Skip to main content

A Thought

Romans 9:21-23: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory..."

2 Timothy 2:20-22: "In any great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart."

It seems that the second text precludes interpreting the first in the manner of Calvinists. For if St. Paul means to put forward the metaphor to describe a salvation that is only passively received, why does he suggest that a person could go from one kind of vessel to another in the latter text?

Comments

I think that the two uses certainly can contribute an understanding to each other, but contextually, they are very different texts. It isn't necessary that Paul intends every use of a "vessel" metaphor to be exactly the same -- just as Jesus's parables didn't always use the same components in exactly the same way.
Anonymous said…
Thus we see the hazard of letting Scripture interpret Scripture: it is always done according to some tradition or other. It is merely a question of which tradition, and why it is deemed authoritative.
Nick said…
This post deals with Romans 9, and I think Jason's argument has merit and should be given preference given the Scripture-interprets-Scripture rule of thumb is well attested to in the Church Fathers.

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2012/03/does-romans-9-condemn-unconditional.html

Popular posts from this blog

I’m Not Ambivalent About Today

 I’ve heard some left-of-center Christians say something like this, and I confess, I don’t understand it. I was never bruised by the “culture war,” and I am not ashamed of it, except perhaps to say that if total culture war is opposed to living in community, then and only then do I oppose it. Because the fact remains that I have been on the “wrong” or losing side the whole time. To oppose the fight itself would be to say that those who fought had illegitimate concerns. I can’t say that. Truthfully, something is only a “wedge issue” to those who disagree, and lack the courage of their own conviction. I believe this is true for other things as well, but abortion is front and center today. If I have disagreements with the “Christian Right,” it’s over tactics, partisanship, and exaggerated apocalypticism. Moreover, people could simply say, “I value other things more highly,” and move on. Yet it seems that bad faith and posturing is more valued than frank honesty. The people know that popul

This Virus Is Still Really Bad

 I checked the COVID cases and deaths this morning. Over 2,200 people already, dead. I hear people saying that we're overreacting, that somehow, we're "living in fear." I just have to suppose that some folks cannot handle "9-11" nearly every day. What mental gymnastics do you have to do, to persuade yourself that it's "no big deal"? I've had 3 doses of the Pfizer vaccine, so I'm not overly concerned about being harmed personally. What I did, I did partly for others. I've lost a lot of friends and loved ones in this life, and suddenly. Death comes for us; it is our fate in this world, we could say. I don't understand why we would want to bring it more quickly, and for no sensible reason. A lot of my friends and family are just stubborn, gullible, or some combination of both, I guess. If that offends you, good. I'm over 40; if people's love for me is conditional at this point, I don't need them. We won't be here fo

Further Thoughts About Life

 One of the interesting things about the regime of legalized abortion under Roe is that we have pretended that “When does life begin?” is an intriguing question for which we do not have an answer. It’s not only that the decision imposed an answer, though it certainly did, but that the answer was wrong. Any other answer besides “at conception” creates huge ethical problems that our most intelligent people can’t solve. Think about what happens when we say the unborn is “potential life”: that means at any time up to birth,—and after—we could argue that there is some achievement of independence or consciousness that the person has yet to reach. Before that, it’s said that there is no problem in killing the product of conception. You’ll have to forgive me; we have to deal frankly with the implications of arguments. We see that “potential life” essentially talks about the living being in terms of its ability to defend itself, or to be defended by someone else. In contrast, the “conception” a