Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[Drew]

When he says, "So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy", at that point he is talking about all mankind. At that point he is talking about man and his Maker.

What Paul is talking about is that God has the right to decide to do what he wants. You assume that Paul then leverages that truth in order to make a statement about all mankind. You cannot, legitimately anyway do this. It is also possible that Paul establishes this general truth about God and his right to exercise and / or withhold mercy in the context of a specific situation. I think that Paul is indeed concerned with a specific situation - that sad state of Israel.

Which is, after all, the problem laid out at the beginning the chapter. You, by contrast, have Paul leaving the Israel problem aside and turning to an entirely different issue. I suggest that competent writers do not do such things.

 

[Drew]

Then you're not following Paul's train of thought.

How Mark? How am I not following his train of thought?

What does Paul open the chapter with? A statement about all mankind? No a statement about Israel. My position works with this, yours has Paul veering off to a different issue - the problem of mankind in general. So who is really following Paul's train of thought?

How does Paul conclude after giving the potter metaphor - with a statement that (most) Jews have missed out on righteousness and that God has laid a stumbling stone in, yes, Zion.

Not to mention the fact that from verse 6 of Romans 9 to the middle of chapter 10, we have Paul re-telling the entire covenant history of, yes, Israel. Not the whole world, but Israel. We get Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then captivity in Egypt, then quotes from Old Testament passages dealing with exile and return from exile, and then, in Romans 10, covenant renewal and the promised in-gathering of the Gentiles.

Its all there Mark - a complete re-telling of Israel's history. Not something else, like the story of all mankind, but Israel.

Now who is following Paul's argument? The "theory" I am advancing - that God has hardened Jews fits perfectly in the middle of what is, of course, a history of Israel.

How does a general theology of election, with no Israel-specificity whatsoever fit in the middle of an Israel history?

 

[Drew]

LOL Paul was feeling great sorrow for his kinsmen by race, so great that he could wish that he was accursed for their sake, and you say a problem of a lost Israel is clealy on the table. What the heck are you talking about?

What am I talking about? Mark - the chapter opens with Paul lamenting on the sad state of Israel. And after the potter metaphor we have Paul still dealing with the same issue - saying that God laid a stumbling stone in Zion and that (most) Jews have not "attained righteousness - do you not see that laying this stone in Zion functions to explain why Israel is in the sad state she is in? And, as I can show you in detail, Romans 9 through the first bit of 10 is all about Israel's history.

So what am I talking about? I am talking about what Paul is talking about - Israel.

I agree they were hardened. I agree branches were cut off so that the Gentiles could be grafted in. I agree God hardened them. But Paul does not say they can not be grafted back in again. In fact he says in 11:23 that they will be grafted back in if they do not persist in their disbelief. The vessels of wrath are a different story.

No. Paul's statement about the vessels of wrath is not a statement that God will always be hardening Jews as you seem to think my position involves. As should be clear, Romans 9 to the first bit of 10 is a history of Israel. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that this hardening of Jews continued beyond a certain point.

Once again you seem to assume something that the text does not support - that the vessels of wrath category is some timeless category. And assuming this, you infer contradiction in my position by pointing out that Jews can be grafted in. Of course they can! I never said this was not possible. I said, repeatedly I might add, that Paul is talking about a specific historical hardening of Jews.

The vessels of wrath are the ones who do not acknowledge God. By their wickedness they suppress the truth about God.

There is simply no textual evidence to support this. You cannot simply look back to any old section you want to, find Paul saying negative things about "all mankind" and simply assume that the vessels of destruction are all mankind.

This is an Israel section, from beginning to end. A treatment of some universal theory of election is decidedly out of place. Would you tell a story about the history of the United States and insert some material with no American specificity whatseover in the middle? I would hope not.

 

[Drew]

There may be numerous reasons for hardening Drew..... .....God is not a respecter of persons. He is an equal opportunity hardener

I have already fully addressed all the objections from this post. There is no point repeating what has already been posted.

 

[smaller]

I have already fully addressed all the objections from this post. There is no point repeating what has already been posted.

Drew, unbelieving JEWS and GENTILES are ALL blinded in the IDENTICAL FASHION.

By the 'god of this world.'

Your views have ZERO accounting of this reality. You and I were LIKEWISE blinded before faith came. So no, it was NOT just the 'unbelieving Jews' and you have NOT addressed this FACT whatsoever, but merely blame the BLIND and IGNORE the 'CAUSE.'

s

 

[Drew]

Drew, unbelieving JEWS and GENTILES are ALL blinded in the IDENTICAL FASHION.

By the 'god of this world.'

Your views have ZERO accounting of this reality.

I do not deny that the "god of this world" can, did, and does blind people, both Jew and Gentile.

Unlike you, I realize that, while this is indeed true, it is simply not what Paul is talking about in Romans 9.

Why do you assume that because something is true, it must be addressed in Romans 9? That would make for a pretty big chapter. Lots of things are true, but Paul is not obligated to speak of them every time he opens his mouth.

 

[Drew]

So no, it was NOT just the 'unbelieving Jews' and you have NOT addressed this FACT whatsoever, but merely blame the BLIND and IGNORE the 'CAUSE.'

I have never blamed anybody. Do you not feel any obligation to have actual evidence for such claims.

 

[smaller]

I do not deny that the "god of this world" can, did, and does blind people, both Jew and Gentile.

Unlike you, I realize that, while this is indeed true, it is simply not what Paul is talking about in Romans 9.

There is no reason to believe the sin indwelling Jews is any different than that indwelling Gentiles. Same working, ALL evil. Same with the 'cause' and working of BLINDNESS in unbelievers...ALL caused by the 'god of this world' whether in JEW or in GENTILE.

Why do you assume that because something is true, it must be addressed in Romans 9? That would make for a pretty big chapter. Lots of things are true, but Paul is not obligated to speak of them every time he opens his mouth.

There is nothing in Romans 9 that means JEWS ONLY are 'vessels of destruction' which same understanding Paul DIRECTLY REFUTES in Romans 11.

Here Paul says your understanding is OUT OF WHACK:

1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.


It is IMPossible for BLINDED JEWS (the ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL) to be 'vessels of DESTRUCTION' ...

...because they will ALL BE SAVED and are ALL LOVED for the sakes of their fathers just as Paul taught.

And NO, you have never addressed this FACT. And even if you did and did NOT agree with Paul it won't matter. Paul is CORRECT and JEWS will be SAVED just as he states.

s

 

[Drew]

There is no reason to believe the sin indwelling Jews is any different than that indwelling Gentiles. Same working, ALL evil. Same with the 'cause' and working of BLINDNESS in unbelievers...ALL caused by the 'god of this world' whether in JEW or in GENTILE.

The problem is that you cannot assume that Paul is addressing this issue in Romans 9. Lots of things are true - it doesn't mean that they are addressed everywhere in the Bible.

There is nothing in Romans 9 that means JEWS ONLY are 'vessels of destruction' which same understanding Paul DIRECTLY REFUTES in Romans 11.

I had this same issue with MarkT.

My position is entirely coherent with Romans 11. I never said that all Jews are hardened and at all times. If I did, then you would have a point.

My position is that the hardening "stopped" at the cross - the hardening was only effective for a particular interval of history. Pharoah was hardened - does acknowledging this entail believing that all other Pharaohs from that day forward are also hardened? No.

Paul is making an historical argument. You obviously cannot deny that Romans 9 through the first bit of 10 is a history of Israel. Clearly, it is. So since Paul is not talking about "all time" here, neither do I. Paul is saying that some Jews have been hardened in the time leading up to the cross. But it stops there.

 

[MarkT]

Well, yes. And if law increases trespass it increases trespass.

Which is what I have been more or less saying all along - the Law functions to make Israel more sinful. It does not simply reveal sin (although it does that as well) it increases it.

Paul says something similar in 1 Corinthians 15 where he says that the power of sin is the law. We need to take him at his word - Paul is saying that sin (which Paul clearly sees as a power or force - not just a moral category into which actions are slotted - see Romans 7) - gains power from the law.

So, strange at it may seem, Paul is saying that the Law of Moses makes the person under it more sinful, not less.

Do you know what the law says? The law isn't just the ten commandments. The law says, if you break a commandment, you are guilty of a sin, and you will die. So the law gives sin its' power to work death in the mortal body.

I agree the law makes us more sinful. But there's nothing strange about it.

Law came in to increase Adam's trespass. In other words, because Adam trespassed all men die, but then the law came into effect, and sin increased. How did it increase? People gained the knowledge of sin, that is, if you break the law it is a sin, and people enjoyed doing sinful things. They broke the law. So sin increased.

 

[MarkT]

I politely suggest that "common sense" has very little to do with the entire Biblical story. Common sense would suggest that "the powers" won a great victory when they dispatched Jesus on the Cross. But the strange and wonderful truth is this: the powers were themselves defeated as Jesus died on the cross (Paul tells us this). This is hardly common sense.

Common sense tells us that the way to "get things done" is to acquire power and use it. This idea is all over the place in the modern world -we are told to

I don't know what your definition of common sense is. I said it's common sense meaning anyone knows the law doesn't harden the heart.

Well, then Paul is saying something absurd, because I did not write "the power of sin is the law" or "the law was added to make transgression increase" or "through the law, sin becomes utterly sinful". Paul wrote these things not me.

I know you didn't but it's hardly relevant. Where does it say the law hardens the heart? Paul isn't saying it.

Let's talk about Romans 7. Here is more relevant material:

But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for for me?May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful

Look at all the things Pauls says that support my argument:

First of all, what argument are you making? That the law hardens the heart? Or that you have no sense?

1. He says that sin used the Law as the means to produce coveting in Paul. Is that common sense? No. But there it is.

What do you mean it's not common sense? Should anyone know it? No. So what is your point? Anyone knows the law doesn't harden the heart. You know stealing is a sin. How does that harden the heart? You could argue sin hardens the heart. But not the law. Perhaps a man could get used to killing for example. But the law is not sin, as Paul said. Romans 7:7

What Paul is saying is the commandment made everything Paul wanted coveting.

How does this support your argument? Where does Paul say the law hardens the heart?

2. He suggests that sin is dead apart from the law. An exaggeration to make his point perhaps, but this is not a statement that sin is simply revealed by the law - it is a statement that sin, which is clearly seen here by Paul as a power or force, is given energy / life through the law.

It's not an exaggeration. Apart from the law sin lies dead. It has no power. The law which says you will die gives sin the power to kill. Where does Paul say anything about the heart?

3. He says that the giving of the law resulted in his death! Common sense? No. But there it is.

Where does he say anything about the heart? How does this support youur argument?

4. He then repeats these ideas and concludes with this important distinction: it was not the law that "killed him" but sin, using the law that killed him. The giving of the law energized sin and resulted in his death. And we can easily say that the law hardened Paul.

No you can’t.

The LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart several times. How did he do it? Did he give Pharaoh the law? No. It even goes beyond the heart dulled by hearing or the heart hardened by sin. The LORD did it.

 

[MarkT]

Originally Posted by MarkT
When he says, "So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy", at that point he is talking about all mankind. At that point he is talking about man and his Maker.

What Paul is talking about is that God has the right to decide to do what he wants. You assume that Paul then leverages that truth in order to make a statement about all mankind. You cannot, legitimately anyway do this. It is also possible that Paul establishes this general truth about God and his right to exercise and / or withhold mercy in the context of a specific situation. I think that Paul is indeed concerned with a specific situation - that sad state of Israel.

Sorry. That is not what Paul said. Paul said election depends on God's mercy. It doesn't depend upon man's will or exertion. And he says man's will. He doesn't say a Jewish man's will.

LOL How did you get back to the 'sad state of Israel'?

Which is, after all, the problem laid out at the beginning the chapter. You, by contrast, have Paul leaving the Israel problem aside and turning to an entirely different issue. I suggest that competent writers do not do such things.

Of course that's the problem. Somehow you keep going back to the sad state of Israel.

 

[MarkT]

Then you're not following Paul's train of thought.

How Mark? How am I not following his train of thought?

What does Paul open the chapter with? A statement about all mankind? No a statement about Israel. My position works with this, yours has Paul veering off to a different issue - the problem of mankind in general. So who is really following Paul's train of thought?

Paul said he had anguish in his heart for his kinsmen who didn't believe. According to your logic Paul should continue to talk about his feelings or he's a bad writer.

Then he makes a statement about his people, the Israelites. He says, 'They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

So at this point, if you follow his train of thought, he is talking about the covenants and the promises. Nothing about the sad state of Israel.

How does Paul conclude after giving the potter metaphor - with a statement that (most) Jews have missed out on righteousness and that God has laid a stumbling stone in, yes, Zion.

At that point he is talking about the Gentiles and faith, etc.

Not to mention the fact that from verse 6 of Romans 9 to the middle of chapter 10, we have Paul re-telling the entire covenant history of, yes, Israel. Not the whole world, but Israel. We get Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then captivity in Egypt, then quotes from Old Testament passages dealing with exile and return from exile, and then, in Romans 10, covenant renewal and the promised in-gathering of the Gentiles.

Is that all you see? Don't you see anything pertaining to election? That's what I mean. You're not reading Paul's letter. You're looking for names, patterns, parallels, evidence.

Its all there Mark - a complete re-telling of Israel's history. Not something else, like the story of all mankind, but Israel.

Now who is following Paul's argument? The "theory" I am advancing - that God has hardened Jews fits perfectly in the middle of what is, of course, a history of Israel.

How does a general theology of election, with no Israel-specificity whatsoever fit in the middle of an Israel history?

Paul's purpose is not to retell the history of Israel per se. He is telling us about God, our Father, the Father of us all when he talks about God's purpose of election. Of course he has to go back to the promises made to Abraham to tell us about it but that's not to retell history. Of course he has to talk about Issac and Jacob and Essau - to make his point. It's God's purpose. When he wants to make a point about God's will and his mercy he brings up Pharoah.

You're not following his train of thought at all. What's Paul's purpose Drew? Was Paul called to preach the gospel or was he called to teach us Jewish history?

 

[Drew]

Do you know what the law says? The law isn't just the ten commandments.

Do you really think I did not know this?

The law says, if you break a commandment, you are guilty of a sin, and you will die. So the law gives sin its' power to work death in the mortal body.

No. Paul says that sin kills even in the absence of the Law of Moses:

for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command,

Paul cannot be misunderstood here - sin kills apart from the law. So you cannot say that Paul is saying that the Law gives "power" to sin by bringing death that would not otherwise happen. Sin leads to death regardless of the existence of law. I understand your strategy here - argue that the Law empowers sin in the sense of bringing about a death penalty. But this cannot be reconciled with what Paul writes above in Romans 5.

Law came in to increase Adam's trespass.

No. It is the Law of Moses that Paul is referring to in Romans 5:20. Do you not agree? I can explain why "law" in 5:20 has to be the Law of Moses, if you do not otherwise see this from reading the verse in context.

In other words, because Adam trespassed all men die, but then the law came into effect, and sin increased. How did it increase? People gained the knowledge of sin, that is, if you break the law it is a sin, and people enjoyed doing sinful things. They broke the law. So sin increased.

No. It is conceivable that Romans 5:20 could perhaps be read as a statement that the Law gives knowledge of sin. I think it means that the Law actually energizes sin, over and above revealing it.

But the matter is settled by a statement like this:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire

There should be mistaking Paul here - the commandment (i.e. the law of Moses from context) generates evil desires in those who are under it. It does not simply "reveal" those desires.

 

[Drew]

I don't know what your definition of common sense is. I said it's common sense meaning anyone knows the law doesn't harden the heart.

This is not a legitimate argument. You cannot, legitimately anyway, refute my Biblically grounded argument by appealing to common sense. There are a lot of things in the Bible that contradict common sense.

 

[Drew]

I know you didn't but it's hardly relevant. Where does it say the law hardens the heart? Paul isn't saying it.

I have already addressed this. Paul says it in Romans 5, Romans 7, and I Corinthians 15. When, in all those places, Paul states that sin gets energized and empowered by the Law, this is effectively a statement that the Law "hardens" the person who is under it. A person who is made more sinful is "hardened".

First of all, what argument are you making? That the law hardens the heart? Or that you have no sense?

I believe my arguments are clear. And since I am taking Paul at his word, and you are not, I hardly think it is me who has "no sense".

I think you will find that such dismissive and insulting tactics will not deter me. I will continue to make the relevant textual arguments, and leave the personal insults to others.

 

[Drew]

1. He says that sin used the Law as the means to produce coveting in Paul. Is that common sense? No. But there it is.

What do you mean it's not common sense? Should anyone know it? No. So what is your point? Anyone knows the law doesn't harden the heart. You know stealing is a sin. How does that harden the heart? You could argue sin hardens the heart. But not the law. Perhaps a man could get used to killing for example. But the law is not sin, as Paul said. Romans 7:7

What Paul is saying is the commandment made everything Paul wanted coveting.

How does this support your argument? Where does Paul say the law hardens the heart?

You cannot simply claim "anyone knows that the law does not harden the heart" and use that "rule" to trump what Paul is saying. Paul says what he says! The giving of the Law produced covetous desires in him!

I never said that the Law was sin, I said - or rather I simply take Paul at his word when he says - the law produced covetous desires in him.

Now to clarify: Paul is saying that the Law gives sin energy and power. What he says here in Romans 7, and in 1 Cor 15 cannot be read as statements that the law simply reveals sin. Many try to make that case - but they bend and morph what Paul says in the process. I take it as self-evident that if a person is given a law that makes them more sinful, this function to harden them. Perhaps you disagree with with this. Fine, forget about that. The important point is that Paul is saying that the Law gives energy, life, and power to sin - it does not simply reveal it. So if this is true - it easy to see how, in Romans 9, Paul could see the Law as being the cause for Israel's unbelief - that the law caused sin to grow in national Israel (or at least in many Jews). And this explains why they are in the sad state they are in. This still leads us to the conclusion that the vessels of desctruction are these Jews, even if you do not want to say they are specifically hardened.

Now to this statement of yours:

What Paul is saying is the commandment made everything Paul wanted coveting

You are doing the very thing that many people do - introduce subtle alterations into what Paul actually wrote to have him say something else. What you assert here is simply not a legitimate reading of this text:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire

The text does not say what you say it says - it does not say that the "law" functioned to identify Paul's sinful thoughts as "coveting". The text says that sin, through the Law, produced covetous desire in Paul.

Now unless you are prepared to take Paul at his word, and not morph what he says into something else, we are probably at an impasse.

 

[Drew]

It's not an exaggeration. Apart from the law sin lies dead. It has no power. The law which says you will die gives sin the power to kill.

No. This simply cannot be true in light of this statement from Paul, if nothing else:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,

The Law most definitely does not give sin the power to kill. Paul here says that sin can and does kill apart from law.

 

[Drew]

The LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart several times. How did he do it? Did he give Pharaoh the law? No. It even goes beyond the heart dulled by hearing or the heart hardened by sin. The LORD did it.

I have already argued that I do need to my assertion that "the law energizing sin" if essentially equivalent to, or necessarily leads to, "hardening". The relevant point is that the Law gives energy and power to sin, and this is enough to support my case that the "vessels of destruction" are Jews and Jews only, subject to the sin-inducing influence of the law.

Now I have dealt with the Pharoah issue before. The fact that Pharoah was hardened without the Law of Moses does not mean that God cannot use the Law of Moses to harden the Jew or, if you like, make him more sinful, and not just by the effect of the Law revealing sin.

 

[Drew]

Paul's purpose is not to retell the history of Israel per se.

Circular argument. The text is what it is Mark. You cannot simply presume to know what Paul's purpose and ignore the manifest fact that Romans 9:6 to the middle of Romans 10 is a condensed re-telling of the history of Israel. I can post the detailed case for this if you like, but is it a coincidence that we start with Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Moses and Pharoah, then quotes from Old Testament texts that speak of exile for, yes, Israel, and restoration of yes, Israel. Then in chapter 10, Paul is still talking about Israel and her status up to the present time.

There is simply no denying that this is a summary of overview of Israel. It has all the important elements and it is chronologically sequenced. It is what it is Mark - a history of Israel.

He is telling us about God, our Father, the Father of us all when he talks about God's purpose of election. Of course he has to go back to the promises made to Abraham to tell us about it but that's not to retell history. Of course he has to talk about Issac and Jacob and Essau - to make his point. It's God's purpose. When he wants to make a point about God's will and his mercy he brings up Pharoah.

You are begging the very question at issue - you cannot, legitimately anyway, simply "tell us" what Paul is saying. You need to do what I have done in this thread - make an actual argument.

You're not following his train of thought at all. What's Paul's purpose Drew? Was Paul called to preach the gospel or was he called to teach us Jewish history?

Again, this is begs the question. You seem to presume that a history of Israel cannot be relevant to a "teaching of the gospel".

An exceedingly dubious position indeed, especially since God repeatedly tells Abraham that his descendents will bless the world. Now the news of Jesus and what he has done is certainly a blessing for the world.

So if Paul believes that God has kept his promise to Abraham, we should very much expect a treatment of Israel's role in the "gospel".