vessels of wrath

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

vessels of wrath

Post #1

Post by shnarkle »

We've all known or heard of people who have spent many years of their lives dedicated to Christ and the church only to "fall away". We might wonder if they were the type who hears the word and rapidly springs into action only to later be chocked by thorns, or if they were ever saved in the first place. This isn't a "once saved always saved "question.

My question: If God were to reveal to you that you are a vessel of wrath, would you live your life any differently, how? Why or why not?

YahDough
Under Probation
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #21

Post by YahDough »

shnarkle wrote: [Replying to post 17 by YahDough]

"That's not true. I am also interested in rewards from God for living a life that pleases Him."
Shnarkle: Wow, you just did it again. It would seem that you're just in this for what you can get out of it. Well at least you're honest about it.
You're not interested in living with Christ forever at peace with God?

All of God's "rules" are given to promote continuance of existence and peace with Him.
shnarkle: Just Him??? What about "love your neighbor as yourself"??? What about your fellow man?
It pleases Him when we love our neighbors as ourselves. Don't you see how "pleasing God" serves the big picture?

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #22

Post by shnarkle »

YahDough wrote:
shnarkle wrote: [Replying to YahDough]

"Not really. Paul starts Verse 22 with: "What if......" which makes the statement hypothetical.
shnarkle: Not in koine Greek. Unfortunately it loses something in the translation. The fact is that it is in the indicative, not the subjunctive or the optative. So it can't be a hypothetical question. Any good interlinear translation will show you that it is in the indicative. Therefore it is a fact. Q.E.D.
Things can also be gained in a translation. The KJV is authorized.
One can unwittingly make dogma out of doctrine even by going back to the original texts for retranslation.
Verse 22 as it is presented is hypothetical. Perhaps it is that way to promote mercy to those who may be experiencing hopelessness as "vessels fit for destruction".

God is the Potter. He can do what He wants with us pots.
We don't have to ask why. It even seems we are not supposed to.
shnarkle: Actually now that I look at it again, it is hypothetical, but the hypothesis is still a fact.

"ei = if. Putting the condition simply.

Followed by the Indicative Mood, the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact, the condition being unfulfilled, but no doubt being thrown upon the supposition".

I"m not making dogma or doctrine. I'm looking at the elementary grammar which indicates that what is supposed is a fact.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #23

Post by shnarkle »

YahDough wrote:
shnarkle wrote: [Replying to post 17 by YahDough]

"That's not true. I am also interested in rewards from God for living a life that pleases Him."
Shnarkle: Wow, you just did it again. It would seem that you're just in this for what you can get out of it. Well at least you're honest about it.
You're not interested in living with Christ forever at peace with God?

All of God's "rules" are given to promote continuance of existence and peace with Him.
shnarkle: Just Him??? What about "love your neighbor as yourself"??? What about your fellow man?
It pleases Him when we love our neighbors as ourselves. Don't you see how "pleasing God" serves the big picture?
shnarkle: Sure, just noting that you seem to be preoccupied with what you can get rather than what you can give. thanks for clarifying your position.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #24

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

shnarkle wrote:shnarkle: The Pharisees refrained from sinful behavior by means of the Mosaic law and their traditions as their guide. Jesus pointed out that their adherence to the law (that would be their refraining from sinful behavior, e.g. keeping the Sabbath, circumcising their sons, refraining from stealing, tithing, etc.) wasn't enough, and would amount to nothing if they weren't "born again". If they were to continue going about establishing their own righteousness they could never be good enough to see the kingdom. I'm not saying that they weren't sinful; I'm pointing out that they were meticulous in following the law, but even they were prompt to offer sacrifice when they sinned often in a most public way. Yes, following the letter of the law refers to their actual behavior, but their actions weren't wrong, it was the reasons for their actions that were wrong. They were notoriously pious, but their motive was "the praise of men", and "to establish their own righteousness". Jesus Himself points out, "Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, THAT OBSERVE AND DO; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Sitting in the seat of Moses means that whatever they read from the letter of the law to do you must do, but not from their traditions or interpretations. That is the distinction Jesus is making (and Paul as well).
--------------------------
The Pharisees had an appearance of righteousness and people sure looked up to them, but the verse clearly states they "say and do not." They break even their own commandments. So no, they did not refrain from sin. They did the obvious things to appear sinless but they continued in sin on all the things that mattered. Quite clearly it was their behavior that Jesus disagreed with:

Various Verses in Matthew 23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #25

Post by Goat »

YahDough wrote:
shnarkle wrote: [Replying to YahDough]

"Not really. Paul starts Verse 22 with: "What if......" which makes the statement hypothetical.
shnarkle: Not in koine Greek. Unfortunately it loses something in the translation. The fact is that it is in the indicative, not the subjunctive or the optative. So it can't be a hypothetical question. Any good interlinear translation will show you that it is in the indicative. Therefore it is a fact. Q.E.D.
Things can also be gained in a translation. The KJV is authorized.
One can unwittingly make dogma out of doctrine even by going back to the original texts for retranslation.
Verse 22 as it is presented is hypothetical. Perhaps it is that way to promote mercy to those who may be experiencing hopelessness as "vessels fit for destruction".

God is the Potter. He can do what He wants with us pots.
We don't have to ask why. It even seems we are not supposed to.
And who 'authorized' the KJV? That just doesn't make sense to me.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

YahDough
Under Probation
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #26

Post by YahDough »

Goat wrote:
YahDough wrote:
shnarkle wrote: [Replying to YahDough]

"Not really. Paul starts Verse 22 with: "What if......" which makes the statement hypothetical.
shnarkle: Not in koine Greek. Unfortunately it loses something in the translation. The fact is that it is in the indicative, not the subjunctive or the optative. So it can't be a hypothetical question. Any good interlinear translation will show you that it is in the indicative. Therefore it is a fact. Q.E.D.
Things can also be gained in a translation. The KJV is authorized.
One can unwittingly make dogma out of doctrine even by going back to the original texts for retranslation.
Verse 22 as it is presented is hypothetical. Perhaps it is that way to promote mercy to those who may be experiencing hopelessness as "vessels fit for destruction".

God is the Potter. He can do what He wants with us pots.
We don't have to ask why. It even seems we are not supposed to.
And who 'authorized' the KJV? That just doesn't make sense to me.
I read that the information containing the details of the commission by King James for the Bible translation was destroyed by a fire. We know the King certainly had something to do with the authorizing..
Personally, I think God had even more involvement. It was a spectacular undertaking.

In any case I was told that the KJV is the only book to have a formal declaration of authorization by a King.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #27

Post by Goat »

YahDough wrote:
Goat wrote:
YahDough wrote:
shnarkle wrote: [Replying to YahDough]

"Not really. Paul starts Verse 22 with: "What if......" which makes the statement hypothetical.
shnarkle: Not in koine Greek. Unfortunately it loses something in the translation. The fact is that it is in the indicative, not the subjunctive or the optative. So it can't be a hypothetical question. Any good interlinear translation will show you that it is in the indicative. Therefore it is a fact. Q.E.D.
Things can also be gained in a translation. The KJV is authorized.
One can unwittingly make dogma out of doctrine even by going back to the original texts for retranslation.
Verse 22 as it is presented is hypothetical. Perhaps it is that way to promote mercy to those who may be experiencing hopelessness as "vessels fit for destruction".

God is the Potter. He can do what He wants with us pots.
We don't have to ask why. It even seems we are not supposed to.
And who 'authorized' the KJV? That just doesn't make sense to me.
I read that the information containing the details of the commission by King James for the Bible translation was destroyed by a fire. We know the King certainly had something to do with the authorizing..
Personally, I think God had even more involvement. It was a spectacular undertaking.

In any case I was told that the KJV is the only book to have a formal declaration of authorization by a King.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
So, you have a claim, yet no evidence. And why should a 'formal authorization by as King' mean anything?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

YahDough
Under Probation
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #28

Post by YahDough »

Goat wrote:
YahDough wrote:
Goat wrote:
YahDough wrote:
shnarkle wrote: [Replying to YahDough]

"Not really. Paul starts Verse 22 with: "What if......" which makes the statement hypothetical.
shnarkle: Not in koine Greek. Unfortunately it loses something in the translation. The fact is that it is in the indicative, not the subjunctive or the optative. So it can't be a hypothetical question. Any good interlinear translation will show you that it is in the indicative. Therefore it is a fact. Q.E.D.
Things can also be gained in a translation. The KJV is authorized.
One can unwittingly make dogma out of doctrine even by going back to the original texts for retranslation.
Verse 22 as it is presented is hypothetical. Perhaps it is that way to promote mercy to those who may be experiencing hopelessness as "vessels fit for destruction".

God is the Potter. He can do what He wants with us pots.
We don't have to ask why. It even seems we are not supposed to.
And who 'authorized' the KJV? That just doesn't make sense to me.
I read that the information containing the details of the commission by King James for the Bible translation was destroyed by a fire. We know the King certainly had something to do with the authorizing..
Personally, I think God had even more involvement. It was a spectacular undertaking.

In any case I was told that the KJV is the only book to have a formal declaration of authorization by a King.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
So, you have a claim, yet no evidence. And why should a 'formal authorization by as King' mean anything?
I gave you the evidence I had. Do you understand what "evidence" means?
Evidence that is not convincing is still evidence.

Do you have no respect for the authority of a King? How about a President?

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #29

Post by McCulloch »

YahDough wrote: In any case I was told that the KJV is the only book to have a formal declaration of authorization by a King.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
Do you even know which King?

In January 1604, King James I of England gave translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England and first made public in 1611. Yet today, the most used edition of the King James Version closely follows the standard text of 1769, edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford University not the text as authorized by the King in 1611.

Contemporary critics of James wrote, "Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est regina Jacobus (Elizabeth was King, now James is Queen)."
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

YahDough
Under Probation
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: vessels of wrath

Post #30

Post by YahDough »

McCulloch wrote:
YahDough wrote: In any case I was told that the KJV is the only book to have a formal declaration of authorization by a King.

Ecclesiastes 8:4
Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
Do you even know which King?
King James of England.
In January 1604, King James I of England gave translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England and first made public in 1611. Yet today, the most used edition of the King James Version closely follows the standard text of 1769, edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford University not the text as authorized by the King in 1611.
So what. I have no trouble with helpful editing. Do you? Besides, that would give more credibility to a higher power (God) "authorizing" the process.
Contemporary critics of James wrote, "Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est regina Jacobus (Elizabeth was King, now James is Queen).
Ah yes...the spin of the critics: "Essential as ants at a picnic."

Post Reply