Who is the subject of the verb prepared in Romans 9:22?

Bob Jones V

Bob Jones V

Well-known member
Elect
Joined
Oct 28, 2021
Messages
887
Reaction score
543
Points
93
Location
America
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.

Who prepared them?

Ultra Calvinists say God.

Semi-Calvinists say it is a middle voice, they did it themselves.

Arminians say they did it themselves.
 
It’s a perfect passive participle: prepared (in the past and they remain in that condition)
 
Bob Jones V said:
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.

Who prepared them?

Ultra Calvinists say God.

Semi-Calvinists say it is a middle voice, they did it themselves.

Arminians say they did it themselves.
Click to expand...
The Vessel of Wrath is prepared for destruction.

An unregenerate man sans efficacious grace will continually harden his heart against the preaching of the Gospel and the "Things which are clearly seen and understood (Rom 1:20). He will harden himself against the working of the Holy Spirit reproving him of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come (Jn 16:8).

This is exactly what God did with Pharaoh when his heart was hardened and God used him for his purpose and his Glory. Pharaoh alone is responsible for his condition and will stand before God without excuse! He will not be able to use the excuse that "God did not elect him!"
 
Bob Jones V said:
Who prepared them?
Click to expand...

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. (Rom. 9:18)​

See also verse 23:

in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory​

The parallelism is clear enough. Those whom God wishes to glorify, he prepares for glory, just as those on whom his wrath rests, he has prepared for destruction.

God decrees both those whom he wishes to save, and those whom he wishes to condemn. Predestination is double.
 
Ransom said:
God decrees both those whom he wishes to save, and those whom he wishes to condemn. Predestination is double.​
Click to expand...
You really cannot get away from double predestination. The question, however, is does God actively decree the reprobation of those who are non-elect or does he simply pass over those who were otherwise children of wrath? We know God ACTIVELY decrees his elect but what about those who are not his elect?
 
Baptist Renegade said:
The question, however, is does God actively decree the reprobation of those who are non-elect or does he simply pass over those who were otherwise children of wrath? We know God ACTIVELY decrees his elect but what about those who are not his elect?
Click to expand...
Double predestination means there is a symmetry of decree for both election and reprobation. Single predestination implies that God has decreed concerning election, but made no choices concerning the reprobate.

Pharaoh was a "vessel of wrath prepared for destruction." Judas was the "son of destruction" lost so that "the Scripture might be fulfilled." That God has specific plans for such people, means that there is a decree of reprobation in addition to the decree of election.

Where double predestination is not symmetrical is in the way God works with respect to the elect and the reprobate. For the elect, God works to put faith in their hearts and bring them to salvation. For the reprobate, God withholds this work of grace, and they are left in their sins. There isn't a parallel work of reprobation in which God actively works unbelief and sin in the reprobates' lives.
 
Ransom said:
Double predestination means there is a symmetry of decree for both election and reprobation. Single predestination implies that God has decreed concerning election, but made no choices concerning the reprobate.

Pharaoh was a "vessel of wrath prepared for destruction." Judas was the "son of destruction" lost so that "the Scripture might be fulfilled." That God has specific plans for such people, means that there is a decree of reprobation in addition to the decree of election.

Where double predestination is not symmetrical is in the way God works with respect to the elect and the reprobate. For the elect, God works to put faith in their hearts and bring them to salvation. For the reprobate, God withholds this work of grace, and they are left in their sins. There isn't a parallel work of reprobation in which God actively works unbelief and sin in the reprobates' lives.
Click to expand...
Scared me for a second but I am in agreement overall. Equal ultimacy actually negates the doctrine of total depravity!
 
Ransom said:
Double predestination means there is a symmetry of decree for both election and reprobation. Single predestination implies that God has decreed concerning election, but made no choices concerning the reprobate.

Pharaoh was a "vessel of wrath prepared for destruction." Judas was the "son of destruction" lost so that "the Scripture might be fulfilled." That God has specific plans for such people, means that there is a decree of reprobation in addition to the decree of election.

Where double predestination is not symmetrical is in the way God works with respect to the elect and the reprobate. For the elect, God works to put faith in their hearts and bring them to salvation. For the reprobate, God withholds this work of grace, and they are left in their sins. There isn't a parallel work of reprobation in which God actively works unbelief and sin in the reprobates' lives.
Click to expand...
Romans 1
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

"because of that...they became reprobate"
 
prophet said:
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

"because of that...they became reprobate"
Click to expand...
They didn't become reprobate; they already were. God "gave them over" (i.e. abandoned them) to the wickedness they wanted.
 
Ransom said:
They didn't become reprobate; they already were. God "gave them over" (i.e. abandoned them) to the wickedness they wanted.
Click to expand...
I'm going to wade into the minutia, cuz, hey, what is triple F for?
I agree that the verse in ? does not say "became".
But "reprobate" has a definition:
"No more chances" , jelly on the b.shelf n all.
I am aware that we are going to disagree on this next point. But you have a good idea what I believe on this, and I know what you believe, as I have read much that you have said.
So... Romans 1 appears to point out a progressive descent into Reprobacy, a state, like Grace, which is irrevocable.
We find "became" in verse 21, followed by "became" in verse 22, "changed" in 25, "change" in 26, and "leaving" in 27.

So Progress is the natural assumption.

Romans 1:21-27
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Cause and effect are plainly shown here.
 
You don't have to stalk Ransom, if you wade....he always shows up.
 
prophet said:
I'm going to wade into the minutia, cuz, hey, what is triple F for?
I agree that the verse in ? does not say "became".
But "reprobate" has a definition:
"No more chances" , jelly on the b.shelf n all.
I am aware that we are going to disagree on this next point. But you have a good idea what I believe on this, and I know what you believe, as I have read much that you have said.
So... Romans 1 appears to point out a progressive descent into Reprobacy, a state, like Grace, which is irrevocable.
We find "became" in verse 21, followed by "became" in verse 22, "changed" in 25, "change" in 26, and "leaving" in 27.

So Progress is the natural assumption.

Romans 1:21-27
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Cause and effect are plainly shown here.
Click to expand...
Its called "Common Grace."

Mankind is totally depraved which means he lacks ANY ability to do anything good whereby he may "earn favor" with God. Totally depravity gives mankind the POTENTIAL to perform all sorts of evil but God's common grace RESTRAINS this depravity by giving him a conscience and a moral compass along with government and laws. Common grace is very much RESISTABLE GRACE which mankind demonstrates by stretching the boundaries of morality and societal norms (MPAA Ratings, Speed Limits, Obscenity Laws, Age of Consent, Standards for Health and Safety, Etc.).

As wicked as mankind has been throughout history, mankind has never reached the FULLEST EXTENT of his depravity. Even men like Adolph Hitler exercised a certain amount of moral restraint and would have been able to say "At least I'm not like..."

What you are seeing in this passage is God's lifting of this "Common Grace" whereby mankind becomes less and less restrained becoming more and more "FREEEEEEEE" to pursue whatever their wicked heart desires. God gave them OVER to their total depravity!
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Its called "Common Grace."

Mankind is totally depraved which means he lacks ANY ability to do anything good whereby he may "earn favor" with God. Totally depravity gives mankind the POTENTIAL to perform all sorts of evil but God's common grace RESTRAINS this depravity by giving him a conscience and a moral compass along with government and laws. Common grace is very much RESISTABLE GRACE which mankind demonstrates by stretching the boundaries of morality and societal norms (MPAA Ratings, Speed Limits, Obscenity Laws, Age of Consent, Standards for Health and Safety, Etc.).

As wicked as mankind has been throughout history, mankind has never reached the FULLEST EXTENT of his depravity. Even men like Adolph Hitler exercised a certain amount of moral restraint and would have been able to say "At least I'm not like..."

What you are seeing in this passage is God's lifting of this "Common Grace" whereby mankind becomes less and less restrained becoming more and more "FREEEEEEEE" to pursue whatever their wicked heart desires. God gave them OVER to their total depravity!
Click to expand...
Matthew 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Can't do good, huh?

So lost people who start Charities are somehow not doing good?

Man possesses the knowledge of both, and can do both, since the Garden.

Lord, Lord, we did all these works....
Doesn't mean they weren't good works, if they fed the hungry.
Just that they never knew and were known of Christ.
The hungry still were blessed by the good work.
 
prophet said:
Matthew 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Can't do good, huh?

So lost people who start Charities are somehow not doing good?

Man possesses the knowledge of both, and can do both, since the Garden.

Lord, Lord, we did all these works....
Doesn't mean they weren't good works, if they fed the hungry.
Just that they never knew and were known of Christ.
The hungry still were blessed by the good work.
Click to expand...
Context and content, butthead!
 
prophet said:
Matthew 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Can't do good, huh?

So lost people who start Charities are somehow not doing good?

Man possesses the knowledge of both, and can do both, since the Garden.

Lord, Lord, we did all these works....
Doesn't mean they weren't good works, if they fed the hungry.
Just that they never knew and were known of Christ.
The hungry still were blessed by the good work.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... Maybe Pelagius was right? Perhaps man DOES possess some good whereby he is able to obtain favor with God?

Or is any "Good Thing" you have listed here sufficient to warrant favor with God? Why or why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top