Created for hell

Theo1689

Well-known member
So you seriously believe there has never been a Calvinist that used Calvin as a reference for their beliefs?

Calvinists use SCRIPTURE to support their beliefs, not "Calvin".

They may quote Calvin because he worded an explanation (of SCRIPTURE) particularly well, or they may quote Calvin in a discussion of "what Calvin believed", but we ALWAYS quote SCRIPTURE (not Calvin) for our beliefs.

We hold to "sola SCRIPTURA", in case you weren't aware, not "Sola Calvin".
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You avoid my other sentence. Are you denying that Esau repented? God didn't hate Esau after he repented.

I'm getting ready to "avoid" ALL your posts.

Do you think you can force people into discussions with you?
Is that the kind of "Christianity" you practice?
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Calvinists use SCRIPTURE to support their beliefs, not "Calvin".

They may quote Calvin because he worded an explanation (of SCRIPTURE) particularly well, or they may quote Calvin in a discussion of "what Calvin believed", but we ALWAYS quote SCRIPTURE (not Calvin) for our beliefs.

We hold to "sola SCRIPTURA", in case you weren't aware, not "Sola Calvin".

Well. You have a rather high opinion of yet sinful men.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
I'm getting ready to "avoid" ALL your posts.

Do you think you can force people into discussions with you?
Is that the kind of "Christianity" you practice?

I know you don't like my questions. I've been doing this for a very long time. I know where the arguments really "lay".

It is unmistakable that Paul uses the story of Jacob's/Esau's "birthright" as an allegory. It is an appeal to a contrast. It was never a literal example of God's choice literally in Jacob and Esau. Esau repented and that destroys that narrative you're painting.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I know you don't like my questions. I've been doing this for a very long time. I know where the arguments really "lay".

It is unmistakable that Paul uses the story of Jacob's/Esau's "birthright" as an allegory. It is an appeal to a contrast. It was never a literal example of God's choice literally in Jacob and Esau. Esau repented and that destroys that narrative you're painting.

Yeah, this is what you guys do....
You try to force discussions with people who aren't interested, and when they refuse, you make "victory" claims that we're dodging you because we can't answer the questions.

So either you succeed in FORCING people into discussions they're not interested in, or else you proclaim a hollow and worthless "victory".

I'm sorry that you can't deal with the fact that I disagree with your OPINION.
And proclaiming your errant opinion as "unmistakable" doesn't make it any less your opinion, or any less false. If you are so insecure that you can't deal with people disagreeing with you, then that's your problem, not mine.

But I'm not here to be harassed, so welcome to my "ignore" file, and I hope you enjoy your worthless "victory" proclamation.
 

civic

Well-known member
I know you don't like my questions. I've been doing this for a very long time. I know where the arguments really "lay".

It is unmistakable that Paul uses the story of Jacob's/Esau's "birthright" as an allegory. It is an appeal to a contrast. It was never a literal example of God's choice literally in Jacob and Esau. Esau repented and that destroys that narrative you're painting.
How do you deal with Hebrews 12 below

See that no one is sexually immoral, or is profane like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

and 1 Timothy
We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers,

profane—Fornication is nearly akin to gluttony, Esau's sin. He profanely cast away his spiritual privilege for the gratification of his palate. Ge 25:34 graphically portrays him. An example well fitted to strike needful horror into the Hebrews, whosoever of them, like Esau, were only sons of Isaac according to the flesh [Bengel].JFB

hope this helps !!!
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
How do you deal with Hebrews 12 below

See that no one is sexually immoral, or is profane like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

and 1 Timothy
We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers,

There is no doubt that Esau was once such a person. However, he later accepted Jacob's birthright and embraced his brother and Jacob's rightful inheritance.

Both authors of Hebrews and 1 Timothy are appealing to the allegorical nature of birthright.

"I set before you this day, a blessing and a curse"...... as witnessed in the very lives of Esau and Jacob
 

civic

Well-known member
There is no doubt that Esau was once such a person. However, he later accepted Jacob's birthright and embraced his brother and Jacob's rightful inheritance.

Both authors of Hebrews and 1 Timothy are appealing to the allegorical nature of birthright.

"I set before you this day, a blessing and a curse"...... as witnessed in the very lives of Esau and Jacob
Yet they refer to him as one describing an unbeliever not a believer. In other words his character never changed in every instance he is mentioned in the N.T. Would you agree with that ?
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Yeah, this is what you guys do....
You try to force discussions with people who aren't interested, and when they refuse, you make "victory" claims that we're dodging you because we can't answer the questions.

So either you succeed in FORCING people into discussions they're not interested in, or else you proclaim a hollow and worthless "victory".

I'm sorry that you can't deal with the fact that I disagree with your OPINION.
And proclaiming your errant opinion as "unmistakable" doesn't make it any less your opinion, or any less false. If you are so insecure that you can't deal with people disagreeing with you, then that's your problem, not mine.

But I'm not here to be harassed, so welcome to my "ignore" file, and I hope you enjoy your worthless "victory" proclamation.

So you only want to discuss what you want to discuss?

I generally try to give and get.

I'm not claiming victory.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Yeah.... So I asked you before I wrote this, if I responded, would you address the passages, or simply go "nuh-Huh". And you said you'd address the passages.

I knew you wouldn't live up to your word.



Let's see... I quoted (and exegeted) Rom. 9:9-26.

I guess you missed, "but Esau I hated" (v.13);
I guess you missed, "and he hardens whomever he wills" (v.18),
I guess you missed, "to make out ... another for dishonourable use" (v.21),
I guess you missed, "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (v.22),



I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read the OP.
As you know our topic was narrow, Did God create people he hated who He intended to punish in Hell?
You knew that was the topic and you claimed the Romans passage addressed it.
I did not see much in what you said that could be considered on topic, but I did address the parts I thought were.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Yet they refer to him as one describing an unbeliever not a believer. In other words his character never changed in every instance he is mentioned in the N.T. Would you agree with that ?

No. I believe his character did change.

When the writer of Hebrew relates that "he found no place for repentance".... it is in reference to God not changing His mind about the conditions that displease him. No matter what Esau thought. It wasn't HIS birthright. God had chosen Jacob. Which is an allegory to God choice in good and evil. Those in Christ and those that remain the children of the devil.

That doesn't mean that things can't change otherwise. Esau did find repentance. His repentance was accepting God's choice in Jacob. Which is something we all must do ourselves. Jacob is an allegory of Jesus Christ. God's choice. The only ONE with the real birthright.
 

civic

Well-known member
As you know our topic was narrow, Did God create people he hated who He intended to punish in Hell?
You knew that was the topic and you claimed the Romans passage addressed it.
I did not see much in what you said that could be considered on topic, but I did address the parts I thought were.
No you did not address anything in the text from Romans 9, only your ideas.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Yet they refer to him as one describing an unbeliever not a believer. In other words his character never changed in every instance he is mentioned in the N.T. Would you agree with that ?

Brother there is a beautiful allegory here that you're missing.....

Gen 33:3 And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.
Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

It is the settling of enmity between the seed of God (Jesus Christ) and the former seed of the devil. (US)
 

civic

Well-known member
Brother there is a beautiful allegory here that you're missing.....

Gen 33:3 And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.
Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

It is the settling of enmity between the seed of God (Jesus Christ) and the former seed of the devil. (US)
I know the brothers embraced and appears he was forgiven by Jacob but that doesn’t mean God forgave him and from the NT it describes him as evil, no place for repentance , profane and wicked. Those are not descriptions of a believer but an unbeliever who was profane—Fornication is akin to gluttony, Esau's sin. He profanely cast away his spiritual privilege for the gratification of his palate.We will have to agree to disagree on his standing before God snd we will find out one day in the resurrection. But I’ve enjoyed the conversation even though we see it differently. Take care!
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
I know the brothers embraced and appears he was forgiven by Jacob but that doesn’t mean God forgave him and from the NT it describes him as evil, no place for repentance , profane and wicked. Those are not descriptions of a believer but an unbeliever who was profane—Fornication is akin to gluttony, Esau's sin. He profanely cast away his spiritual privilege for the gratification of his palate.We will have to agree to disagree on his standing before God snd we will find out one day in the resurrection. But I’ve enjoyed the conversation even though we see it differently. Take care!

Let it work on your for a while. New bread sometimes surprises us to the point we don't really know what to do with it at first. Lord be with you brother.
 

squirrelyguy

Active member
This is very poor hermeneutics.
The two passages aren't even closely related to each other.

The base meaning of "μισεω" is "hate", or "detest". And so there is no reason to doubt that meaning in Rom. 9 and Mal. 1. The reason it doesn't mean that in Luke 14 is because in that verse, "μισεω" is meant in a relative sense. We should love Jesus SOOOOO much, that our feelings for our parents and family seem like "hatred" by comparison. Since Scripture teaches that we are to love even our enemy, and honour our parents, it can't mean "hate" in the literal sense, IN THAT PARTICULAR CONTEXT.

Romans 9 has no similar context to warrant a similar meaning.
But Luke 14:26 has no immediate context upon which to doubt the severity of the word "hate" either...unless you take the entire Bible as one harmonious context, which you do when you point out that we are told elsewhere to love our enemy and honor our parents. On the other hand, at least the word "hate" in Romans 9 has the context of Romans 11, which happens to be the conclusion to what Paul is discussing in chapter 9!

I would simply ask you one question.... If God TRULY hated Esau in the literal sense, how do you suppose He could convey that to us in Scripture, with out you weaselling your way out of that understanding? Your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore invalid.
If God truly hated Esau to the extent that He desires his eternal damnation and actively plotted it, then Scripture would have to be much more forceful than saying "Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated." When Paul buttresses the point of that verse by quoting another verse "The elder shall serve the younger," it makes it all the less likely that the point Paul is making is that God desired Esau's eternal damnation. What relevance does a verse about servitude have with God's desire for one's eternal destiny?

Rom. 11:32 isn't about "Esau and Pharaoh".
It's about "all" of the ELECT, "all" of the "vessels of honour".
"All" of WHO HE IS WRITING TO (ie. the church).
You bolded the wrong word when quoting those verses back to me. Here is how you should have done it:

"For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."

If we seek to interpret these verses as naturally as possible, how can we avoid interpreting the "they" and "them" here as being anyone other than 1) those who Paul said in chapter 9 were formed for destruction, and yet 2) are ultimately going to be given the opportunity to receive mercy?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
But Luke 14:26 has no immediate context upon which to doubt the severity of the word "hate" either...

Okay, we will disagree about that.
But you REALLY believe that (and I think it's clear that you don't), then why not accept the literal meaning of "μισεω" instead of denying it?

unless you take the entire Bible as one harmonious context, which you do when you point out that we are told elsewhere to love our enemy and honor our parents.

Exactly!

And there is no reason not to take "μισεω" literally in Rom. 9.

Or how about this?
If we shouldn't take "μισεω" literally, then neither should we take "αγαπαω" literally.
Are you down with THAT?!

On the other hand, at least the word "hate" in Romans 9 has the context of Romans 11, which happens to be the conclusion to what Paul is discussing in chapter 9!

Not sure what your point is...
I've already addressed Rom.11.
I'm guessing we're not going to agree on that, either, but I don't see the point in simply repeating yourself over and over.

You presented what you think is an argument.
I don't buy it.
Move on.

If God truly hated Esau to the extent that He desires his eternal damnation and actively plotted it, then Scripture would have to be much more forceful than saying "Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated."

I see no reason to agree with your assumption here.

When Paul buttresses the point of that verse by quoting another verse "The elder shall serve the younger," it makes it all the less likely that the point Paul is making is that God desired Esau's eternal damnation.

I see no reason to agree with your assumption here.

You bolded the wrong word when quoting those verses back to me. Here is how you should have done it:

Again, we disagree on the interpretation of Rom. 11.
I don't believe you're correctly understanding it as God intended it.
Simply repeating yourself isn't moving discussion forward (unless your purpose is to try to brainwash me?).

If we seek to interpret these verses as naturally as possible, how can we avoid interpreting the "they" and "them" here as being anyone other than 1) those who Paul said in chapter 9 were formed for destruction, and yet 2) are ultimately going to be given the opportunity to receive mercy?

I've already explained it to you.
You reject my interpretation.
Just as I reject yours.

Have a nice day.
 

Stephen

Active member
Rom. 9:9. . . For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” . . .

Okay, here we see Paul talking about Rebekah and the twins, and pointing out that God's "election" occurred before the twins were born, or before they had done anything, "good or bad".

So God's election is NOT based on "foreseen actions", or "foreseen decisions", since Paul explicitly DENIES that it was based on anything the twins did, and made the argument that their election was before they were born.

And then he says that God had chosen, before the twins were born, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated".

Please note that it doesn't say that God hated "things" Esau did, or "decisions" Esau made. It says He hated ESAU himself. And if you want to deny that God hated Esau, then you would have to likewise deny that God loved Jacob, since they are parallel passages.

(Note: I edited out the Romans 9 quotes in your post to get under the 10k character limit.)

In context, Romans 9 is Paul explaining that God's promises haven't failed even though physical Israel has failed many times through history. And once again, physical Israel has failed, this time in recognizing the messiah. He begins this particular point in verse 6.

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Here Paul says that even though Isaac and Ismael were sons of Abraham, one was accepted and one was rejected. Physical descent isn't the deciding factor as to you are God's people. God's promise would still come true.

Paul, next addresses the counter argument to be made by his opponents, that Isaac and Ismael had different mothers and physical descent through the mother might still matter. (meaning he recognizes that verses 6-8 are merely compatible with his thesis, not proof of his thesis).

Paul now uses two sons born of the same mother, Jacob and Esau, where one was accepted and one was rejected. The prophecy in Genesis 25:23 is that one will serve the other before they were born, not that one would be accepted or rejected. Paul then quotes Malachi 1:2-3, written hundreds of years later to show that one was loved and one was hated. This isn't a predestination prophecy, this is something stated hundreds of years after the fact.

Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! . . ..

What this is basically saying is, "I give mercy to whoever I want, and I will have compassion on whoever I want." Remember, we just saw that God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau before they were ever born, not based on ANYTHING they had done. Paul is simply expanding on this.

So God's mercy does not depend on what we do ("human will or exertion"),
but solely on God.

Here Paul uses another scripture example. Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 where God is about to pass before Moses and show him his glory. In the context of Exodus 33, God will lead the Israelites, not because of Israel's favor with God or any individual Israelites favor with God, but because of Moses having favor with God.

Note, this isn't a statement about individuals, this is a statement about a group of people. Like the Jewish example, God leads Christians because Jesus has favor with God.

Rom. 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” . . .

He then brings up the example of Pharaoh, where God's purpose in creating Pharaoh was to have His (God's) name proclaimed throughout the Earth. God arranged the whole thing, from having Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery in Egypt (Gen. 50:20), to the famine, to bringing Joseph's family back to Egypt to save them from the famine, to hardening Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the Jews go, to give God opportunity to perform all his plague miracles, and then parting the Red Sea to allow the Jews to finally escape.

All to proclaim the glory of God!

And Paul reiterates the idea of God "having mercy on whomever he wants", just as God "hardens whomever He wills". This reminds us of God hardening Pharaoh's heart every time Moses asked to let the people go, each refusal resulting in the opportunity to perform yet another plague miracle.

God has mercy on whom He wills ("Jacob I loved"),
and God hardens whomever He wants ("Esau I hated").
All before we were ever born (ie. election, cf. Eph. 1:4ff).

Next Paul offers another proof to his point regarding the surety of God's promises. He quotes Exodus 9:16. In context, Pharaoh, the most powerful man in the world known to Israel, hardened his own heart multiple times before God gives him over to his choice. This is similar to the process in Romans 1:18-32 where God gives people over to what they want. Of the fourteen times in Exodus Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, the first seven were Pharaoh hardening his own heart (Exodus 7-9). Pharaoh had seen many proofs of God's power yet still resisted. So God let Pharaoh have his hard heart and the consequences thereof.

Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” . . .

And Paul expects his readers to come up with this objection, he's probably heard it many times before. "God can do whatever He wants". "But that's not FAIR!!!!!! Waaaaaahhhhh!!!"

But God is God.
He can do whatever He wants, as Creator of the universe.
Just like a sculptor can make a sculpture any way HE wants.

God is the "molder".
We are the "molded".
God is the "potter".
We are the "clay".

And as the Potter, He can make us any way He wants. He can "have compassion" for us, or He can "harden" us.

And it is important to note that while God is making "vessels of honour" and "vessels of dishonour", he makes each from the SAME LUMP of clay. So the difference in the vessels ("honour" vs. "dishonour") is not based on the clay, but is based on the Potter's intention.

Like the previous points, Paul is leaning on scripture to make his point using the example of the potter. This time Isaiah 45:9 and Jeremiah 18:6 are brought forth.

In Jeremiah 18:6. In this passage, God tells Jeremiah to go to a potter’s house to see how God deals with a rebellious Israel, who have continually disobeyed and chosen to rebel against God. This isn't about individual predestination, this is about a group of people.

In Isaiah 45:9 God is referring to His ability to raise up Cyrus the Persian king of kings to end the Babylonian exile, and free the Jews from captivity. Here, the potter and clay analogy is about God fulfilling his promise despite the captivity. Again, this example isn't about individual predestination, this is again about a group of people.

Rom. 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, . . .

It would be sufficient for God (through Paul) to simply teach us that He does this. But He does more, he explains to us WHY He has hardened some and shown compassion to others.

Noticed that Not only has God prepared "vessels of wrath" (= "vessels of dishonour"), but they were prepared "FOR DESTRUCTION" (ie. "destined for hell"). And the reason He created them "for destruction" was to:
- "show his wrath";
- "make known his power";
- demonstrated "much patience" (in not smiting the vessels of dishonour upon their first sin, but allowing them to live full lives before meeting their destiny);
- "make known the riches of his glory" for us, the "vessels of mercy".

As Paul points out, God endures with much patience the vessels he prepares for destruction. The question is, when were they prepared? In eternity past, or did their preparation began when they chose to deny the obvious power of God (As the process in Romans 1:18-32 demonstrates).

And then Paul makes the point (which he started in vv. 3-6) that His people, spiritual Israel, is not the same as physical Israel. His people are those drawn out of both "Jew" and "Gentile".

And then Paul quotes Scripture (Hosea) to support his point:
Rom. 9:25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

Rom. 9:26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”


So there you go...
God hating some.
And God destining, creating them for the purpose of hell.

In quoting Hosea, Paul is again using a scripture reference to demonstrate his point that physical descent doesn't matter. He is making the point that God can do whatever he wants. In Hosea's time, the 10 tribes were deemed not God's people (Hosea 1:10), but later deems them God's people when they turn to him (Hosea 2:23). Likewise, the Gentiles who were once not God's people are deemed by God to be God's people when they turned to him.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
First, I'd like to point out that some posters here are unwilling to offer a theology to believe, and to support it from Scripture. All they want to do is hide behind a corner and throw pot shots at what anyone else says. So let's suppose these people "proved" Calvinism false. What then? They have no alternative theology to offer. They simply want their theology to win by "default". They believe others have to "prove" their theology from Scripture, but they don't have to prove THEIR theology from Scripture.

But, since this poster clearly doesn't understand the meaning of Rom. 9 (I've asked him many times to share his understanding, and he is unable to do so), I guess I'll have to explain it him.


Rom. 9:9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Okay, here we see Paul talking about Rebekah and the twins, and pointing out that God's "election" occurred before the twins were born, or before they had done anything, "good or bad".

So God's election is NOT based on "foreseen actions", or "foreseen decisions", since Paul explicitly DENIES that it was based on anything the twins did, and made the argument that their election was before they were born.

And then he says that God had chosen, before the twins were born, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated".

Please note that it doesn't say that God hated "things" Esau did, or "decisions" Esau made. It says He hated ESAU himself. And if you want to deny that God hated Esau, then you would have to likewise deny that God loved Jacob, since they are parallel passages.

Continuing...

Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

What this is basically saying is, "I give mercy to whoever I want, and I will have compassion on whoever I want." Remember, we just saw that God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau before they were ever born, not based on ANYTHING they had done. Paul is simply expanding on this.

So God's mercy does not depend on what we do ("human will or exertion"),
but solely on God.

Rom. 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

He then brings up the example of Pharaoh, where God's purpose in creating Pharaoh was to have His (God's) name proclaimed throughout the Earth. God arranged the whole thing, from having Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery in Egypt (Gen. 50:20), to the famine, to bringing Joseph's family back to Egypt to save them from the famine, to hardening Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the Jews go, to give God opportunity to perform all his plague miracles, and then parting the Red Sea to allow the Jews to finally escape.

All to proclaim the glory of God!

And Paul reiterates the idea of God "having mercy on whomever he wants", just as God "hardens whomever He wills". This reminds us of God hardening Pharaoh's heart every time Moses asked to let the people go, each refusal resulting in the opportunity to perform yet another plague miracle.

God has mercy on whom He wills ("Jacob I loved"),
and God hardens whomever He wants ("Esau I hated").
All before we were ever born (ie. election, cf. Eph. 1:4ff).

Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

And Paul expects his readers to come up with this objection, he's probably heard it many times before. "God can do whatever He wants". "But that's not FAIR!!!!!! Waaaaaahhhhh!!!"

But God is God.
He can do whatever He wants, as Creator of the universe.
Just like a sculptor can make a sculpture any way HE wants.

God is the "molder".
We are the "molded".
God is the "potter".
We are the "clay".

And as the Potter, He can make us any way He wants. He can "have compassion" for us, or He can "harden" us.

And it is important to note that while God is making "vessels of honour" and "vessels of dishonour", he makes each from the SAME LUMP of clay. So the difference in the vessels ("honour" vs. "dishonour") is not based on the clay, but is based on the Potter's intention.

Rom. 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

It would be sufficient for God (through Paul) to simply teach us that He does this. But He does more, he explains to us WHY He has hardened some and shown compassion to others.

Noticed that Not only has God prepared "vessels of wrath" (= "vessels of dishonour"), but they were prepared "FOR DESTRUCTION" (ie. "destined for hell"). And the reason He created them "for destruction" was to:
- "show his wrath";
- "make known his power";
- demonstrated "much patience" (in not smiting the vessels of dishonour upon their first sin, but allowing them to live full lives before meeting their destiny);
- "make known the riches of his glory" for us, the "vessels of mercy".

And then Paul makes the point (which he started in vv. 3-6) that His people, spiritual Israel, is not the same as physical Israel. His people are those drawn out of both "Jew" and "Gentile".

And then Paul quotes Scripture (Hosea) to support his point:

Rom. 9:25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

Rom. 9:26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”



So there you go...
God hating some.
And God destining, creating them for the purpose of hell.
I actually agree with the thread title and the exposition of the OP
 
Top