a Jewish background myself and lost most of my family members (on my father's side) in the death camps in Europe.

Sure Drew.

Indeed you are reported. It is not a "reportable offence" for you to make the incorrect argument that since God also hardens Gentiles,

Then it is WHAT DREW? Your claim is JEWS ONLY, yet from the other side of your mouth is is JEWS ONLY. Do you really have a logical position or not? Whether you report me for pointing out the ILLOGIC of your position is irrelevant to me. The position is a logical fallacy on it's face by your OWN statements.

Paul cannot write of a specific hardening of Jews that happened in history. You are free to make such arguments, even if they are clearly incorrect.

Jews only? No. Not even by your own statements. Is there a report button for logical fallacies?

What is not acceptable is to assert that I am Anti-Semitic.

It IS when you claim JEWS ONLY when that is CLEARLY not the case.

There is not even the faintest scintilla of evidence to support this damaging accusation. Suggesting that I am anti-Semitic for saying what I am saying is like saying I am anti-Semitic for saying that a large crowd of, yes, Jews, demanded that Jesus go to the cross.

Whatever Drew. Play the game how you are led. Whining on the report button for pointing out the LOGICAL FALLACY is just as lame as the claim.

s

 

[smaller]

How is this a response to the text?

What does the text say? It says something that only makes sense if the Law of Moses is for Jews only.

And I've already cited that ANY COMMAND was for christian believers as Romans 13:8-10 shows us and as Jesus declared, that MAN SHALL LIVE BY EVERY WORD OF GOD, not just JEWS. You certainly are welcome not to engage in these specifics and make the claim. Matters not to me.

 

[Drew]

The direct and implied questions Paul raises in Romans 9 indicate that the potter metaphor (Romans 9) represents God’s treatment of Israel (and not the predestination of individuals). A doctrine of God’s predestination of individuals does not answer the actual questions raised, whereas an answer where the “vessels of destruction†are hardened Jews (and Jews only) does.

So what are these questions?

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

My overall thesis is that Paul’s argument in chapter 9 is about how God has hardened most Jews (vessels of destruction) to bring the possibility of salvation to a remnant of Jews and to Gentiles (vessels of glory).

Clearly, the last of the three questions fits perfectly with such a thesis, whereas it seems distinctly incoherent with the thesis that the potter metaphor has the vessels of destruction as all pre-destined lost and the vessels of glory as all pre-destined saved, with the Israel question forgotten. If you take that line, Paul is bouncing all over the place in his argument – he starts the chapter with an Israel focus and then sets the Israel question aside to make a great statement about pre-destination without reference to ethnicity, and then returns to the Israel question in verses 30 and following – a strange way to construct an argument indeed.

But let’s look at the first two questions. I politely suggests a serious problem of method in how such questions are generally seen. I suggest that readers typically come to these questions with a prior commitment to see them as questions about the election of individuals to heaven and hell. The proper approach is to see the progression of Paul’s argument – let Paul tell us what these questions are about.

It is indeed true that the questions of verse 14 and 19 can be seen as questions about whether it is “fair†for God to pre-destine some to hell. However, unless one brings bias to these questions, there is equal possibility that they are questions about whether God has been fair in electing the nation of Israel to be hardened. So which alternative does the context support?

.....Post 2 to follow

 

[Drew]

Follow-on to last post:

The chapter begins with an expression of despair about Israel. Paul laments the sad state of his Jewish kinsmen:

who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and (the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are (L)the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, (O)God (P)blessed forever. Amen. 6But it is not as though the word of God has failed…

The implied question through the reference to the word of God is this: “Has God failed to live up to His promises to national Israel, given that their present rejection of Jesus places them outside the new covenant family?â€. This is clearly a question about Israel - Paul is observing that despite the many promises made to the Jewish nation, they largely sit outside the covenant family.

Note that the questions of verses 14 and 19 can been seen as re-formulation of precisely this question, expressed in the context of examples about God making choices, and leading back to a conclusion about the Israel problem (remember none of the listed examples are examples of election to an eternal fate). On such a view, the basic template of what Paul is doing is this:

1. Introduce the problem – the sad state of Israel;

2. Point out that all these promises were made to Israel, literally begging the reader to ask: “Has God been fair to Israel?â€

3. Give some examples of God making choices (Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh) to illustrate that God has the right to make the choices He makes even if they do not seem fair.

4. Having established (through these examples) that God has a right to make choices, return to the Israel problem and assert, through the potter metaphor, that God has the right to do what He wants with Israel, and explaining how the hardening of Israel has benefited the world.

Now, how would a potter metaphor addressing individual election, with no Israel specificity whatsoever, be any kind of answer to the Israel problem, the problem that Paul has actually raised, even though, mysteriously, many readers seem to think the question is one of personal pre-destination (in general). On the other hand, if the vessels of destruction is unbelieving Israel, the answer can be seen to be “God can do whatever He wants with national Israel, just like the potter has the right to mold a pot as he sees fitâ€. In this respect, a point that is often missed is that every single Old Testament use of the potter metaphors is specifically about God’s treatment of Israel.

In conclusion, the view that the vessels of destruction are hardened Jews, and Jews only, is a perfectly coherent assertion given the questions and concerns that Paul has actually put on the table – questions and concerns about the sad state of Israel. A conclusion that the vessels are the pre-destined lost – whether Jew or Gentile – is entirely irrelevant to such questions. Unless we assume that Paul has lost control of his argument, the standard “pre-destination of individuals†interpretation of the potter metaphor is thrown into great doubt.

 

[smaller]

Your thesis Drew is what is commonly known as a postulation based on the excluded middle. Meaning? That the 'choices' of views you put forth are not the only views available.

Very often in these matters believers put forth selective choices. In your case your position involves Jews and Gentiles, and you pick Jews as the ONLY HARDENED VESSELS of destruction, (which same view is obviously fought against in the very texts you cite.)

But (that aside) your view has zero consideration or explanations for Paul's own condition, that of evil present and a devil upon himself. Some can certainly LOOK at those facts Paul presented and the myriad of N.T. texts that clearly show DEVILS and SATAN upon mankind and see THOSE entities as the VESSELS OF DESTRUCTION, WRATH and CONDEMNATION, etc. This exact matter is brought forth by Paul as well in showing the SPIRIT OF SLUMBER being put upon Israel.

So you basically have an entire entity class that is ABSENT from your selective choices, and therefore your position is one of the 'excluded middle' meaning in short, a logical fallacy because 'all the facts' that we KNOW are not on the table in this matter and the conclusion can not possibly be RIGHT apart from all the facts.

Sound reasonings are encouraged in the text and facts that are available can be brought into view for any given position, some of which dramatically change the viewpoints.

Most obviously the DEVIL, the messenger of Satan that Paul had 'with him' or 'upon his flesh' is A VESSEL OF DESTRUCTION. Your view does not account for this factual matter whatsoever.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

Your thesis Drew is what is commonly known as a postulation based on the excluded middle. Meaning? That the 'choices' of views you put forth are not the only views available.

Obviously I agree - my interpretation is not the only possible interpretation. I am simply arguing that it is the interpretation that best explains the text.

Very often in these matters believers put forth selective choices. In your case your position involves Jews and Gentiles, and you pick Jews as the ONLY HARDENED VESSELS of destruction, (which same view is obviously fought against in the very texts you cite.)

No. This does not represent what I am doing. If I were to arbitrarily assert that the vessels of destruction must be Jews, then I would be doing what you suggest. But I am doing more than that - I am making a case that the best interpretation of the "vessels of destruction" is that they are hardened Jews.

Let's face it: Paul uses a cryptic expression (vessels of destruction). Each of us has an opinion on who Paul is referring to. And each of us must defend that opinion. That is what I am doing (when I am not otherwise critiquing your arguments).

But (that aside) your view has zero consideration or explanations for Paul's own condition, that of evil present and a devil upon himself.

The problem with this objection of yours is that you need to make the case that, in Romans 9, the issue on Paul's mind is his own condition. I agree that Paul saw a "devil in himself" (I might not use this exact term, but I probably agree with your basic premise). I think that that "devil" is given the boot once Paul becomes a believer, but thats another story.

You seem to assume that just because Paul has this devil in him, this must be what he is talking about in Romans 9. But that is not what he is talking about in Romans 9. What is the problem on the table in Romans 9?

I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

One of the benefits of my proposal is that to see the vessels of destruction as these lost Jews functions as the perfect answer to the question that is actually on the table - which is not Paul's inner devil, or even an inner devil in all mankind, but rather the state of the nation of Israel.

I am simply giving Paul the credit for addressing the problems he has raised. On your position, he raises one problem - the sad state of Israel - and then answers an entirely different problem in the potter metaphor - the state of lost people in general.

 

[Free]

P.S. I particularly DISlike posters positions who JEW BASH on these subjects and consider such views as either borderline anti-semetic or overtly same. Such methodologies are of the 'spirit of error.'

This is a serious accusation for which I can find no evidence. In the future, please use the report function or pm a moderator if you think there is a violation of the TOS. Thanks.

 

[jasoncran]

smaller pm me. theres something you need to know.

drew if you dont mind. that will stop this easily.

i am a man of jewish lineage, i have family in isreal, russia,france. most of them are pro-isreal. i dont find the statements by drew or others that arent for the rise of isreal as prophetic to be anti-semitic.

drew has never said that he is for the dismantling of the state of isreal. He believes in their right to exist but not as a favored status by the u.s.

that i disagree with on the later, but that position of his isnt quite anti-semitic in nature.

 

[bleitzel]

If you've read my posts somethings didn't stick.

Let me make this very clear. Paul had evil present with him and indwelling sin that he termed in Romans 7 as NO LONGER I. There are your TWO VESSELS. Paul and EVIL PRESENT, which same is OF THE DEVIL. All sin is OF THE DEVIL. Paul even admitted HAVING A DEVIL in 2 Cor. 12:7.

IF you missed that let me reiterate. Devils and Satan are shown on nearly EVERY PAGE of the New Testament Gospel to be WITH and IN mankind.

There are your TWO VESSELS.

Did that sink in?

THE DEVIL and his children are THE VESSELS OF WRATH, THE VESSELS OF DISHONOUR, THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THE WICKED ONES, THE TARES.

And yes THEY are ALL predestined to BURN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE FOREVER.

See how easy that was?

enjoy!

smaller

P.S. I particularly DISlike posters positions who JEW BASH on these subjects and consider such views as either borderline anti-semetic or overtly same. Such methodologies are of the 'spirit of error.'

Well, I would certainly hope the Jew-bashing reference wasn't to me...

And to your points, I've read the Bible a lot and I wouldn't categorize it as that Devils and Satan are on nearly every page. Just considering that point you come off looking imbalanced. And no reasonable exegesis of Romans 9 would purport Paul's metaphor of vessels of wrath to mean the Devils within us. That's just silly. In Romans 9 he's clearly talking about the Jews and what his previous teachings really mean for them, how they view themselves, and how they view God and His promises. Romans 9 holds a logical, flowing argument where Paul is trying to explain how the Jews hould understand His messages and their ultimate place in God's eyes.

You'll remember that they thought they held a favored status and that the Gentiles were ultimately banished from God's family. Well, here in chapter 9 Paul is saying that God has chosen to include the Gentiles into His family. And if the Jews, who were first to be called God's family, were to object about that (and they were) Paul points out that if God could choose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, He can also choose the Gentiles (over) the Jews. Paul actually reverses the ages old analogies and uses Esau to refer to the Jews and Jacob to the Gentiles! Paul then likens the Jews to Pharoah, and even goes so far as to suggest, albeit half-heartedly, that maybe God even planned for the Jews to be predestined as vessels of wrath, awaiting destruction while God brings in the full nember of Gentiles!

Paul's teaching here is as remarkable as it is shocking, but it has nothing to do with any inner demons.

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

no person has been pre-destined to any fate

Thats a erronous statement !

Jude 1:

4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 pet 2:

12But these, as natural brute beasts, made [born] to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

 

[smaller]

Well, I would certainly hope the Jew-bashing reference wasn't to me...

And to your points, I've read the Bible a lot and I wouldn't categorize it as that Devils and Satan are on nearly every page.

My reference was primarily to the New Testament Gospels where the above is A FACT and clearly shows that MAN is not alone. Devils were shown by Jesus to be IN and WITHIN mankind and as such are the LOGICAL 'vessel of destruction' in the proverbial 'same lump' as Man to which Romans 9 speaks of.

There is no doubt that devils are 'vessels of destruction, wrath and condemnation.'

Just considering that point you come off looking imbalanced. And no reasonable exegesis of Romans 9 would purport Paul's metaphor of vessels of wrath to mean the Devils within us.

If you read Paul's own statements regarding EVIL PRESENT within himself and indwelling sin, which same is certainly LINKED to the devil, then Paul makes PERFECT SENSE in this matter. By the time we get to Romans 11 and see the SPIRIT OF SLUMBER that is PLACED upon unbelieving Israel we should also see something that is WITH Israel that is NOT Israel, that being THAT SPIRIT.

That's just silly. In Romans 9 he's clearly talking about the Jews and what his previous teachings really mean for them, how they view themselves, and how they view God and His promises. Romans 9 holds a logical, flowing argument where Paul is trying to explain how the Jews hould understand His messages and their ultimate place in God's eyes.

And I would submit that those unbeliever Jews were intentionally BLINDED by Gods placement of that SPIRIT upon them that was NOT THEM. Paul even elaborates on Gods Intentions in this matter in Romans 11, that it was in our BEHALVES that SPIRIT was put upon them.

In any case of sound judgments we should see that they were NOT ALONE in their BLINDING. We know that it is the 'god of this world' that BLINDS the unbelievers MINDS to the Gospel. This again shows a working of SATAN with MAN. No man should be JUDGED apart from this FACT.

I am not in the habit of blaming and accusing the BLINDED and CAPTURED of Satan because I know better from His Words.

You'll remember that they thought they held a favored status and that the Gentiles were ultimately banished from God's family. Well, here in chapter 9 Paul is saying that God has chosen to include the Gentiles into His family. And if the Jews, who were first to be called God's family, were to object about that (and they were) Paul points out that if God could choose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, He can also choose the Gentiles (over) the Jews. Paul actually reverses the ages old analogies and uses Esau to refer to the Jews and Jacob to the Gentiles! Paul then likens the Jews to Pharoah, and even goes so far as to suggest, albeit half-heartedly, that maybe God even planned for the Jews to be predestined as vessels of wrath, awaiting destruction while God brings in the full nember of Gentiles!

Anyone is welcome to revolve their judgments apart from factual disclosures. This is only evidence of ignorance of the workings of the BLINDER in these matters, and even more GODS USES and INTENTIONS for such blinding by an entity that is NOT MAN.

Paul's teaching here is as remarkable as it is shocking, but it has nothing to do with any inner demons.

Sin is OF THE DEVIL. (1 John 3:8) There is no way to DISCONNECT sin from the DEVIL in operations within MANKIND.

Paul had A DEVIL. Paul had EVIL PRESENT with him. Paul had indwelling sin which he termed 'NO LONGER I.'

It doesn't take a genius to make the connections of those workings to THE DEVIL, put them with Paul and understand WHO the 'vessels of destruction' are as a FACT.

s

 

[smaller]

smaller pm me. theres something you need to know.

drew if you dont mind. that will stop this easily.

i am a man of jewish lineage, i have family in isreal, russia,france. most of them are pro-isreal. i dont find the statements by drew or others that arent for the rise of isreal as prophetic to be anti-semitic.

drew has never said that he is for the dismantling of the state of isreal. He believes in their right to exist but not as a favored status by the u.s.

that i disagree with on the later, but that position of his isnt quite anti-semitic in nature.

Let's just say I am not a fan of deriding Jews on any basis. I have numerous friends of that faith and will admit to being sensitive about the FACT of Anti-semitism as I have seen it's operations first hand on the street, and IT'S an INFECTIOUS and EVIL spirit behind it, just as it is with ANY FORM of 'discrimination.'

I work in business fields where such matters are BLATANTLY ILLEGAL and have spent much time learning both overt and covert signs of these workings that even THE UNBELIEVERS understand.

I am quite surprised when believers 'don't get it.'

s

 

[savedbygrace57]

smaller:

Paul had A DEVIL

Thats not the Truth. Paul had the flesh [not the devil] which is evil by nature and not subject to but opposes the spiritual nature of Gods Law.

rom 7:

12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:

Even as regenerated Paul says my flesh ! He does not disown still having a sinful nature.


The flesh has never been subject to the Law of God, because the flesh is not spiritual.

ROM 8:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The greek word for carnal is:

sarx and means flesh.

So Paul is saying the flesh is enmity against God, and its not subject to the Law of God.

This was even true in the garden when the unfallen flesh of eve, when tempted, was found not to be subject to the law of God, and we know, or should know, that the devil was not in her at all.

The flesh is just naturally opposed to God and at enmity with Him.

So your statement about Paul is absolutely false and without scriptural support, in fact its borderline blasphemy to even suggest that one whom Christ has bound the strongman for, to suggest that he[the strongman] still possesses that one.

Thats showing disrespect for the Stronger Man, Christ !

lk 11:

20But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.


21When a strong man[The devil] armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

22But when a stronger[The Christ] than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

 

[Sinthesis]

The flesh has never been subject to the Law of God, because the flesh is not spiritual.

If this were true then Jesus would not have been able to heal the sick, much less raise the dead. All creation is subject to God's authority, even satan.

 

[savedbygrace57]

If this were true then Jesus would not have been able to heal the sick, much less raise the dead. All creation is subject to God's authority, even satan.

You do not know what you are saying, I have just backed up what I stated with scripture, of which you ignored !

 

[Drew]

If this were true then Jesus would not have been able to heal the sick, much less raise the dead. All creation is subject to God's authority, even satan.

I agree, and suggest that we all need to avoid seeing a "physical vs spiritual" dualism (thanks to our collective Platonic heritage) when the real meaning of Paul's spirit-flesh distinction is a "new creation" vs "fallen nature" distinction, that does not divide along any "material vs immaterial" lines.

 

[smaller]

Thats not the Truth. Paul had the flesh [not the devil] which is evil by nature and not subject to but opposes the spiritual nature of Gods Law.

With that view you are standing square on Gnostic heresy. Sorry. Evil 'material' matter (such as FLESH) was debunked centuries ago by many very fine christian theologians. The initial problem with that view is that it makes the flesh of Jesus EVIL, which of course was not and is not possible.

And yes, Paul did have EVIL PRESENT with him, that he termed NO LONGER I. Paul also had A DEVIL. (yeah, look it up, 2 Cor. 12:7) Paul also had the presence of indwelling sin, the works of which are OF THE DEVIL.

So there are your TWO VESSELS in PAUL, clearly seen and shown by Paul. Israel had the same problem. Their OTHER VESSEL was the SPIRIT OF SLUMBER that was PUT upon them by God no less. There is the OTHER VESSEL. Israel as it pertains to unbelieving JEWS can NOT, I repeat CAN NOT be the 'vessels of DISHONOUR' because scripture TEACHES us they are ALL GODS CHILDREN.

And as to your statement that the FLESH is not subject to GOD (or HIS WORDS, Law for example) you may be reminded of this fact:

John 17:2
As thou hast given him power over all flesh,

Paul taught in 1 Cor. 15 pertaining to the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD WE are ALL planted in WEAKNESS, CORRUPTION and DISHONOUR.

Pretty hard NOT to have A VESSEL OF DISHONOUR when we are in fact PLANTED or SOWN in SAME.

IF we don't, then MAYBE the RESURRECTION will not apply to such NON havers?
s