Pages

Monday, January 30, 2006

The Freedom of the Potter and the Prooftexts of the Commenter

One of the commenters, Kris, has had a brief discussion with me via email. I am posting my next response to him here, for all to read and comment:

Dear brother,

I do not mean any disrespect by this statement:

Until you see Jesus, who showed us the Father, for whom He really is then you will not see what those of free-grace see. I do not question your standing before the Lord as you can see I addressed you as brother. However your replies do not give reason for God giving man over to his own choices in not acknowledging Him, by intentionally hardening whom He will harden. Romans 1 clearly says that God gives man over because of mans refusal to believe Him. I believe God hardens those who have ‘hardened themselves’ to the point of no return (reprobation). Please show me where Jesus in the gospels or anywhere a writer said or implied that the father wills to reprobate any man? God even spoke to Cain showing patience in instructing him to do what is right. Now if God willed for Cain to not believe Him why did He try to instruct him? There is something very wrong with this doctrine. This is not God who IS love. Do you not believe it grieves God’s heart to see men perish? (Luke 19:41-44 Matt. 23:37) If it grieves God’s heart to see men perish, how can you say that He intentionally hardens their heart to perish?

No offense to the Sandemanian Kris, but his comments have that unorganized, throw-everything-you-have-at-them feel of traditional Arminians. A note to people who comment or send me emails: it is always beneficial if we would simply stay on one topic at a time, on the same few texts at the time. We all have presuppositions, and we must consider whether or not our presuppositions are exegetically justifiable. It makes my position difficult if if the “throw-everything-you-have-at-them” tactic is employed. It would be much better if we simply looked at one text at a time, examining it in light of its context, syntax, etc. Having said that, I will try to briefly respond to everything that is presented in the above paragraph:

1. Kris calls me “brother,” but then implies that I do not “see Jesus, who showed us the Father, for whom He really is,” and yet at the same time implies that Sandemanians do. I don’t really understand this. We should allow Biblical exegesis to defend our position, not some subjective claim to know Jesus better than another Christian. I’m sure Kris didn’t mean exactly this, but this is indeed the essence of what he is saying.

2. My reply did indeed give reason behind both God’s hardening of the reprobates, and giving them over to the natural conditions of their reprobation. I had stated:

Reprobates do not harden themselves. They are hardened by God, and therefore, have the effects of being hardened. Romans 1 shows the effects of being hardened. Romans 9 tells us that it is God who hardens who he wills and (literally) mercies whom he wills. Therefore, it does not depend on man who wills, but on God’s choice (Romans 9:16).

Yes, God bore with much patience the reprobates because he willed to reprobate them. This does not mean that their reprobation was dependent upon their own choice. Romans 9 says the direct opposite. Clay does not choose to be either an honorable vessel or a dishonorable. It is just clay. Its will is of no consequence. What matters is the Potter. And the Potter chose to make reprobates, and to bear the effects of their reprobation with much patience that his glory would be revealed in the end. This is what the passage plainly teaches.

3. Romans 1 absolutely does not introduce the will of man in any arbitrary or authoritative sense. It simply tells us that God’s choice to hand sinful man over to the desires of their flesh is a result of their fall. Let us also remember that Romans 1 does not touch on the issue of election or reprobation, but simply God’s wrath against fallen man.

4. God does not harden those who have already been hardened. He hardens them, and therefore they act like harden reprobates. Clay does not start off as dishonorable clay, and therefore the Potter decides to make a dishonorable vessel. That is not what the passage states at all. Rather, clay is simply clay. From the same lump of clay the Potter makes honorable and dishonorable vessels. A vessel is not dishonorable because it was already dishonorable clay. Rather, a vessel is dishonorable because God has made it that way.

5. Kris then briefly cites some classic Arminian prooftexts. But I want us stay on the issue of Romans 9, not dodge that passage and run elsewhere. Furthermore, I wish to respond to Kris’ comment in entirety, and space simply forbids the exegesis of every single cited prooftext. If Kris seriously and genuinely wishes for me to address these passages and is not simply using the “throw-everything-you-have-at-them” tactic, the burden is on him to present what they are saying first.

We continue with his comments:

You said: “Reprobates do not harden themselves. They are hardened by God, and therefore, have the effects of being hardened. Romans 1 shows the effects of being hardened. Romans 9 tells us that it is God who hardens who he wills and (literally) mercies whom he wills. Therefore, it does not depend on man who wills, but on God’s choice (Romans 9:16).”

If this is true lets look at Rom 1:28 again; “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.” If getting to the point of being a reprobate is based entirely on God hardening their hearts then why does this verse not say; God hardened their heart so that they did not see fit to acknowledge Him any longer and their minds became depraved to do those things which are not proper.

Kris assumes, without benefit of argument, that Romans 1 is talking about election and reprobation in the Romans 9 sense. But he fails to make such a connection. Moreover, he fails to address Romans 9 apart from fleeing to Romans 1. Romans 1 addresses the wrath of God against fallen man, and God’s decision to subject fallen man to the desires of its flesh. It does not, however, address the issues involved in hardening reprobates or mercying the elect.

You see it is God loving man so much that He is willing to let man reject Him and therefore giving them over to a depraved mind. We are depraved, but we are not so depraved that Romans 1:19,20 does not apply to each of us. Then if we continually ignore God then total depravity comes in verse 28. I do not discount the fact that I have a deceitful heart and who can know it. I know without the Christ atonement for me I am without hope.

To be honest, this just shows how pitiful the Arminian/Sandemanian position is. Is it really loving to allow the one whom you love to be lost? Let’s say a mother is watching her child playing in the street. All of a sudden, an 18-wheeler is speeding down the road. What will the mother who loves her child do? Will she call out to him and plea, “Now, I want you to come out of the street out of your own free will. I love you that much that if you wish to play in the street and die, then I will let you do that. I would rather you live, but if you want to die, I’ll respect your free will.” Absolutely not! A truly loving mother would go out in that street, grab her child by the hand, and pull him out!

God is all loving. Unfortunately, what seems to have crept into contemporary religion is that God cannot be all loving unless He loves each creature in the same way and offers grace to all equally. God’s love towards the apostle John in heaven must be equal towards Pharaoh in hell. God can have no differentiation in His love. This thought makes God less than His creation. We are not called to love our neighbor’s wife the same way we love our wife. No, it must be different in intensity and substance. It is proper for man to do so. The same is with God. He does not love everyone else the same way He loves His wife, the church.

When we take God’s love and require it to be dispensed to every person equally, we limit its power and effect. It can no longer be love that redeems, but love and grace that is spread over the whole world like peanut butter. It becomes dependent upon man to leap and claim the grace dispersed over the atmosphere, and in the end, if man fails, God must be eternally disappointed because those whom He loved but did not efficaciously redeem are now burning in hell. The bible depicts a completely different picture. We must realize that God’s purpose in His love is to redeem those whom He has elected, and that is true abundant love, not hopeless attempts, but efficient, sovereign actions from a truly all-loving God. So we must not start off with our traditional, Teddy bear understanding about God and his love. We must go to the texts of Scripture and see what they actually say. And if they rubb our traditions the wrong way, we must reject our traditions, not the Scriptures.

Actually, we see the “Grab the kid out of the street by the arm in order to save him” illustration in the Biblical texts. Remember Lot? The angels of the Lord came to Lot. They warned him, “Get out of this city!” And what did Lot do? He, like everyone else loving what he had there, delayed. The angels once again told him, “Get out! Flee lest you be consumed!” And what did Lot do? He delayed again! So then what did these angels do?

Gen 19:16 And he lingered. And the men lay hold of his hand and his wife’s hand, and on the hand of his two daughters, Jehovah having mercy on him. And they caused him to go out, and they put him down outside the city

They did exactly what the mother would do: they grabbed him by the hand and, because of the mercy of Jehovah, pulled him out of the city. Similarly, it is God who pulls us from the depths of the grave by making us alive in regeneration. You see, the love of God is love that saves, not love that attempts to save. The famous Spurgeon quote states:

“A redemption which pays a price, but does not ensure that which is purchased — a redemption which calls Christ a substitute for the sinner, but yet which allows the person to suffer - is altogether unworthy of our apprehensions of Almighty God. It offers no homage to his wisdom, and does despite to his covenant faithfulness. We could not and would not receive such a travesty of divine truth as that would be. There is no ground for any comfort whatever in it.”

You want to talk about context of these scriptures and I agree. Lets look at the context of Romans 9. It starts out talking about Israel and their rejection of Christ. It ends with why most, not all, Israel was rejected. Israel and all people are rejected for salvation because they stumble over the grace of God. Look at the end of this chapter at verses 30-33. It is mans choice to believe God and believe in Christ and quit pursuing a righteousness of his own. So everything in this chapter has to be in context with the beginning and the end. God being the ultimate in the buck stops here with Him declares responsibility for hardening mans heart even though man was given free will to accept or reject his Creators free gift of eternal life. Your right its not man that wills or works its Gods choice, but Gods choice like it is described at the end of this chapter and as always been since the beginning with Cain and Abel was that Cain brought an offering of works(Genesis 4:2,3) and Abel brought an offering of faith(Hebrews 11:4) therefore Gods choice is based on man believing Him and His righteousness, not man bringing a righteousness of his own and therefore nullifying the grace of God.

Kris’ exegesis of the passage is the direct opposite of the presentation of the passage. He ignores Paul’s presented logical order, interprets v. 30-33 outside of the preceding context, and eisgetes that out of context interpretation back into the preceding verses. Paul does not get to the faith/responsibility aspect of Israel until after he has established the freedom of the Potter. The notion that God chooses to harden and mercy whom he wills precedes the human perspective of v. 30-33. This is the presented order of the text:

1. Verses 1-5: Israel as a nation has seemingly been rejected.
2. Verses 6-13: This is not against the will of God, nor has his word failed. For “not all those of Israel are Israel.” God has had a specific remnant that he has willed to save from the beginning.
3. Verses 14:-23: God is righteous in his decision to save whom he wills and harden whom he wills because he is the Potter, and the Potter has the right over the clay. The clay cannot answer back to the Potter.
4. Verses 24:-29: The ones whom God has chosen to mercy are the true Israel, the true people of God, God’s remnant.
5. Verses 30-33: Israel wrongly sought righteousness by Law and failed to attain it. This is because God has chosen to harden whom he wills and mercy whom he wills.

This is the presented order and logic of the text, and it must not be ignored.

Many are called, but few are chosen. Many hear the Gospel (called), but few believe and not stumble (chosen). You see Jesus said that God gave His only son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish. This is free-grace, that’s why He was persecuted by the religious leaders of the day, they thought He was a heretic. Many free-grace teachers today are persecuted by the religious folk of today for teaching this same ‘heresy’. Think about this, which I know you have: It was the religious, the teachers of the law that wanted Christ dead. They could not stand a God who would love them apart from their performance or works. That was Cain’s problem and it is still mans problem today.

Grace to you

Kris

Again there are so many assumptions and assertions in this single paragraph that it is very difficult to form a meaningful response:

1. Kris forces his humanistic theology into the called/chosen passage. Since when has “chosen” meant for one on his own to chose to “believe and not stumble”? Yes, that is a result of the fact that one is chosen. But it is not the authority in the decision. People are chosen because they are chosen, because God chose them. Yes, the affect of being chosen is belief. But it is not the determination of God’s choice.

2. Kris, like a good ol’ Arminian, uses the phrase “whosoever believes” as if it communicates that the number is undetermined, or that the Calvinist position does not affirm that men must believe in order to be saved. It might help to know that “whosever believes” in the context of John 3:16 is simply literally, “all believing ones” following the hina clause “with the purpose that”. In other words, John 3:16 tells us that God sent his Son with the purpose of saving believing ones. This verse hardly communicates some generic, undetermined number of people believing out of their own authoritative free will to which many Arminians and Sandemanians who quote this phrase are alluding.

3. Kris then talks about the persecution of “Free Gracers.” This doesn’t really have any relevance here because I have persecuted no one. I have simply asked to discuss the relevant passages, which is kinda what we are doing here (though I would like our discussion to be much more focused).

Hoping to someday get to John 6 with you guys,
Evan May.

No comments:

Post a Comment