Is Calvinism Right?

God_Is_Truth

New member
Originally posted by swanca99
I think we all tend to read and interpret the Scriptures in light of the system we've accepted, and that we all tend to think our system is the right one. I have seen only a handful of people change systems in my 30+ years as a Christian.

would you believe that the first time i heard of calvinism, i had to sit down and look very hard at Romans 9-11 to even understand how they could interpret it in such a way?

by the way, though i was not raised calvinist, i did use to believe in a settled future, whereas now i am an open theist.

If it were possible to wipe the slate clean and base a system upon a book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse study of the Scriptures, I wonder what we'd REALLY come up with? Perhaps no system at all...

open theism isn't so much a system as it is just the belief in a partly open/partly closed future that God knows as such.

Do you think that either of you live your life differently than the other because of your differing beliefs?

the question is really, do they live according to how they believe? are they consistent outwardly with the inwardly? i'm not sure how one would live if they acted like everything was predestined by God. you'd have to ask Rolf on that one. but living through the OV is easy, because it's what everyone already does.
 

swanca99

New member
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

would you believe that the first time i heard of calvinism, i had to sit down and look very hard at Romans 9-11 to even understand how they could interpret it in such a way?

Although those three chapters contain some things that could support individual election, I don't think that's really the purpose of the passage. I see them more as answering the question, "What is the relationship of Israel to the Gospel in the present age?", with one of the key phrases being "that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (11:25b).

Just my take on it...
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by swanca99

I know TOL encourages debate, but...DUDES!
I know! I don't like it eiher.

I have been watching the exchange between Rolf and Clete in this thread and the one about Calvinism making Knight furious, and have even made a few replies. I have not bothered to reply again to Clete's replies to me because the Scriptures I would use to support my belief in God's omniscience and sovereignty are the same, most likely, as those that Rolf has used, or at least they would be nothing that Clete hasn't seen before.
While you're probably right, I wouldn't have minded. I've responded many time before and I'm sure I'll respond many more times in the future to the same arguments again and again. Calvinism is almost ubiquitous in the Church today, even people who think they aren't Calvinists have been dramatically influenced by the doctrine, so it's impossible to avoid. I consider TOL practice for when I get the opportunity to confront the error in my "normal life", so bring it on!

I have been reading this forum for 2-3 months and I am coming to a greater understanding of the "Open View." I just tried reading Romans 9-11 with "Open View" glasses on, and I can see how the passage could be interpreted as consistent with that view. I suppose if I read it with "Reformed" glasses on, I would find an interpretation consistent with those offered by their commentators. I would like to think that my interpretation of that passage is based on reading it with clear glasses, but I'm honest enough to admit to you, and myself, that I am probably reading it with "Dispensationalist/4-point Calvinist" glasses on. I think we all tend to read and interpret the Scriptures in light of the system we've accepted, and that we all tend to think our system is the right one. I have seen only a handful of people change systems in my 30+ years as a Christian.
In one respect or another I've "changed systems" a few times myself. I was a hard core Calvinist for a long time but was not always a dispensationalist during that time. For a while I even thought that Herbert Armstrong was right on most of his theology. I had been lured in by him with his escatology which appealed to me as a teenager for some reason. Anyway, the system I hold to now allows me to read the Bible and take the vast majority of it at face value. If I have "glasses" on at all, they don't have much tinting. That is what attracted me so much to the Open View and Acts 9 Dispensationalism. There simply is no need to study every relevant passage, look up the original language, and meditate for hours on the three verses before and the three after in order to be able to read and understand what the Bible is saying in practically every passage. Now don't misunderstand, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that stuff; in fact, there's a great deal to be learned from that sort of Bible study. But some people act as if you don't have the standing to even have an opinion about what the Bible is saying at all unless you've done such things and that just isn't the case. Generally speaking, if you cannot sit down and read the Bible like you would any other book without your eyes glazing over in confusion, then you've missed the whole point of God having written it in the first place.

If it were possible to wipe the slate clean and base a system upon a book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse study of the Scriptures, I wonder what we'd REALLY come up with? Perhaps no system at all...
The key is getting a handle on the overview, the plot of the Bible. Once you've done that, the details basically fall in your lap. Don't do it the other way around. If you attempt to get all the details right and then to draw conclusion about the overview based on them, you'll end up being confused. The proof is that this is precisely the way pretty much the whole church approaches Bible study and the result is thousands of divisions, many of which are utterly unresolvable as long as one party or the other remains focused on their pet detail.

Rolf and Clete, I gather that you both believe in the deity of Christ, the literal resurrection of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith, and have many other important beliefs in common. I consider both of you to be within the boundaries of orthodoxy, consider both of you to be my brothers in Christ, and expect to meet both of you in eternity someday.

Do you consider each other to be brothers in Chirst?
Yes.
This is an interesting question to be asked to (or by for that matter) a Calvinist. By it's very nature, Calvinism makes it utterly impossible to know for certain whether one is saved (a member of the elect) or not. One must simply wait until judgement day to find out.

Do you think that either of you live your life differently than the other because of your differing beliefs?
How could we not? In my view, everything I do say or think has real consequences that I am personally responsible for whether good or bad. In Calvinisms view, I can do nothing that was not already predetermined before even I came on the seen!



Above and again in other posts Romans 9 has come up a couple of times and so it seems apropriate to repost my own understanding of the chapter. Note, while reading the following, how the simple surface meaning of the text is preserved and how it strongly argues against Calvinistic predestination...

From post 1593 in the "ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!" thread...

ROMANS 9 IS JERIMIAH 18

The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel. It is painfully clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles and that God is justified in having done so.
It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summations of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...
  • Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying...

  • Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
    "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
    And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

Now that by itself is enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to the potter and the clay story. This story is a reference to a passage in Jeremiah let's take a look at it so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made reference to it. Perhaps that will shed additional light on the point he was making.

  • Jeremiah 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
    5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Hmm! :think:
Imagine that! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point, they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that Romans 9 applies the principle described in Jeremiah 18 directly to the nation of Israel.
Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole thing is on one issue and one issue only. That being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that He promised if that nation does evil in His sight. It's no more complicated than that.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited by a moderator:

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by swanca99

Although those three chapters contain some things that could support individual election, I don't think that's really the purpose of the passage. I see them more as answering the question, "What is the relationship of Israel to the Gospel in the present age?", with one of the key phrases being "that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (11:25b).

Just my take on it...

Exactly. The election of Israel is the context (Paul is answering the Jewish Christians in Rome who cannot understand why Israel is on the backburner and the Gentiles have received the promises), not elect vs non-elect of individuals.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz and Clete--your comments concerning Romans chapter nine are misguided and cannot stand up to real scrutiny.

What scutiny? Just read it. It's only as crystal clear as it could possibly be. The only way to get confused about it is to ignore the fact that Paul quotes from Jer. 18. Avoid that one error and the rest takes about as much effort as falling off a log.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

swanca99

New member
Originally posted by Clete

By it's very nature, Calvinism makes it utterly impossible to know for certain whether one is saved (a member of the elect) or not. One must simply wait until judgement day to find out.


Clete

You say you were once a Calvinist, so I'm not doubting that you've heard such things before. Have you found this to be common among them? I've met many who are much more extreme in their "Calvinism" than I am, but the ones I have known feel certain of their salvation because they are in Christ, not because they think they are part of the elect.

Originally posted by Clete

In my view, everything I do say or think has real consequences that I am personally responsible for whether good or bad. In Calvinisms view, I can do nothing that was not already predetermined before even I came on the seen!

Clete

Every Calvinist I have met would agree with your first statement as well. To varying degrees, they may agree with the second one also.

You have apparently come into contact with a different breed of Calvinism than what I've encountered. I'm trying to find time to re-read some of the theology books I have hanging around the house -- maybe I'll find that some of the Calvinists have views like the ones you've encountered and for some reason or another I just never noticed it before. It's been twenty years or more since I've used some of those books for anything other than reference when studying the actual books of the Bible...which I generally find more enjoyable anyway.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Hyper-Calvinism, 4-point, 5-point, etc. There are varieties of Calvinists, Arminians, and Open Theists. We should watch stereotyping/caricaturing.

However, just as most Arminians emphasize free will, most Calvinists emphasize a narrow view of the sovereignty of God. Open Theists are refreshing because they understand that God is sovereign in providential vs meticulous control.
 

swanca99

New member
Originally posted by Clete

What scutiny? Just read it. It's only as crystal clear as it could possibly be. The only way to get confused about it is to ignore the fact that Paul quotes from Jer. 18. Avoid that one error and the rest takes about as much effort as falling off a log.

Paul quotes a lot of OT Scriptures in Romans 9, but when he does it's pretty obvious. I don't think he is quoting Jeremiah 18. In fact, I don't even think he's alluding to it. I suppose it's possible...however, the image in Jeremiah 18 is of the potter using the material of a marred vessel to make another vessel. The image in Romans 9 is that of a potter making two vessels from one lump of clay: one unto honour, another unto dishonour. And the way Paul applies that image in verses 22-24 looks a lot like individual election to me, even though Paul's purpose in the entire passage (Chapters 9-11) is not to talk about individual election.

One of these days I should try to put together my own exposition of Romans 9-11. But that would take quite a bit of time, and then it may be too long to post. Oh well...we'll see.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by swanca99

You say you were once a Calvinist, so I'm not doubting that you've heard such things before. Have you found this to be common among them? I've met many who are much more extreme in their "Calvinism" than I am, but the ones I have known feel certain of their salvation because they are in Christ, not because they think they are part of the elect.
Most Calvinists haven't thought the issue through and so I'm sure most FEEL quite certain of their election but when pressed they can find no logically sound basis for that certainty. It's difficult to find a distinctly Calvinistic theological position that is not unfalsifiable; the doctrine of election is only one of them. If more Christians were aware of this fact, there would be far fewer Calvinists.

Every Calvinist I have met would agree with your first statement as well. To varying degrees, they may agree with the second one also.
Yes. Calvinists always give lip service to both ideas. Again, it's a situation where most haven't thought the issue through. They compartmentalize doctrinal positions and rarely if ever think through how one affects another and so can easily go years and years without ever realizing the logical contradictions inherent in much of their theology.

You have apparently come into contact with a different breed of Calvinism than what I've encountered. I'm trying to find time to re-read some of the theology books I have hanging around the house -- maybe I'll find that some of the Calvinists have views like the ones you've encountered and for some reason or another I just never noticed it before. It's been twenty years or more since I've used some of those books for anything other than reference when studying the actual books of the Bible...which I generally find more enjoyable anyway.
Well, I'll be the first to admit that I couch Calvinism in terms that virtually all Calvinist would find distasteful and would not agree with as stated. However, it's not that I am presenting Calvinism inaccurately, it's just that I present these ideas in such a way as to make the error most obvious. In other words, I see clearly the self contradictory and otherwise illogical nature of what Calvinism teaches and the things I say about Calvinism reflect that understanding and so are not at all the same as what someone who believed in the system would say or agree with.

Do you have any specific question about other things I've said about Calvinism? Perhaps I could explain why I say what I do and it'll be easier to see how what I've said applies to virtually all Calvinist and not just some 5 point hardliners.

Paul quotes a lot of OT Scriptures in Romans 9, but when he does it's pretty obvious. I don't think he is quoting Jeremiah 18. In fact, I don't even think he's alluding to it. I suppose it's possible...however, the image in Jeremiah 18 is of the potter using the material of a marred vessel to make another vessel. The image in Romans 9 is that of a potter making two vessels from one lump of clay: one unto honour, another unto dishonour. And the way Paul applies that image in verses 22-24 looks a lot like individual election to me, even though Paul's purpose in the entire passage (Chapters 9-11) is not to talk about individual election.

One of these days I should try to put together my own exposition of Romans 9-11. But that would take quite a bit of time, and then it may be too long to post. Oh well...we'll see.
Have you ever heard of "Law of First-Mention" or "First-Occurrence Principle"? If not, do a Google search on either or both of those terms and you'll quickly learn more than you wanted to know about it.
Here's what Benjamin Willis Newton (Brethren movement, 19th century), wrote about this principle:

  • "I find in Scripture a principle of interpretation, which I believe, if conscientiously adopted, will serve as an unfailing guide as to the mind of God as contained therein. The first mention of a thing, the very first words of any subject of which the Holy Spirit is going to treat, is the keystone of the whole matter."

Not only does your comment ignore this principle of hermeneutics but it seemingly intentionally ignores the context of the passage. You said, "And the way Paul applies that image in verses 22-24 looks a lot like individual election to me, even though Paul's purpose in the entire passage (Chapters 9-11) is not to talk about individual election.

That's a pretty big "even though" don't you think?! I mean it's only three consecutive chapters for crying out loud. What purpose could be served in ignoring such a vast amount of context, not to mention time tested principles of Biblical hermeneutics, except to force the Bible to teach a pet doctrine? Like I said, if one avoids the error of ignoring the fact that Paul utilizes Jer. 18 to make his point, it's really obvious what Paul is talking about and the passage converts from being the Calvinists "big guns" to one of their biggest hurtles. And what's more is that this conversion takes place while totally preserving the surface meaning of the text.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

swanca99

New member
I've reread your comments a few posts back, and your latest post, but I'm still not understanding how you are interpreting this passage. For the sake of my slow, aging brain, let's try taking it one small step at a time, if you don't mind.

To what part of Romans 9 are you applying the Law of First Mention principle? Or are you applying it to Jeremiah 18?
 

swanca99

New member
I've done a little more googling on the Law of First Mention (between job abends and tape mounts), and I think I know what you're getting at, but I'll wait for your answer...
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by swanca99

I've reread your comments a few posts back, and your latest post, but I'm still not understanding how you are interpreting this passage. For the sake of my slow, aging brain, let's try taking it one small step at a time, if you don't mind.

To what part of Romans 9 are you applying the Law of First Mention principle? Or are you applying it to Jeremiah 18?
The first mention principle is what I am employing to say that Paul's use of the Potter and the clay story is a reference to Jer. 18. Jer. 18 is where we first hear about the Potter and the clay and so when Paul mentions it, he is clearly making reference to that passage. The first mention principle would say that the Potter represents God the first time it is mentioned and so it represents God throughout the Bible, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Likewise, the clay represents Israel and so on. So the fact that Paul doesn't use the exact same details in the story doesn't change the fact that he was clearly talking about God's dealings with Israel not individuals. It isn't necessary for him to have quoted Jeremiah verbatim, only that he use the imagery of the Potter and the clay. There are a hundred different illustrations that Paul could have used to make whatever point he was making; the fact that he uses the Potter and the clay is hermeneutic proof that he was not taking about individual election or predestination but about God and His dealing with Israel. Not only that, but the rest of the context of that whole section of Romans (as you pointed out yourself) has nothing to do with the predestination of individuals, it has to do with God's dealings with the nation of Israel. In short, Paul is making the same point in Romans 9 that Jeremiah made in chapter 18 of his book. For all intent and purposes they are the same chapter. Paul is making a Biblical case for why God cut off the nation of Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I know that this post was a bit repetitious but I just wanted to make sure I was being clear.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
"First mention" is a principle, not a law. It does not always prove accurate. Each context stands on its own merits, regardless of the first use of a word or concept.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by godrulz

"First mention" is a principle, not a law. It does not always prove accurate. Each context stands on its own merits, regardless of the first use of a word or concept.
Yes of course but it is a principle that has stood the test of time and as long as there is not compelling reason to reject it then it should be utilized, especially when the context supports such usage.

In this case, I consider Paul's use of the Potter and the clay story as PROOF that he was not speaking about individual election/predestination.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

swanca99

New member
Clete,

Thanks for your post 94. In light of that understanding, can you explain in a little more detail what you believe Romans 9:21-24 to be saying? Here are the verses:

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Thanks again for your patience...
Swanca
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by swanca99

Clete,

Thanks for your post 94. In light of that understanding, can you explain in a little more detail what you believe Romans 9:21-24 to be saying? Here are the verses:

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Thanks again for your patience...
Swanca

Sorry for the delay in responding, I anticipated that this response would take some time and so I put it off until I had the time to think it through properly (Tuesdays are typically the night I have the most time, so if I ever leave you hanging don't get worried until after the following Tuesday. If it goes longer than that, PM me or something because I've likely forgotten about or missed your post).

Okay, first of all you can't start at verse 21 and have prayer of figuring this out; verse 10 is much better...

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

"Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." This could be one of the most important phrases in the whole Bible when it comes to understanding God and the Bible. I think that if we discover what is being said here we will have the answer to your question as well.

This is yet another instance when Paul quotes from the Old Testament. Now relying again on the old trusty first mention principle we should go right away to Gen. 25...

  • 21Now Isaac pleaded with the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "If all is well, why am I like this? " So she went to inquire of the LORD.

    23And the LORD said to her:
    "Two nations are in your womb,
    Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
    One people shall be stronger than the other,
    And the older shall serve the younger."

Now, I trust you noticed right away that this passage is not talking about God loving one little unborn baby and hating the other; that, in fact, it isn't talking about babies at all, it's clearly talking about two nations.

  • "Two nations are in your womb,
    Two peoples shall be separated from your body;"

Since it's perfectly obvious that God was talking about nations because the text explicitly says so, we can be confident that Paul was also. In fact, that's what the whole 9th chapter of Romans is about, including the section you've asked about. From every conceivable angle it can be seen that this chapter very simply cannot be talking about individual election or predestination. It is talking about God's dealings with nations, specifically the nation of Israel vs. the gentile nations (i.e. everybody else). It simply couldn't be any clearer. That is as long as you stay on the same page (literally) that Paul is on and follow him to the Old Testament when he goes there.

So in short, to answer your question directly, the "vessels" made of clay are nations and/or groups of people. Until Paul it was almost entirely nations, now all nations have been committed to disobedience that He might have mercy on all, and so we are no longer dealt with by God as part of a nation but part of a group, the Body of Christ, which is one of several points that Paul will make later in Romans based upon the ground work he is laying here in chapter 9.

I hope this answers your question. Let me know if anything needs clarification.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

swanca99

New member
Thanks for your answers, Clete. In fact, you seem to have anticipated and answered, at least in part, the next question I was going to ask.

If you are saying that verses 10-13 deal with the election of Jacob/Israel over Esau/Edom as God's chosen nation, then I agree with you.

I'll ask three questions in this post. Feel free to answer them in separate posts as you have time...you have been patient with me, I'm more than happy to return the favor.

Question #1: Do you view Romans 9:9-29 as related in any way to Paul's assertion in v. 6, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel?"

Question (or request) #2: Can you continue on in explaining verses 14-18? Is God speaking of nations in this passage as well?

Question #3: Am I correct in understanding that, in vs. 21 through 24, according to your understanding, the "vessels of wrath" refers to the nation of Israel, and the "vessels of mercy" refers to the church as a whole, or have I missed something in your explanation?

Please answer in any order you think the most appropriate, and thanks again for taking the time, and being so willing, to explain your understanding of this important passage.

Yours because His,
Swanca
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by swanca99

Thanks for your answers, Clete. In fact, you seem to have anticipated and answered, at least in part, the next question I was going to ask.

If you are saying that verses 10-13 deal with the election of Jacob/Israel over Esau/Edom as God's chosen nation, then I agree with you.
Good! :up:

Question #1: Do you view Romans 9:9-29 as related in any way to Paul's assertion in v. 6, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel?"
I don't think I understand the question. OF course they are related, they're like one sentence apart from each other. I don't think I understand what you're getting at.

Question (or request) #2: Can you continue on in explaining verses 14-18? Is God speaking of nations in this passage as well?
Yes! Of course he is. Pharaoh was the leader of the nation of Egypt. The plagues were given to the nation not just Pharaoh and the whole context of the chapter insists that the topic here is nations not individual people.

Question #3: Am I correct in understanding that, in vs. 21 through 24, according to your understanding, the "vessels of wrath" refers to the nation of Israel, and the "vessels of mercy" refers to the church as a whole, or have I missed something in your explanation?
It’s not "my understanding", it's just what the text is talking about. Who is the vessel of honor and who is the vessel of wrath in Jeremiah 18? Find the answer to that question and you'll have the answer to your question as well. As I’ve said, Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 might as well be the same chapter. They are talking about the same subject and making the same point.

Please answer in any order you think the most appropriate, and thanks again for taking the time, and being so willing, to explain your understanding of this important passage.
You’re quite welcome. Keep em comin'

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Top