That is the same reasoning of them that repliest against God! So Paul's answer applies to you. Rom 9:19-22
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Oooh, I almost forgot about the potter and the clay. I love the example because Calvinists use it but don't understand it well enough, and so they try to use it as an example of predestination, but when it is examined, it's a more powerful tool of free will than it is of predestination, which it completely nullifies.
Instead of using the Romans passage, we'll use the passage in Jeremiah, which is what the Romans passage is referring to.
Jeremiah 18:
The Potter and the Clay
1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the*Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the*Lord*came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the*Lord. “Look, as the clay*is*in the potter’s hand, so*are*you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy*it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant*it,*10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says theLord: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”’”
[MENTION=15399]Nanja[/MENTION]
In verses 3 and 4, we see that the potter is making something, but the clay had perhaps some sort of impurity or defect in it or maybe the shape didn't come out right, so the potter, who was forming the clay into one sort of vessel, stops making it into that vessel, and starts making it into something else.
First question: Was the potter done making it into the first vessel? Or did he stop part way through to start forming the vessel he was making into something else?
If you answered that the potter was done with the vessel when he changed it, the answer of a Calvinist, then you would be incorrect, and I question your knowledge of pottery making, as when a potter is done forming a vessel out of clay and is satisfied with it, he fires it in a kiln to harden the clay, after which the clay CANNOT be reformed. Below, I will draw the parallels between this story and free will. But for now, let's continue.
In verse 6, God is asking if He can do with Israel what the potter did with the clay, and form it however He wants. He asks that if He says He will do something based on conditions, and then those conditions change, does He not have the right to not do what He said he would do, to change His mind.
Second question: Does God reserve the right to change His mind in this passage? Or does He say that He will always do what He says, regardless of the circumstances?
To answer this question, I'd like to provide an example that everyone who has a family can understand:
A father says to his son that if he behaves and treats his mother with respect, on Saturday the father promises to take the whole family to Silver Dollar City (a really great place to go, by the way, though I haven't been there in years). And so the son behaves and treats his mother with respect throughout the week. But on Saturday as they're on their way to Silver Dollar City, the son starts to misbehave and starts disrespecting his mother. So the Father says that since the boy misbehaved and disrespected his mother, he turns the car around and drives all the way home, and did not go to Silver Dollar City. The boy, of course, starts complaining that the father said that he would take them to the park.
Final question: Did the father lie to the son when He promised to take the family to the theme park? Did he break that promise? Or did the boy break the conditions of the agreement when he disobeyed his father?
Sent from my Pixel XL using
TheologyOnline mobile app