Clay Vessels & Attitudes (Rom 9) Commentary

[AndyF]

Reading from 21, “Does a potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for lofty purpose and another for a humble one?”

   How am I to approach this rare offer of a window to opinion? Am I to tread softly? Should I don the attitude of a Soylent Green(MGM) elderly in a state of artificially induced rapture, agreeing to everything, on the way to a recycling plant on a gurney to be made into human Kibble n' Bits."?

   I say to myself, "Lets face it, you are being asked to opinion the acts of your creator, a superhuman by his spokesman. The same superhuman who has no qualms in allowing his created aware beings to be tortured forever, and, who even created the chamber for that purpose." On the other hand perhaps the apprehension is unrealistic. On the other, I shirk back at the realization that the risks are all one sided. 

   Readying myself for the correct approach, I try to invoke similar situations for an answer and proper attitude. Here my mind turns to the concentration camp commandants who wielded the same power of life and death. How many inmates were allowed to express the same opinion. "Yes" men must have abounded everywhere when the gun was at their head. But what did Paul expect of us? Is our relationship with the Creator such that we can ignore that the posing of the question presents a conflict of interest for us? Is this really a free opinion, can my mind summate to a negative without retaliation? Does it change my state.? Is the results of what I say logged onto some celestial clipboard to be filed under "O" for Obstinate as further evidence at my trial? 

   So I venture my toe in the waters and gauge for reaction. 

   "Well, Paul there are a few things I take issue with.", I check for darkening skies and I go on. I explain that I object to his analogy of vessels representing aware beings. I would say that it had a ring of insensitivity, and it's use by him would put in question the value he puts on human dignity, and since the Church claims the Holy Spirit speaks through him, that makes his posture even more puzzling. Even a mule comes out of greater value than our pot.

   Not wishing to offend, and always reminding myself I'm responding to a *loaded liberty*, self preservation taking over and reminding myself that brethren Ananias and his wife had the trap door fall away from them, I somewhat sheepishly and red faced overlook this slight to human dignity.   

   My leg fully submerged now, I go on.  

   My NAB footnote explains that in 9,19-29, Paul would find it insolent the question that we would like to pose to him, "Why then does he find fault?, "For who can oppose his will.?  

   Paul would ideally like them to be of the general interest type I suppose, but how can it be if our very being depends on this Super being. For aware beings they will always be placed in the atmosphere of dire need and urgency. What questions can ever be of general interest to a Creator?  

At these moments where his own context Paul doesn't seem to understand, they are questions of pleading, to find out how we can fix this problem that creates our random outcomes, how to make them more predictable. They are an attempt to find out the substance of a being who states he acts on whims/randomly and of will alone, to find out the precepts of his standards, in order to gauge if the individual is on the track of not offending. So I disagree. These questions are indeed relevant.

   Well immersed now I go on.

   14. "What are we to say then? That God is unjust? Not at all! He says to Moses, "I will show mercy to whomever I choose; I will have pity on whomever I wish."

   If what is said to Moses explains the second question, then it falls short. It does not explain the precept of his decisions, it only goes on to tell Moses that he does them.

   Paul doesn't understand that he creates an analogy where we are in a precarious position by this presentation of news by God, that in such a situation we would aim to please, that we are not "Pharasees" with a hostile intent, that we are attempting to better our position by way of understanding His principles and finding means to *not offend*. 

  Our inquisitiveness attempts to gain the good side of this Creator.

   Phewww, now where's that towel. :blush:

   Spence

 

[tobinatorstark]

here is a comparison of Romans 9:19-29 from the Haydock Bible Commentary. Compare the two and see if it is more understandable

Ver. 19. &c. Thou wilt say, therefore, to me, &c. The apostle makes objection, that if God call some, and harden, or even permit others to be hardened, and no one resisteth, or can hinder his absolute will, why should God complain that men are not converted? St. Paul first puts such rash and profane men in mind, that is unreasonable and impertinent for creatures to murmur and dispute against God their Creator, when they do not comprehend the ways of his providence. — O man, [4] who art thou that repliest against God? This might stop the mouths, and quiet the minds of every man, when he cannot comprehend the mysteries of predestination, of God’s foreknowledge, his decrees and graces, or the manner of reconciling them with human liberty. He may cry out with St. Paul again, (chap. xi. 33.) O the riches of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! how incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! — Shall the thing formed, &c. Hath not the potter power, &c.[5] To teach men that they ought not to complain against God and his providence, when they cannot comprehend his works, he puts them in mind of their origin. Every one may say to God, with the prophet Isaias, (vi. 48.) Lord, thou art our Father, and we are but clay; thou art our Maker who framed us, and we are all of us the work of thy hands. Hath not the potter power as he pleaseth, out of the same lump of clay to make some vessels for honourable uses, and some for less honourable. St. Chrysostom observes very well, that this comparison must not be extended further than the apostle designed; which was to teach us, how submissive we ought to be to God, in what we do not understand; but we must not pretend from hence, nor from any expression in this chapter, as divers heretics have done, that as vessels of clay are destitute of free will and liberty, so are men. This is against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and against the Scriptures, in many places. (Witham) — The potter. This similitude is used, only to shew that we are not to dispute with our Maker: nor to reason with him why he does not give as much grace to one as to another: for since the whole lump of our clay is vitiated by sin, it is owing to his goodness and mercy that he makes out of it so many vessels of honour; and it is no more than just that others, in punishment of their unrepented sins, should be given up to be vessels of dishonour. (Challoner)

Ver. 22-23. And if God, &c. He now gives the reason why God might, without any injustice, have mercy on some, and not on others; grant particular graces and favours to his elect, and not equally to all; because all mankind was become liable to damnation by original sin: the clay that all are made of, is a sinful clay; and as St. Augustine says, was become a lump and mass of damnation. Every one had sinned in Adam. Now, if out of this sinful lump and multitude God, to shew the richness of his glory, and superabundant mercy, hath chosen some as vessels of election, whom he hath decreed to save, and by special graces and favours to make partakers of his heavenly kingdom; and to shew his justice and hatred of sin, hath left others as vessels of his wrath and justice, to be lost in their sins, which for a time he bears patiently with, when they deserved present punishment, who can say that he hath done unjustly? (Witham)

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ver. 24. &c. Whom also he hath called, &c. That is, he hath called some of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles, to be vessels of election, as he foretold by his prophet Osee, (ii. 24.) I will call them my people, that were not my people,…and I will make them the children of the living God. And as it was also foretold by the prophet Isaias, of all the numerous nation of the Jews, only a remnant shall be saved, by their obstinacy in not receiving, and refusing to believe in, their Messias. For finishing his word, and reducing it by his justice to a little, because the Lord will bring to pass his word reducing it to a small compass upon the earth. The sense and construction of this verse is equally obscure in the Greek and in the Latin text: the true sense seems to be, that finishing his word, or fulfilling his promises to Israel, those that are to be saved, will be reduced by his justice for their sins, to a few; because, though he bring to pass his word, and his promises, the saved among the Israelites will be reduced to a small compass, in comparison of the great number of the Gentiles. This exposition agrees with the rest of the text, and with what follows, and was foretold by Isaias, (chap. i. 9.) that unless the God of Sabaoth (of hosts) had, through his mercy, left them a seed, a small number, they would all in a manner have deserved to be utterly destroyed, like Sodom and Gomorrha. (Witham) — What I say, shall come to pass, that in those places, viz. Greece, Italy, &c. where those who are strangers to the worship of the true God dwell, and have been called, on account of their profane worship, not my people. In those very places, they shall receive the true worship of God, and by this means shall become and be called the children of the living God. He is so particular as to place, lest the Jews should imagine that the Gentiles would be converted like their former proselytes, and either dwell in Judea, or repair to it at certain stated times. Thus the apostle repeats what Jesus Christ had before said to the Samaritan woman. The hour will come when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you adore the Father. (Estius) (John iv.) — A remnant. That is, a small number only of the children of Israel shall be converted and saved. How perversely is this text quoted for the salvation of men of all religions, when it speaks only of the converts of the children of Israel. (Challoner) — St. Paul is here speaking of the reprobation of the Jews, and of the vocation of the Gentiles, and foretells that a remnant, or small number of the children of Israel shall be converted, and saved. In the sense of St. Paul, we sincerely hope, and confidently trust, that a remnant of all will be saved through a timely conversion. But we no where read, in the Old, or New Scriptures, that a remnant of all will be saved, as if it were a matter of indifference to what society or connexion a Christian was joined. (Haydock)

 

[AndyF]

tobinatorstark:

Haydock Bible Commentary. Compare the two and see if it is more understandable

…which for a time he bears patiently with, when they deserved present punishment, who can say that he hath done unjustly?

Thank you for your reply. On the record I’m replying not knowing the acceptability by the Church of your Bible thus quoted. I find reading the NAB more comfortable. The remnant syntax of old english though wonderful to read calls for more re-reading for me to understand.

Again, “Who can say?”, and who can ever say.

We are being asked to formulate an opinion, which as it pertains to the Subject in question, who can qualify to do so?.
Assuming the questioner is aware of this, I assume my answer can be either negative or positive. We would need to appeal to a higher authority to perceive how the scales would be balanced. The question is placed on an assumption stating in effect, “because no other higher authority exists, that is proof that the activities of this deity are just.” It is a question posed where an answer can never be forthcoming, it is a loaded question due to the element of risk. For certain, the heresy police looking on, we can venture a safe and charitable “yes” I agree, but it would have no backing in verifiable fact apart from God and outside of the sphere of God. All answers are coerced.

Assume the hypothetical of several deities and their creation,or, an overlying Super Authority over all other deities, then we can certainly appeal to that justice in determination. In this case then we can definitely see a consensus of proper conduct toward the created.

This is why I stated that the question is applied in a situation of conflict of interest. The “vessel” is being asked by the judge who is also the executioner to venture an agreement as to weather the treatment toward it/him/his kind is just. He does so always under the very real threat of damnation by the same pot maker.

Your very quote makes my point. You will note that even in the context of this one on one, where all hearts are laid bare, where all concerned are being asked to “give it straight” the temptation to hang the heresy label on the vessels is unresistable. (BTW: Here it is being zealously presumptive, for heresy most authors believe that the offence must be consummated, i.e. complete and perfected in its kind (in genere suo)),

I can predict one thing before this question is even posed, that all will agree that it is just. We do not exist in a Tabula Rasa environment as much as we would like to be.

So you have it. I will wager that YOU will say it is just. I will say it is just and so will every person to eternity, so why bother to ask. If real answers are desired, remove the threat.

AndyF

 

[tobinatorstark]

Thank you for your reply. On the record I’m replying not knowing the acceptability by the Church of your Bible thus quoted. I find reading the NAB more comfortable. The remnant syntax of old english though wonderful to read calls for more re-reading for me to understand.

Again, “Who can say?”, and who can ever say.

We are being asked to formulate an opinion, which as it pertains to the Subject in question, who can qualify to do so?.
Assuming the questioner is aware of this, I assume my answer can be either negative or positive. We would need to appeal to a higher authority to perceive how the scales would be balanced. The question is placed on an assumption stating in effect, “because no other higher authority exists, that is proof that the activities of this deity are just.” It is a question posed where an answer can never be forthcoming, it is a loaded question due to the element of risk. For certain, the heresy police looking on, we can venture a safe and charitable “yes” I agree, but it would have no backing in verifiable fact apart from God and outside of the sphere of God. All answers are coerced.

Assume the hypothetical of several deities and their creation,or, an overlying Super Authority over all other deities, then we can certainly appeal to that justice in determination. In this case then we can definitely see a consensus of proper conduct toward the created.

This is why I stated that the question is applied in a situation of conflict of interest. The “vessel” is being asked by the judge who is also the executioner to venture an agreement as to weather the treatment toward it/him/his kind is just. He does so always under the very real threat of damnation by the same pot maker.

Your very quote makes my point. You will note that even in the context of this one on one, where all hearts are laid bare, where all concerned are being asked to “give it straight” the temptation to hang the heresy label on the vessels is unresistable. (BTW: Here it is being zealously presumptive, for heresy most authors believe that the offence must be consummated, i.e. complete and perfected in its kind (in genere suo)),

I can predict one thing before this question is even posed, that all will agree that it is just. We do not exist in a Tabula Rasa environment as much as we would like to be.

So you have it. I will wager that YOU will say it is just. I will say it is just and so will every person to eternity, so why bother to ask. If real answers are desired, remove the threat.

AndyF

sorry for the confusion. I don’t care for the NAB that well as I don’t get its point. On the other hand I find the Douay-Rheims with Haydock Commentary quite literal.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Reading from 21, “Does a potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for lofty purpose and another for a humble one?”

How am I to approach this rare offer of a window to opinion? Am I to tread softly? Should I don the attitude of a Soylent Green(MGM) elderly in a state of artificially induced rapture, agreeing to everything, on the way to a recycling plant on a gurney to be made into human Kibble n’ Bits."?

I say to myself, “Lets face it, you are being asked to opinion the acts of your creator, a superhuman by his spokesman. The same superhuman who has no qualms in allowing his created aware beings to be tortured forever, and, who even created the chamber for that purpose.” On the other hand perhaps the apprehension is unrealistic. On the other, I shirk back at the realization that the risks are all one sided.

Readying myself for the correct approach, I try to invoke similar situations for an answer and proper attitude. Here my mind turns to the concentration camp commandants who wielded the same power of life and death. How many inmates were allowed to express the same opinion. “Yes” men must have abounded everywhere when the gun was at their head. But what did Paul expect of us? Is our relationship with the Creator such that we can ignore that the posing of the question presents a conflict of interest for us? Is this really a free opinion, can my mind summate to a negative without retaliation? Does it change my state.? Is the results of what I say logged onto some celestial clipboard to be filed under “O” for Obstinate as further evidence at my trial?

So I venture my toe in the waters and gauge for reaction.

“Well, Paul there are a few things I take issue with.”, I check for darkening skies and I go on. I explain that I object to his analogy of vessels representing aware beings. I would say that it had a ring of insensitivity, and it’s use by him would put in question the value he puts on human dignity, and since the Church claims the Holy Spirit speaks through him, that makes his posture even more puzzling. Even a mule comes out of greater value than our pot.

Not wishing to offend, and always reminding myself I’m responding to a loaded liberty, self preservation taking over and reminding myself that brethren Ananias and his wife had the trap door fall away from them, I somewhat sheepishly and red faced overlook this slight to human dignity.

My leg fully submerged now, I go on.

My NAB footnote explains that in 9,19-29, Paul would find it insolent the question that we would like to pose to him, "Why then does he find fault?, "For who can oppose his will.?

Paul would ideally like them to be of the general interest type I suppose, but how can it be if our very being depends on this Super being. For aware beings they will always be placed in the atmosphere of dire need and urgency. What questions can ever be of general interest to a Creator?

At these moments where his own context Paul doesn’t seem to understand, they are questions of pleading, to find out how we can fix this problem that creates our random outcomes, how to make them more predictable. They are an attempt to find out the substance of a being who states he acts on whims/randomly and of will alone, to find out the precepts of his standards, in order to gauge if the individual is on the track of not offending. So I disagree. These questions are indeed relevant.

Well immersed now I go on.

1. "What are we to say then? That God is unjust? Not at all! He says to Moses, “I will show mercy to whomever I choose; I will have pity on whomever I wish.”

If what is said to Moses explains the second question, then it falls short. It does not explain the precept of his decisions, it only goes on to tell Moses that he does them.

Paul doesn’t understand that he creates an analogy where we are in a precarious position by this presentation of news by God, that in such a situation we would aim to please, that we are not “Pharasees” with a hostile intent, that we are attempting to better our position by way of understanding His principles and finding means to not offend.

Our inquisitiveness attempts to gain the good side of this Creator.

Phewww, now where’s that towel.

Spence

Trivia first. Eternal punishment is eternal, not within time; it does not last for uncounted trillions of years. If it were within time, there might at last be an end to it. There is not.​

Anyway. Romans 9.20 does look like brow-beating, admittedly, but, OTOH, if God were not totally Sovereign, how could He be totally Gracious ? As for whim - love cannot be reduced to pure reason, even on earth; so maybe what looks like Divine whimsicality is nothing other than Divine Love. How can the Infinite God be assigned a reason for His acts ? That would mean searching outside Him, so as to measure Him: but He alone is great enough to be His measure - so no created thing, nor all the sum of countless creations, actual & possible, can possibly be the measure of God. God is “unreasonable” because reason is far too small to measure so great a God. To love one’s enemies, to pray for for them, to forgive them, is unreasonable - it is also exceedingly creative. God is not reasonable, because He is not just - He is gracious, which is a far greater thing: if He were just, not one of us would be fit to stand before Him.

As to our lack of “hostile intent” - can we really say this ? I don’t think this allows for how deceitful & self-seeking we can be. As for human dignity - what dignity does a sinner have ? “Do not give us what we truly deserve…” - this is a strong hint that we deserve damnation. To safeguard human dignity, we need to exalt God as totally Sovereign, because our liberty is safe only within His; He has to come first, in everything (as indeed He is).

Just my 2d.

 

[AndyF]

Good to hear from you again!

Trivia first. Eternal punishment is eternal, not within time; it does not last for uncounted trillions of years. If it were within time, there might at last be an end to it. There is not.​

Would you settle for ,“A dang long time”.?

Anyway. Romans 9.20 does look like brow-beating, admittedly, but, OTOH, if God were not totally Sovereign, how could He be totally Gracious ?

I have no idea. The answer would depend on the accuracy of any one of these. Either… 1/All Sovereigns
are always Totally Gracious. 2/Some Sovereigns are Partially Gracious 3/Some Sovereigns are Totally Gracious.
It is uncertain if this gauge, if even applicable, applies if one Sovereign exists, or if many exist.

******Your statement is both, an argument from adverse consequences because it states that because He is Sovereign, then this makes him always Totally gracious; and also an argument from Authority, because He said it, then it must be true. There is no way of verifying this.
But then of course we have Faith which goes beyond our ability to reason, therefore, I have “Faith” in the belief this is true.

As for whim -

It is implied has a whim, the closest word that comes to it. But this said out of clarity of course. I think it is natural to say that today if a person says, “I’ll do what I want”, it automatically brings on a desire of what standard and limiting precepts this person lives by, because it impacts in a social manner. (school yard shooting proof enough). God can hurt me, therefore I instinctively wish to better my position in his eyes. (which is why I think Paul had it all wrong, we are not “pushing our weight” with God in his context as he sees it, but “whimpering ***** cats” in it. His context describes the exception not the rule. The person who dares to ask about God’s rights would be an exception.

How can the Infinite God be assigned a reason for His acts ?

God is asked many times in Scripture the reason for His acts. Can that concentration camp mother who has the gestapo revolver to her head “insolently” request a reason for his act.? Besides, why not? Is Paul also conveying that we cannot appeal to the “human Father” in God? Is the Church also saying this?

When Paul asks man if God has the right to create…, isn’t that an appeal to our known limited reasoning?

That would mean searching outside Him, so as to measure Him

Exactly what I meant. The only way we can answer this is if we have a window on the life of deities and their conduct and knowledge of an overriding creed that they bind themselves to. If someone asked a Martian if I had a right to such and such, wouldn’t he ask to see the earthly rule books and talk to the Authority over me?

What Paul thinks by his question is that we have the right to opinion due to the rule that created things can judge the righteousness of the act of their own creation. An interesting situation from the celestial bleachers observing “Roman Forum” earth(conundrums probably the real intent). The situation isn’t the ideal has in this case the vessel maker is also the vessel destroyer. The instinctual reaction for self preservation(eternal as well has earthly) is to determine the reasoning of the one who can destroy in order to set things straight with him. Paul’s analogy places us in a paradox.

God is not reasonable, because He is not just

I understand it has, God is on occasion beyond earthly reasoning, sometimes when he wishes us to summarize our analysis then depending on what graces we have we are allowed to have that experience. For others and for the time being they are still left in the dark. We achieve our total reasoning has celestial beings at our degree of beatification,… if we make it.

As to our lack of “hostile intent” - can we really say this ?

I would say that would depend at which instant in time. He who has just been assigned a soul would not be in any hostile frame of mind I should think. In fact I would say he would be in a neutral mindful state, ready to be explained how nasty a vessel he is about to become. I would guess at this news he is saying, “Well, this existence sure isn’t what it is cut out to be. I was content and non-affecting in my non-existing state where I hurt no one and affected nothing. I guess when he asks has my first inalienable choice I’ll ever make, I’ll just say no thanks, I don’t want to hurt anyone here, I’ll just go back to where I came from, even though I give up all these wonders has a total sacrifice.”

As for human dignity - what dignity does a sinner have ?

CC1700
The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude…

One of countless CC references. The Church recognizes the intrinsic dignity of the person.

Thanks for your 2$. Your being modest, you always give more.

Andy