Romans 9 "Prepared for Destruction" then Paul Owen

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight, seven. Seven seven five three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Program Announcements and Upcoming Cruise Update

And good morning, welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. Just a programming note for the many many many who missed it last time and that is this Thursday. The program will be on at the same time as it is now.

It will not be on in the afternoon due to a teaching responsibilities and so just please keep that in mind be aware of that and that will keep you from coming into the channel at a little bit before four o 'clock on Thursday going with Laila and everybody you missed it and so on and so forth.

So just keep that in mind and you will want to be here Thursday because we will have a very important announcement concerning the upcoming cruise we have managed to Do what we said we would do last week, but we want to get all of our T's crossed and I's dotted and everything else before we go and spill the beans shall we say and So on Thursday, we will be letting you know About developments on that particular aspect and it's very exciting.

I think there are going to be many folks who wants to Join us for this particular event in October of this year now 2007 not very far down the road. So be listening on Thursday. I suppose it is only fair That we When we I get a lot of emails I get a lot of emails people asking all sorts of questions many of which have absolutely positively nothing to do whatsoever With anything that I would even pretend to have any level of expertise in.

One of the things that's almost humorous is to see people come into channel and if there's anything that is of dispute or interest at all In the world, I am supposed to debate people about it. People are always coming to channel.

Hey, you should debate this person or you should debate that person or this person has a weird view of that so you should debate him and I Just as you know laugh because it's just so silly people obviously have no concept whatsoever of the amount of time that goes into debate preparation and the fact that you should only debate those subjects that you actually can debate in a meaningful fashion and That I just don't happen to find every single aspect of Anything that could be discussed fascinating or interesting or things that I should be spending my entire life on and so we get all sorts of interesting stuff like that and So I got an email from someone and they they linked me to a reference From dr. John MacArthur and said what do you think about this?

And so I I think that it's only fair If we're going to be playing George Bryson and Dave Hunt and all the rest that stuff that once in a while we should we should be Level-headed and Admit that there are differences even amongst people who are pretty much on the same page everywhere else, but you know once in a while You you have to disagree about certain things.

I've I've disagreed with dr MacArthur for example on his understanding of Titus 1 6 and believing children and I was linked to a reference on the grace to you website and It is a answer to a question How do we understand Romans 9 22 vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

And the question is the Bible speaks of vessels of mercy and vessels of destruction Which God specifically made for his purpose Romans 9 21 through 23. Does that mean people like Judas were made by God for destruction?

Well immediately I would question the Going to Romans 9 to discuss Judas. Judas is called the son of perdition. The scriptures speak of the son of perdition you have prophecy here. You have the the certainty of What you have in in in in divine revelation in regards to Judas so Judas is a very special case a very clear case and I don't think that you can necessarily reason from Judas to any general principles that's a little bit a little bit difficult and Certainly not the other way around either I suppose but be as it may my Primary concern with an issue with the response is is not That it has something to do with Judas.

Actually. It's more in reference to the reading of Romans chapter 9 and specifically the terminology in regards to fitted or prepared and this is something that we have addressed many times before and so people have have noted that there is a Difference of Interpretation we mentioned for example in the blog a couple of months ago, or I think maybe may have just been last month That Charles Haddon Spurgeon for example in reading Romans chapter 9 Emphasized took the reading that the fitting that is done.

There is not done by God and that in essence is what dr MacArthur says here as well he says Paul is saying here that God is sovereign. Paul is clearly saying that there is no other message here verse 18 He has mercy on whom you'll have mercy and whom he wills he hardens the argument comes.

Well, it doesn't seem fair in verse 21 Paul says hath not the Potter power of the clay of the same lump to make one vessel and to honor another and dishonor the Potter can make a vessel any way he wants.

He's the Potter and the vessel is simply clay. But I want you to notice what happens in verse 22 what if God willing to show his wrath and make his power known endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction and that he might make Known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had prepared before unto glory.

Now I don't want to get too deep and I just want to give you one or two thoughts. Notice there are vessels of wrath at the end of verse 22 fitted to destruction in verse 23 vessels of mercy. Which he prepared to glory.

Now in the Greek you have two serious Distinctions here in the Greek tense and you must recognize them. I should say in the Greek voice which is similar to English you realize the difference between active and passive.

Inactive the subject does the acting and impassive the subject receives the action. Now notice verse 21 is a passive. Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. God is not the subject. The verb is passive.

Verb verse 23 vessels of mercy, which he had prepared to glory God. There is the subject and the verb is active. Listen. God says I prepare vessels for glory. But vessels are prepared for destruction and what is happening there in the Greek tense is God is taking one step away from the responsibility Of preparing a person from his creative act for hell.

God doesn't take that responsibility. He says there are vessels that have been prepared for destruction. And if you study the Bible very carefully, you will see that everywhere in Scripture the responsibility for such preparation Lies right in the very heart of the man who goes to hell.

Is that right? Jesus said you will not come to me that you may have life at the end of the book of Revelation. He says come and let him that is a thirst come and so God says I fit for glory. But vessels are fitted for destruction.

Judas was not created by God to occupy hell and quote now Number of things. In response to the very end there. What is happening there in the Greek tense is God is taking one step away from the responsibility preparing a person from his creative act for hell.

I'll address the the tense issue in a moment because I I don't believe that you can Escape the reality that the passive here is what has been called the divine passive passive tenses. Passive verbs are used all the time In the New Testament in regards to what God does in salvation in Ephesians 2 way we have been saved.

There is no it doesn't say directly By God, but it's clear that that is saying to us. God is the one who has saved us. He is the one who has acted in saving us. And so The the divine passive is the regular way that Paul would address God's activity and I think as we'll look at in a moment, we'll see if that's the case, but just this very last statement here There is no question that You will not come to me as you might have life.

John chapter 5. That is exactly true man does not want to submit himself to God. The rebel Is is very much at home in his rebellion. He very much wants to Reject God's truth. He wants to continue in his own alleged sovereignty and the twisting of the creator creation relationship.

All those things are very very true. Everyone I think would admit that that is the case that that man is a rebel and that he cannot change his own heart. There's no real question about that. But the the question Really isn't relevant to Romans chapter 9.

Yes, man loves his sin and man does those things the way he does those things and that's that's just the way it is and and No one has argued that compatibilism Says that man does man's will is not active.

It is active. It's just a slave to sin. The King of Assyria had evil thoughts and intentions in his heart when he's being used by God. We've looked at Acts 4 and Herod and Pilate's and and all of their wills were active in different ways but they were all doing what God's hand had predestined to occur and That's the issue in Romans chapter 9 when we actually Back up and look at the text the the problem with the reading that some people have of Romans 9 is that they don't.

They're they're separating this statement out from what came before. And let me explain what I mean Romans chapter 9 answering the objector Who after Paul has made it so plain? So then he has mercy on whom he desires and he hardens whom he desires.

The only desire here is Is that of God? Therefore whomever he Desires he he mercies not just has mercy on but mercies hardens. These are our active voice Verbs and language. These are things that God is doing.

He is mercying he is hardening. He is the one who is expressing his will and his desire and once That is stated then Paul says you will say to me then not it's slightly possible. But you will say to me then why does he still find fault for who?

Resists his will and so it is that question that is being answered and what comes after this. There is an element of rebellion in the question Why does he still find fault for who resists his will? This is this is not the the statement of the heart that is subject To God's sovereignty.

This is the standard Objection of the the sinful man and that's seen in the in the in the response on the contrary. Who are you? Oh man who answers back to God and immediately we have the two categories introduced man and God and if you don't see the vast difference between the two if your theology has given you a God who is the big grandfather in the sky and the big buddy and the big friend and If you have the theology of that song we played last week that God's only sovereign over over things that don't have wills God can God can go play marbles with the planets if he wishes.

But when it comes to mankind man is sovereign and God is not. Then you're gonna have some some problems Understanding what's being said here? Who are you? Oh man who answers back to God the thing? Molded the thing molded the the top plasma Plasma that which is is molded that which is The the object of that someone else is acting upon that is not catch that immediately man is Acted upon by God.

This is this is just the categories that Paul is using here. Mormons don't like it and lots of our minions don't like it but these the categories that Paul uses here the thing molded will not say to the molder and When you look at that it's it's top plasma toe plus on T so the the two terms are Connected in the in the Greek language as well.

And so it's the molder and that which is molded and You couldn't have a stronger contrast being introduced here one is the active molder and the other is that which is molded and The absurdity is the thing molded will not say the molder.

Why did you make me like this? Will it? That is there is one that has absolute sovereign authority and power and one does not have any basis for responding to The actions of that sovereign molder by saying hey, I don't like the way you made me.

You should have made me some other way. This is the absurdity of the the the cup and saucer saying I am NOT made I am NOT created. This goes back to Isaiah 29 and and the absurdity of the thing the thing made Rejecting the one who made it very very clearly found in the text, but please note the God man Man is molded.

God's the molder. Here is the relationship that's going on and then that comes out then verse 21. Or does not the Potter Have a right over the clay now there you have the molder and the molded here now it's the pot over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use and so we have one lump and it is it is under the authority of the Potter and he takes from that lump of clay and If he so chooses that portion that his hand Takes from the clay.

He is able to then form Into a vessel for honorable use. Honorable use meaning a fine piece of China a pot that will that will be fired and and very carefully made and and displayed upon the the The mantelpiece but then you have the same Potter and He has the need for a trash can he has the need for a garbage can he has the need for something for waste.

And so he reaches over and from the same lump from which he made the honorable Vessel the vessel that will be an heirloom into which he invested a tremendous amount of effort. You have the creation of one for common use, okay.

The point is that the Potter has the right to choose what portion of that clay to use. It is not the clay that has any right to say no do this with me or do that with me. That the clay doesn't have the right to say.

Well, you can only make something of honorable use for me. All of the emphasis up to this point is that God Molder Potter man molded clay. God makes determination of honorable use common use not the clay.

God is active in every single point from 18 on here and We have this same parallel. Now my suggestion to you is if you're going to go to verse 21 and you're now going to break that parallel and say well Verse 22 is different then you need to provide a strong exegetical foundation for so doing.

So let's look at verse 22. Let's notice verse 20 ends with a question mark. It's a rhetorical question. Verse 21 ends with a question mark. It is a rhetorical question. Verse 22 Ends with a question mark it too is rhetorical question.

In other words, we have not broken the context here. We're not moving on to something else. This is the same subject. What if God Verse 21 or does not the Potter see the similarities? What if God? Although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known now.

This takes us back this connects us again to the preceding context where it was God's desire in Pharaoh To demonstrate his wrath to make his power known his name might be known through all the earth. We have not left the context.

We're still in the same Discussion same argument that has been as come before. What if God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known? Endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction now.

How do we define our terms. Well first and foremost you stay in a context. You don't jump out of the context and start. Because you're concerned that this might mean this is might mean that you stay in the context and what do we have here?

Well, we have God and He is sovereign. He has wrath. He has a desire to make his power known and He is said to endure with much patience. Vessels of wrath prepare for destruction and He did so verse 23 to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy.

Which he prepared beforehand for glory now. We have the term prepared in verse 22. And we have the word prepared in verse 23 in verse 22. There is no specific Person mentioned as to who is doing the preparation but in verse 23, it says which he prepared and It's referring to God beforehand for glory.

And so the argument is well see God prepares vessels of mercy and that's different than his preparation of vessels for wrath now on the level of Recognizing that to prepare vessels of mercy for glory involves the extension of God's grace in.

In recognizing that and recognizing those are two different verbs though. They're they're related directly one to one another one is just beforehand. That's one of the primary reasons that there's a difference in that you got Carter Tidzo and in 922 and in 923.

You have toy Madzo is the root there and then beforehand prepare before him. Not a lot of lexical difference between the two on that level but if all that someone wants to say is We need to recognize that there is an extension of God's grace.

That is necessary for the preparation of these vessels unto glory. They are vessels of mercy. Remember you've got mercy and wrath again coming from the same context right beforehand. That's fine to say.

But it does not follow that the action in 22 becomes non divine. That is it does not follow that fitted for destruction means that somebody else is doing the fitting. Remember that I have mentioned for example the Lutheran scholar who has addressed this Lenski and He somehow Brings Satan in here and so Satan is the one who prepares the vessels for destruction and The more popular way is to read this as a middle instead of a passive and this dr. MacArthur does not do he reads it as a passive but that he That it's a middle and therefore we prepare ourselves for destruction but it is a passive and the passive Automatically Raises the issue of who is acting upon us.

Where is this coming from and I would argue that the context leaves us no question. Unless we're going to build a wall between verses 21 and 22. Then we have to allow the parallel to speak and the parallels found in verse 21.

The Potter is the one who from the same lump makes Same verb one verb makes one vessel for honorable use another for common use if honorable use is Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. I'm sorry.

Common use is vessels wrath prayer for destruction and honorable use is vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory. Which clearly is the case? I mean if you if you admit that that's the parallel then there isn't any question concerning the fitting for destruction now there is a difference in how he expresses that and There is a you know in the blog articles we had Where dr. Hartley?

Once again schooled Paul Owen Who just just loves sticking his foot in his mouth on a regular basis? And we might find time to talk a little bit more about that a little bit later, but pointed out Yes, there is there it is is a symmetrical Double predestination is asymmetrical the the extension of mercy prepared beforehand for glory cannot be made just simply the mirror image of Preparing that vessel for destruction.

It can't be made the mirror image of a vessel made for common use. There are differences. No one is arguing. Otherwise, but I think it is vitally important that we we Speak where the scriptures speak and part of Paul's response to the objection is to maintain that That massive difference between the creator and the creation and to rebuke the created being Who dares to question God's sovereignty over his own creation?

It is that attitude that leads to so much of the of the foolishness that we see in in the world today and so I don't have any problem with the recognition at all that the action of God in Preterition unto reprobation in passing over in not extending mercy in not electing Someone in the salvation is different functionally from the Extension of mercy and grace to an individual creating a vessel of mercy.

There's no question about that. But I don't see that the fact that this is passive Does anything more than than recognize that those who receive punishment do so without God having to do anything more than recognizing their own nature as sinners and If that is in fact what's being said here Then I would be in complete agreement with what dr. MacArthur has said now.

I I don't understand the connection to Judas. I believe Judas is son of perdition. He's he's chosen and selected unto this from time immemorial. And I think Judas's role is just as certain as the cross itself is.

I mean unless you're gonna introduce ambiguity into the into the Issue of the cross taking place, then I don't see how you can avoid that but so anyway, so we get emails people ask questions and say hey, do you agree or disagree or whatever and so I wanted to Respectfully address that particular issue and I get once again address the subject of Romans 9 and and the fact we need to read it In its context we need to let that flow and isn't it interesting.

Hopefully you've noticed this too. Unless you're you're a new listener. Hopefully you've noticed this as well. It is the flow of the text reading in context allowing an argument to develop. That is vital and central in all of the key texts on this subject.

Is it not the flow of Romans 8? Where we follow the pronouns through and we see the golden chain of redemption and who will bring a charge against God's elect and and at the identifying of whom Has Christ has been given for Romans 8 John 6?

When you start in the beginning of the chapter and you follow the flow and you allow the text to define its own terms. It becomes this juggernaut that cannot be stopped. Everybody who has to try to find a way around it has to hop skip and jump and jump over to verse 40 and then read It back into 37.

They can't follow the context along and when you go to Romans 9 Ephesians 1 Romans 9 when you follow the context. And you see I think one of the reasons that people get away with It's a lot of the bad arguments.

They use exegetically against reformed theology. Is that people? Aren't generally trained today to follow any train of thought that's more than one or two steps. I mean we live in the soundbite generation and You're you're if you actually have an argument that goes for more than 30 seconds.

Most people's eyes glaze over and they just start looking for something shiny to play with and so The that's what people do in these situations if you'd actually Be disciplined enough to follow the argument and to keep going with it.

You'd see that folks have to chop these texts up to come up with the conclusions. They come up with and and when you don't do that then they are just Overwhelming and any of us would be offended if someone Treated our arguments that way if they took anything we wrote and they they chopped it up in that way.

We would be offended Saying no. No, that's not what I said. Listen the rest of what I said, but that's the type of argumentation that That gets accepted eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

We're gonna take a break and be right back.

Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet. White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious is a Jesus entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town.

Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 6026 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org. Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios? No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom. James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org.

Paul Owen and the Redefinition of Reformed Theology

And welcome back to the dividing line someone called and Asked where I'm going to be in, New Jersey. I once again strongly recommend that everyone learn to use the search Capacity on the blog that is our means of communication anymore.

It's about the way that I can keep up with. If you try to expect me to keep up with the calendar. Just give up on it. Trinity Fellowship Church 1644 North Bay Avenue, Tom's River, New Jersey. 0 8 7 5 3 telephone 7 3 2 9 1 4 8 8 8 5.

And That will be coming up not this coming weekend but the weekend thereafter I'm flying out on the 18th be speaking on the 19th of the 21st and The conference schedule is on the website, which is linked on my blog.

And let me see. That was the date on the that was 12 27 2006 if you would like to see the link there and I will be addressing contending for God in the gospel on Friday evening on On Saturday morning 9 a .m. The morning.

Oh, yeah. Mm-hmm. I hope they have doughnuts contending for the scriptures God's inspired and authoritative word and then Lady to do in the afternoon. I believe there's there's going to be a Little trip that you can take to see the old tenant Church.

But if you're not going on the trip during that period of time I'll be showing the Shabir Ali debate and taking questions and so on so forth and then that evening Why I'm a Christian Saturday at 7 o 'clock followed by Q &A and And then Sunday for the worship service.

I'll be preaching on contending for truth when truth isn't believed and That'll be again at Trinity Fellowship Church in the Tom's River, New Jersey. For those of you who will be in that area and would like to travel on over Before we take our phone call here or any other phone calls that should come up.

I did want to briefly mention some commentary made by Paul Owen. It is so sad to see people continue to Seek to redefine Parameters based upon a desire to in essence wipe out all meaningful distinctives.

Paul Owen I mentioned him last week in regards to his coming to the defense of that particular song. Only by of course taking it completely out of the context in which it was originally written. But Kapala calls himself Calvinist and I've said many times that I'm that's if Paul Owen is a Calvinist and then I am a Buddhist and This this comes up rather clearly in a statement that that he makes Down in the section 4 of an article he put on the oxymoronic website.

Speaking of folks like myself. He says they tend to feel very threatened by people who suggest now. Here's here's what Calvinists like me who are just shallow minded simpletons. Here's what we feel threatened by.

I love this. Who suggests that the doctrinal boundaries are not so clear-cut as they have been disposed to think the idea that one can be reformed yet demure from Calvin's own understanding of the doctrine of sin and reprobation or believe in baptismal regeneration or libertarian free will or the regeneration justification can be lost or Universal atonement our notions that are all well attested within the reformed tradition.

But scarcely conceivable to those modern-day Calvinists for whom everything must have a neat and tidy answer. So in other words if you define reformed tradition as Anything that comes after the Reformation then you can plug anything in there and you can.

You can have libertarian free will and you can have no no decree of sin and reprobation and and regeneration justification can be lost. You can you can you can tear all the. You can tear the heart out of Reformed soteriology, but you're still reformed unless you're a Baptist.

Got to get that one in there and you know the. The first thing says they seem to have enthusiasm for talking about little else than the particulars the Calvinistic system. Which is why I've done dividing lines why I spent last last evening speaking about nothing but Islam and Mormonism before that and Why we still need to and I just need to we just need to set a date for this.

We still need to do the dividing line where we go over all of the Sigla all of the signs in the textual critical apparatus the Nessie Allen text and Probably we should start with the UBS text is more people have the UBS text and Nessie Allen text.

Maybe we'll do the UBS text first, but that's why we discuss Roman Catholicism. Oh, but we don't want to do that because this is the oxymoronic website and they like Roman Catholicism. But that's why I discuss Mormonism and textual criticism in Islam and and you know all that kind of stuff.

That's why I was a recording to listen while writing. To the presentations specifically I focused in on Richard Dawkins from the beyond belief conference where the atheist all got together and man. Let me tell you something.

We're gonna play some segments of that. There's there's no question. We're gonna get to that as soon as we can it the Desperation the Desperation of these people is. Oh sad. To hear them trying to come up with a foundation for for morality.

And yet having to admit that they're they're they're they're Darwinism. Just just rips it out from underneath them while they're trying. It's it's really sad. It really is. But anyway UBS no UBS is not the United Bank of Scotland and I do not carry funny money around.

We call whenever I go over to the UK Roger Brazier calls Scottish money funny money because while it works up in Scotland, don't bring it back with you to England. Because they won't they won't accept it.

It's really weird supposed to be the United Kingdom. But everybody knows you don't want you don't want Scottish money when you're outside of Scotland because they won't accept it. I may maybe I think I've heard someone say it's too easy to counterfeit or something.

I don't I don't know. What do I know? I tried to order a fish fillet. A chicken fillet at Kentucky Fried Chicken in Glasgow and No one there says fillet it's fillet and they could not figure out what I was saying.

Someone had to come to my rescue. I think he wants a fillet. How did I get out of that. Oh, oh I that was Mutato. Mutato derailed me. Yep. Yep. I got completely derailed by Mutato and his his funny money comment about being these guys money.

Anyways back to Paul Owen real quick here. He says that they seem to have enthusiasm for talking about little else than the particulars the Calvinistic system. But these particulars are not emphasized in Holy Scripture anywhere to the extent that they are in the discourses of these people well, you know, what's what's so utterly inane about that comment is that You could have made that same argument during the Christological controversies.