AGAIN, I responded too soon, and didn’t notice this section, since I dismissed it as silly at first, and so completely forgot about it after I responded to your first section. But I have to remember I ought to reply to it, even when it is silly:
“To make a pot “into dishonor” is not the same as breaking it. Sin is what breaks the proverbial pot. “Into dishonor” simply means what we all know, that not all men have a lofty disposition and God makes them all, prince and pauper, saint and scoundrel.”
None of this is founded on anything in those verses. You do not even use the verse at all to come to any of these conclusions. In fact, read the verse that even leads into it:
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
How is it that Paul replies to this objection with: “Nay, but, O Man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto Him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?” And immediately begins his discourse on the vessels of wrath doomed to destruction, if, in fact, the question from Paul’s hypothetical opponent is based on a false premise? Why didn’t Paul say, “Nay, but, O man, God didn’t predestinate anyone to salvation or anyone to destruction!”
What your “interpretation” tells me is that you probably didn’t even bother to read the chapter in question, but are literally going off of what I am showing you in these posts.
You need to really actually read the verses, and not just make these random assertions that are self-evidently false. Same thing in reply to your silly comment about them not being “destroyed,” when, obviously, if they are created for dishonor, and a little later, are called vessels of wrath, obviously God intends to destroy them. If that is not enough proof, then neither is there any proof that the “vessels of mercy” actually are intended for mercy. And therefore are salvation is entirely in question.
Yawn. Tomorrow.