A question related to God's sovereignty

Here is a question regarding God's sovereignty? We understand that God's sovereignty allows Him the divine right to do whatever is pleasing to Him. We do not fear this authoritative prerogative because by faith we hold that God's perfect will originates from within His perfect being.
If it pleases Him to make some vessels unto wrath and other vessels unto mercy, we may wrestle trying to comprehend this truth; however, we can not accuse Him of wrong doing and remain consistent with our confession that God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all.
God will do whatever He pleases and all of His desires are perfectly righteous - there is no contradiction.
Now for the question - If God always does what pleases Him, why would He be pleased to create vessels unto wrath when He states that He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked? Put another way, why would God sovereignly choose to create a vessel solely for the purpose to be destroyed when He has clearly stated it does not please Him to destroy the wicked?
I am certain that I am not the first person to ask this question, so if someone reading this can point me to an article or book that addresses this, I would be grateful.

Mak

Are we allowed to argue that your observation stems from a false premise(that God predestines individual persons to wrath)?

If so, that is my argument.

The other option is monstrous, no matter how one tries to spin it.

The bible teaches that man was created by God with the purpose of exercising a free will to make choices to obey God or disobey. God did not create mankind to be robots that are controlled against their will.

Blessings...rbanks

Hey Neil-

I just happened to listen to the book of Job last week- it is one of my favorites.

I don't get any contrary idea from Job.

Sure, God can do what He wants. The question is, what does He do?

Brother Alan,

I can only speak from the understanding I've been given by the Lord,... Having said that I inquired at great length regarding a similar question of where the sovereignty of God ends and the free will of man begins? Which I am aware many professing Faith in Christ do not even confess is an actual agent. Nonetheless this seemed to me to be the crux of the matter of so much division in the church that I was previously unaware of. I believe the Lord Himself gave me the desire to seek Him out on this subject so that He may reveal the truth of His spirit on this most divisive subject. It was however up to me to take up the task,that he had given me the desire for, and if I had not He would simply give it to another and most likely has/did, not because of any lack of desire for the truth on my part so much as for the integrity of His plan and the purposes therein.

So perhaps because I am simple minded He gave it (after years of prep) to me in a very elementary context.....

You can't have a kingdom without a king and if there is a king then his word is law/sovereign within the borders of his kingdom, however his sovereignty does not extend beyond the borders of his kingdom. (Which brought to mind a parallel with Jesus and Pontius Pilate).
He then continued to give me an analogous context and asked me questions regarding it as follows;
If you,as a loving and responsible father, took your son Asa to a place that he deemed unclean, seedy, and dangerous, would he not question it at first but then be comforted by your calm and loving disposition giving you the benefit of the doubt as to why you lead him there? I said yes

He the asked now, since you lead him there (to a place outside his ability to understand) are you as his father sovereignly responsible for his provision? his protection? his security while there? Again I answered yes and psalm 23 came to mind

He then asked this,.... Now what if this same son went to this same place but without your directing him to go or accompanying him- does he have any legitimate expectation of your provision? your protection? your security? I answered, no...
But what if this son went to this place without your leading and found himself in trouble and cried out for help, would you rescue him? I said yes a thousand times and as quickly the last as the first. To which He said, so it is with you. My sovereignty extends only to those who choose to submit themselves to it even when it doesn't make sense to them because they love me and trust that I love them and desire the best for them.

This may mean nothing to you dear brother but for me it was exactly what I needed to hear, that tho at times the circumstances of life seem dire, IF we are walking in obedience to God then we have nothing to worry about and are His sheep, however if we go a out doing what is right in our own eyes then we have not a king and have become a law unto ourselves and are goats/lawless....

I've found over the years a great number of people who have on the "soldiers uniform" but aren't "under orders" of their CO, but are in fact rouge agents/wolves in sheep clothing if you will and it is a most grevious thing and does great damage to the cause of Christ.
2 Timothy 2:3-5 comes to mind....

Hope this helps,... as for articles and commentaries, I've read and studied many but only my King could give me the words of life and tho they be hard, where else can I go?

Hi Fletcher-

But what if God predestined that your son go to the seedy part of town? And also that he not cry out for help?

Brother Todd,
Ha! Well that wouldn't be a word of life now would it?
And the God of salvation that saves me everyday, doesn't lead us to death but we can choose it in spite of His best efforts to call us to repentance.

Going farther I confess I don't kno the "god" that does that. The God I know and serve is abounding in mercy, kindness, is forgiving and justifies the sinner while yet an enemy, so the one you describe is foreign to me.

The garden of Gethsemane is a (for me) very clear example of Gods sovereignty at work:)

God is sovereign. There's no question about it. The most fortunate thing I have found about this subject is that my ideas about the sovereignty of God in no way affect His actual sovereignty. Good thing the Lord is not waiting upon us to define what Biblical predestination is in order to be doing it.

So regardless of what conclusion we come to today or any other day, God still reigns and His will will be accomplished according to His plan and purpose.

Here is what I notice about people: men and women love the sovereignty of God when it benefits them (blessings, help in situations, etc). They may tend to hate it when it seems to harm them (trials, death, sickness, etc). You can't do a study on the sovereignty of God and still be grappling with selfish ambitions and expect to come to a doctrinally sound conclusion. That was not pointed at anyone, just something I know is true about myself. When God offends me, it is because I am being dumb.

Hi fletcher-

Hope my tone doesn't come across as nasty. I actually enjoy these conversations.

What I don't like and have trouble abiding is the aspersion of God's character. If you peel too many layers off the Calvinistic sovereignty onion that is what happens.

I certainly agree that we cannot know how God works.

But one thing I do know: he does not create persons in order to send them to hell. I am ok with saying a person sends Himself to hell by not believing; what I cannot say is that God is behind the choice, as Calvinists do.

Brother Todd,

No offense was takin dear brother as I catch and appreciate your context and sense of humor;)

Yeah I loved my reformed grace brethren but we agree to disagree on that doctrine.
Interestingly I've never met someone who subscribes to the reformed grace doctrine of election that did not think themselves one of the elect;)
It would be a strange thing to have one confess the doctrine and then follow with, "but it sucks cause I'm not one of the elect" would it not?

Haha never thought of that before. Good point.

Cal-arm alarm :)

Here we go again...... - all the arguments about that have been pulled out already by people more clever and learned than us.

Anyone seriously inclined to come to the bottom of it if that were possible should listen to Keith Daniel's sermon entitled "The tightrope walker"
He starts to preach as a Calvinist and then at the midst of his sermon takes on an Arminianist positon - seemingly. In the end he states: I am glad I can walk out of this place with the whole bible in my hand.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=19110&commentView=itemComments

enjoy!

I certainly agree that these discussions are generally unfruitful in the long run.

The Calvinist brothers I know personally, all who are very intelligent and strong men of God, respect each other enough not to discuss it if at all possible. It requires much tongue biting.

Yes that's my experience as well. Some of my reformed brothers like their Armenian counterparts actually know Jesus and walk with Him and we enjoy a fruitful time of fellowship.

Interestingly while in doctrine I'm not on that side per sé in my personal relationship I have noticed it leans more toward that (reformed side).

Another interesting note... Peter by all accounts in my reading/study had a very Armenian experience of Christ, while John was def more of a reformed experience in that he seemed to focus on the fact that he was loved/chosen. Another interesting note is while John's experience was seemingly a more stable/consistent one, he had few if any miracles credited to his ministry where as Peter (next to Jesus) was the benchmark in spite of his ups and downs.
Makes for a wonderful life in Christ wherever we find ourselves in Him:)

Can I whisper something into this? :)

The OP quoted -- without citing -- Paul's argument in Romans 9.

I want to offer this -- and I know it'll be rebutted and dismissed by some, but I offer it humbly any way: that Romans 9 is not referring to individual "vessels" but to Israel as the nation of the promise ("vessels of mercy") and to the Gentiles as "vessels of wrath". The entire context of Chapter 9 - 11 has nothing to do with individuals and their particular salvation or damnation.

Romans 9-11 is one of the brilliant pieces of writing ever. Well, the whole epistle is, but you get my point. I don't know of any other writing like Romans where an elaborately long and perfectly stated argument is made (chapter 1-8) that continues PERFECTLY in two different places (chapters 9-11 on the one hand, and chapter 12 on the other). You COULD read Romans 1-8, skip 9-11, and pick up with 12:1 ff. and it make total sense. Of course, it would be incomplete because 9-11 are vital in every sense of the word. That's one reason why this is such a brilliant piece of writing.

But, 9-11 as a unit is an argument about God's purpose for Israel. It MUST be read so because that's what it is.

Paul already discussed how INDIVIDUALS are saved in Rom. 3:22-24. He already said that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for those who believe, first the Jew then the Greek (Gentile) in Romans 1:16.

In Matthew 21:42-44, Jesus told the Pharisees what was going to happen NATIONALLY to Israel as they rejected Himself as Messiah. In Romans 9, Paul affirms Jesus and explains how and -- in one of the few times in the Scripture we get "whys" to things -- why God was/is doing with Israel because of Jesus. You know this is what he is doing because he tells you, elaborating "hey, I love Israel and would let myself be cut off from Christ if the nation of Israel in the flesh would be saved, but it isn't like God's word has failed them or anything because not all of natural/national Israel is really Israel. They are Israel because God chose them. God's choice is what makes Israel Israel." Then, he goes on in the rest of chapter 9 to make clear how that is the case.

This makes perfect sense. After all, we all here have read the prophets in the OT and we all know Israel's attitude as a nation was, "Hey, we're Israel. God's not going to let us be taken exile." They missed the point. They kept missing the point all the way to their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. Jesus told them the consequence of that, and it is to our fortune as Gentiles of course, so that we might be partakers of the promises, too! But, for Israel the nation in the flesh, they rejected that. So, what is God doing with Israel? Jesus said it in Matthew 21:42-44, and Paul explains it more fully broken down into its elements in Romans 9.

God chose Jacob over Esau because it was God's sovereign choice to do so, not because Jacob merited it --- thus taking away Israel's long-held belief that they merited God's promises. Rom. 9:10-12. It is not about individual salvation. To quote Whitney Houston, "that's whack." :) It is about why God chose Israel and how He went about it. By God's sovereign grace, He chose Israel as His covenant people through whom to deliver His word, His promises and ultimately His Son and our salvation.

In 9:14-18, Paul makes it clear that this choice is up to God, not men. God alone says what nation (Israel) He would choose to bring Himself to humanity. It's His choice. He doesn't let us tell Him. In fact, Paul cites God's firm control over it by alluding to Exodus 33 where Moses contended with God over how He ought to reveal Himself to Israel. God would only reveal His glory to Moses, and then only in part, and then only because He chose and not because Moses insisted. Likewise, God chooses which nation -- Israel -- He would use. And, He did exactly that.

Neither can a man stop God from exercising His will among the nations. Paul uses Pharoah as a case in point. God "hardened" (or, strengthened) Pharoah's dark heart to do what Pharoah wanted to do anyway -- stop Israel from leaving, keep them as his slaves. But, God showed him big-time how not even a king could stop Him and His strategy among the nations.

Just read chapter 9 closely. You'll see.