Honorable and Dishonorable Use According to the Mind of the Potter

"That the creatures have at times deviated from their first rules and settlement is no derogation from the doctrine of God's sovereignty, but rather an illustration of it, as showing that the creatures are still in His hand, as clay in the potter's. Hence we find their innate propensities to be sometimes suspended; at other times, overacted; and at times again quite contrary to the law of nature. And this [is] not casually nor by the force of created powers, nor yet for any private or self-concern, but to serve some special and superior end which their Lord had to be done" --Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

He doesn't quote it, but Coles alludes to a reference from Paul: "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:19-21). 

If a potter splits his lump of clay, and uses one part to make a decanter for the finest wine, and the other part for a chamber pot, is that not his power to do? Can the chamber pot pipe up that it, too, wishes to hold fine wine? Of course not! Paul uses such an obvious example to make plain that the objection to God's sovereignty is equally irrational. 

While Coles widens Paul's text to apply to all created creatures, I want to focus, as Paul did, on God's sovereignty over mankind. It is all one to Paul, whether we are speaking of the lesser animals or to man; sentience is not grounds for autonomy. The sentient creation is still under the legitimate rule of his Creator. 

In theology, this is the contrasting doctrines of election, God's choice unto salvation and glorification, and reprobation, God's choice unto wickedness and judgment. Paul applies this dichotomy to an example which the Jewish Christians would have known well, the Pharaoh in Moses's account of the exodus from Egypt: "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth'" (Romans 9:17, citing Exodus 9:16). 

Paul's point in both his potter analogy and in the account of Pharaoh is to show that election and reprobation are not punishments or rewards for men, i. e., not something to be claimed by an autonomous creature. Rather, they are determined by His primary purpose, which is to glorify Himself. Granted, that is a concept that the unbeliever and many professing believers find abominable. Which is exactly the point of Paul's choice of words: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Romans 9:20).

The implied answer is that, "You are no one." 

The Unpopular Biblical Doctrine of Reprobation

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." 

-Proverbs 16:4 

I think that the least-popular doctrine of Calvinism is that of reprobation, the biblical teaching that God has not only elected some to salvation, but has also chosen the rest for damnation. In biblical language, it is said that God has made the reprobate from the same lump of clay, but as "vessels for dishonorable use" (Romans 9:21; see same phrase in II Timothy 2:20). Both Peter (I Peter 2:8) and Jude, the brother of Jesus (Jude 1:4), tell us that false teachers were anciently purposed for condemnation. 

Yet, though Scripture is explicit on the matter, Christians hate it, deny it, and turn a blind eye to such verses. Even Reformed Christians soften the teaching by saying that it is merely God's passive passing by those whom He has not decided to elect unto salvation. In other words, God, they say, did not decree that the reprobate would die in unbelief; rather, He simply decided not to ordain their salvation. Yet Scripture tells us, "He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18). Paul certainly showed no hesitancy in declaring that unbelief is as much the decree of God as is belief. 

So, why are Christians of today hesitant, where our forefathers showed no hesitation to speak plainly? 

I think that it is because of the infiltration of the worldview of autonomy into the Christian mentality that has created this backpedaling. American evangelicals have adopted the American cultural view of autonomy, of personal sovereignty, against which the sovereignty of God is a distasteful atavism. Yes, the Puritans held to God's absolute kingship over the creature, but we have outgrown that. 

We have? 

Not really. Rather, that absolute personal autonomy falls back to a time far earlier than that of Paul, Peter, or Jude. It hearkens back to the words of Satan in Genesis 3:5, when he deceitfully tempted Adam and Eve with the myth of independence of the creature from the Creator. 

God Blinds the Eyes

"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,

Lest they see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn, 

And I would heal them." 

-John 12:40 

In this verse (quoted from Isaiah 6:10), Jesus is responding to the unbelief of the Jewish audience which heard His words and saw His miracles, yet refused to believe. He describes the sad sentence on them, not for their unbelief, but as the reason for their unbelief: God had blinded them. In theology, we call this reprobation. 

Paul describes the same principle: "So then, He has mercy on whomever He wills [i. e., election], and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18). 

No principle displays the absolute sovereignty more forthrightly than this one, which is why it may be the most hated doctrine in Scripture, even among self-described Calvinists. It completely eliminates the spiritual autonomy of men, striking at the fallen heart of the unbeliever, and even pricking the remaining pride in the believer. Yet Scripture reveals it, so that we are compelled to believe it. 

The Potter, the Clay, and the Doctrine of Reprobation

"Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:20-21).

"Now in a great house, there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work" (II Timothy 2:20-21). 

The first text above, Romans 9:20-21, is one of the classic prooftexts for the biblical doctrine of reprobation, the understanding that God has chosen the nonelect to remain in unbelief, and receive the judgment of damnation in Hell. The Apostle did not create this analogy, but rather borrows it from Isaiah 29:16: "You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, 'He did not make me': or the thing formed say of Him who formed it, 'He has no understanding.'" And Jeremiah 18:6: "'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done?' declares the Lord. 'Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.'"

People who hold to any level of Pelagianism avoid Romans 9:21, as they do, in fact, the entire chapter. To say that God claims the right of creator to use His creations as His glory requires is to deny any amount of sovereignty in humans. Yet, just as Satan offered Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:5, the semi-Pelagian advocates an autonomy in men, as if we were self-created and self-redeemed. 

God knows nothing of such autonomy, but, instead, claims the same sovereignty over His human creations as the potter claims over the clay, to make some into vessels of honor, that is, of holiness and blessedness, and others into vessels of dishonor, that is, into holders of wastes to be shattered and discarded (See Leviticus 6:28, 11:33, etc.). 

Reprobation and the Well-Meant Gospel Offer

 There is a doctrine which has been commonly-held, but not universally-held, among Reformed Christians for hundreds of years. It is usually called the Well-Meant Gospel Offer. According to the doctrine, God offers the Gospel to all men, with the well-meant intention that all receive it, not just the elect. For example, the Dutch Reformed theologian Wilhelmus a Brakel (1635-1711) wrote, "Faith consists in the translation of a soul from self into Christ. Faith consists in receiving Him who offers Himself and who calls and invites every sinner to Himself, the promise being added that those who will come will not be cast out. It finally consists in a reliance of the soul upon Him as the almighty, true, and faithful Savior." 

The doctrine is rejected by the minority, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches. I happen to agree with the minority in this case. 

The problem is the doctrine of reprobation. According to this biblical doctrine (see, for example, Romans 9:21), predestination has two sides, the election of some to salvation and the active rejection of others to damnation. This doctrine is professed by all Reformed believers, including those who hold to the well-meant gospel offer. However, those two doctrines are incompatible. How can we rationally claim that the same God has marked certain sinners for rejection unto everlasting damnation, while at the same time He is supposedly offering those same sinners the opportunity to be saved, with the desire that they be so? Would we suppose that God suffers from multiple-personality disorder? I hope not!

Now, I certainly grant that the Gospel portrays a crucified and resurrected Redeemer who is available to all who will come to Him in sincere faith. However, only the elect will respond to that portrayal, because they alone are redeemed by the Son and called by the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is no conflict between God's decree and His supposed desire. 

Now, a distinction is necessary between the offer as something God supposedly does, and the evangelistic efforts of Christians. When we share the Gospel with unbelievers, we sincerely desire every one of them to be converted. Is there a conflict there? Not at all, because it is not given to men to know or meddle in the secrets of God's decrees. He gives no man the ability to know who is or is not elect. Nor does it lie within the authority of mere men to decide to exclude any sinner, howsoever wicked he may be, from access to the redeeming blood of Jesus. That lies in the purview of God alone.

The Justice of Reprobation

There is a hard verse in Scripture. Not just hard, but hard.  It is Romans 9:21: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" In this verse, God refers to Himself figuratively as a potter, who has made mankind from a lump of clay (Genesis 2:7). He looks at this lump as after the Fall, the mass of sinful humankind. As formed from one lump, every human is by nature equivalent to every other. Yet, as the potter, God chooses to form some lumps for honorable use, i. e., the elect, making them honorable, and some for dishonorable use, i. e., the reprobate. All men are by nature dishonorable. Yet, upon some He chooses to be merciful, and others are left condemned.

Even among Christians, this verse is blanked out, or explained away by semantic acrobatics. Why? Because there can be no greater ax laid to the pride of men than to be told that God is in absolute control, and men are absolutely without sovereignty.

One of the worse ways that men fight against this truth of God's sovereignty is by the creation of caricatures. For example, I have been told by actual opponents that this means that some men would be begging to be saved, to be forgiven, yet God will refuse them because they are not among the number of the elect.

That caricature is demonstrated to be humanistic drivel by one simple truth: it describes an impossibility. The Scriptures tell us that no man of himself seeks God: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God" (Romans 3:10-11). We even have the words of Jesus Himself: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). So, even the proposition of this caricature is to claim that Jesus and Paul were mistaken about the nature of men. 

Furthermore, all objections to the doctrine of reprobation erroneously assume that men deserve to be saved. They deny the sinfulness of sin. They deny that all sinners deserve the judgment of Hell. Yet these same evangelicals will quote the answer in other circumstances: "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Therefore, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16). The objector to God's sovereignty has the truth reversed. It is the reprobate who receives justice. He only gets what his sins have earned him. The elect receives mercy, not what he deserves. No one ever receives injustice.

"None but a sinner can be a suitable subject of reprobation, and men are reprobated only as sinners; but one man is passed by and another elected, not because one was a greater sinner than the other, but because God saw fit to do so" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Election and Reprobation: Treating Biblical Truths as Shameful

Regarding the hesitancy to preach on election, Southern Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell wrote, "This squeamish timidity is no less dishonoring to God [than is to be inquisitive and speculative], as it supposes that He has communicated some truths, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, which it would have been better to conceal, and flatly and palpably contradicts the assertion of Paul that all Scripture is 'profitable' [II Timothy 3:16]" (Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Thornwell is correct to identify Paul's words as the issue here: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). This verse is fundamental to the Christian attitude toward the Bible. First, it is literally the word of God, not given directly, but through the instrumentality of men. Therefore, as God is necessarily incapable of error, then, too, His word is necessarily free from error. Second, Paul tells us that this origin with God, and as given to men, is profitable, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (verse 17). God gave His word that His people may be trained for the work that He has given us to do. Therefore, there can be nothing in it that is harmful or irrelevant. Yet, there are many men in the pulpit who avoid dealing with the myriad passages that discuss the doctrines of grace.

I had this experience once. I had moved to a new community, and needed to find a new church. There was a Presbyterian congregation - I won't specify, but each was of an orthodox denomination, though not the same one - at about equal distance north and south of my house. To help in choosing between them, I asked the minister of one whether he would preach on predestination if it were a natural part of whatever text he was using. His response, word for word, was, "Oh, no! That would offend too many people!" I went to the other church and never looked back.

Is that not a rebuke to God, as Thornwell says? Is such a refusal not telling God, "You screwed up by putting this in Your word, so I have to fix your mistake"?

Here is the instruction from the Westminster Confession of Faith III:8, to which this minister had committed his subscription: "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." Handling with prudence does not mean don't handle at all.

The Knowledge of Election: Avoiding the Effort to Be Wise Above What is Written

When dealing with even professed Christians on Facebook, I get a continuous stream of questions about hypothetical issues. Today someone asked, "What if Noah were really the Archangel Gabriel?" I am not making that up. 

This is especially true when discussing the doctrines of grace with people not from a Reformed background. They are constantly demanding an answer -  i. e., one that will satisfy them - as to why God chooses one person over another. Other than according to mercy alone (Romans 9:16) for His glory alone (Ephesians 1:6), Scripture does not give us an answer. Rather, we are given this rebuke: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:20-21). The answer is simple, Paul tells us. God makes His decision on the basis that he chooses because He is God and we are not, so stop prying into things above your station!

And Paul is answering on the basis of a longtime Biblical tradition, going back to Moses: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29; see also Paul's remarks in I Corinthians 4:6 and Colossians 2:8). Moses tells us that God has given us everything we need to know for salvation and sanctification in the Bible. Beyond that revelation, whatever imaginations arise from our inordinate curiosity are to be cast aside. "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (Westminster Confession of Faith, I:6).

"Men of inquisitive and speculative minds are apt to forget that there are limits set to human investigation and research, beyond which it is impossible to pass with safety or satisfaction. To intrude with confidence unto the unrevealed secrets of God's wisdom and purpose manifests an arrogance and haughtiness of intellect which cannot fail to incur the marked disapprobation of heaven, and should always meet the prompt reprobation of the pious.Whatsoever is useful to be known, God has kindly and graciously revealed, and it argues no less ingratitude than presumption to attempt to be 'wise above what is written'" (I Corinthians 4:6, James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Reprobation: The Arminian Versus Jesus

It doesn't happen often, but should never happen at all, that I get this argument from Arminians: The doctrine of reprobation is bad because it means that some people , no matter how much they beg, cannot be saved, because they aren't elect. We are expected to have a mental image of people saying, "Oh, Jesus, I want to be a Christian, but you have barred my way!" And it is true, if that were the situation, that we would have grounds for horror.

But it is a claim of something that cannot happen.

The problem with the argument is that the Arminian underestimates the effect of sin on the will. The Bible speaks of the natural man when it tells us, "No one seeks for God" (Romans 3:11). And Jesus Himself told us, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). Notice that He says "no one can," while the Arminian says that everyone can. Thus, the condition of the unregenerate man is the opposite of the man described by the Arminian.

Again, the Arminian is describing an impossible case. As the Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell wrote, "There never was a case, and there never will be a case, in all the history of the universe, of a penitent sinner's being damned" ("The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

This is my challenge to Arminians: If your doctrine results in a situation that even Jesus says is impossible, doesn't that demonstrate that it is your doctrine that is false?

Reprobation, the Rejection of the Gospel, and the Sovereignty of God

Many professing evangelicals, perhaps even most (I think so), claim that the decision for belief or unbelief is made by the hearer of the Gospel, through his own independent, sovereign decision-making process. Every person is equally able to believe the word preached, or to reject it. Where that idea originates, other than the obvious spiritual explanation (Genesis 3:15), has always eluded me. Doesn't calling oneself an "evangelical" include the belief in sola scriptura?

The reason I ask that is because such a major spiritual doctrine is asserted without biblical support. Not that its supporters don't claim biblical support, of course. But show me a case which does not boil down to either a supposed requirement that God must respect "free will" (another extra-biblical doctrine), or to some

supposed moral requirement that a choice necessarily implies the natural and equal ability to choose either option. Either way, the reasons aren't biblical, but based on a humanistic presupposition. God is not bound by humanistic presuppositions. Just sayin'!

However, beyond the extra-biblical reasoning on which this choice doctrine is based, there is plenty of biblical evidence to the contrary. And here I refer not even to something that an Apostle wrote, but to words from the mouth of Jesus Himself. Surely no evangelical can question the final authority thereof!

In His final week of life, when He was performing ministry in Jerusalem, the earthly capital of the historical biblical faith, Jesus faced some Jews who were unsure of His messianic office. Most Jews still held to the erroneous view that the Messiah would be a political figure who would drive out the Romans and reestablish the Davidic kingdom.We are told, "Though He had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in Him" (John 12:37). If the passage stopped here, the average American Christian would claim that He had simply failed persuade the free will of these people to believe.

However the passage continues, giving the inerrant, divinely-inspired explanation, which is very different. "[This ooccurred] so that the word spoken by the Prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 'Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' Therefore, they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes and understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them'" (John 12:38-40).

Thus, the Holy Spirit tells us, through the Apostle John, what our eyes and minds could not otherwise have understood: the unbelief of these people was because God had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. He had made them unable to believe!

There is no respect for free will here. There is no sovereignty in the choices of men. Rather, there is a choice given to men, in which their natures were made able only to answer with unbelief.

Jesus and the Reprobation of the Wicked

"Though He had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in Him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 'Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.'" 

- John 12:37-40 

I accept the Bible as the very word of God. Therefore, everything it says must be true. That does not mean, however, that it is easy to accept everything Scripture says. We see an example here. I accept it as truth, but an uncomfortable truth.

In this paragraph, the Apostle John describes a scene in which Jesus, even after showing His power in miracles, is rejected by a particular crowd of Jews. Yet John is not mystified by their rejection. He immediately ascribes it, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to the will of God, who had chosen to blind these people to the truth of what they had seen. God had intentionally and deliberately darkened their minds so that they would deny the evidence of their own eyes, and remain in unbelief.

Why these particular people, but not others, such as our author, John? We do not know. God does not deign to explain His sovereign choices to us (Romans 9:19-26). We are informed simply that it was His choice.

This is the doctrine of reprobation. Just as God chose in prehistory  to have mercy on certain sinners, He chose to condemn others. And, just as we cannot know the reason for the first, we also cannot know the reason for the second (Deuteronomy 29:29). 

Reprobation Across the Scriptures: Moses to Jesus

In a brief pericope, Jesus says something shocking: "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matthew 12:33-37). The shocking thing is to see the Lord Jesus calling people "brood of vipers," not at all the kind of language which we would expect from the effeminate Jesus of popular Christianity. The same phrase is used for the same people by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:7, and a second time by Jesus in Matthew 23:33. 
 

John the Baptist Preaches

When certain words are repeated by two different biblical figures, especially when one is Jesus, and in different circumstances, it should be taken as an indication that they have special significance. What might it be here?

I think the key is the very first declaration of the Gospel in the Bible (Genesis 3:15): "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." While lacking the clarity that would come with later revelation, we see the distinction between the elect, "the seed of the woman," and the reprobate, "the seed of the serpent." 

Look at that second phrase. Do you see the parallel? Are not "brood of vipers" and "seed of the serpent" equivalent? I think that they are. 

Jesus is demonstrating His omniscience in declaring some of those around Him to be reprobates, to be destined from prehistory to follow Satan, and to be under the judgment of God (compare I Peter 2:8). John the Baptist was not omniscient, of course, but appears to have received special insight to recognize the same thing. They both borrow an image from Moses to address a similar spiritual situation, in which wicked people are demonstrating to which division of humanity they belong.

God's Right to Judge

We men, even Christian men, are often uncomfortable with God's justice. There are two reasons for that. The first is that we are mere creatures. That means that we do not have the infinitely-detailed big picture that God sees. There is no shame in that. However, the second is that we are sinners, and, therefore, hate God's pure justice. That should be a cause of shame.

One such case is Zechariah 8:10. God, through His prophet, refers to the judgment that had fallen on the ancestors of His audience: "There was no wage for man or any wage for beast, neither was there any safety from the foe for him who went out or came in, for I set every man against his neighbor." And this is exactly of what they had been warned by God through Moses: "A nation that you have not known shall eat up the fruit of your ground and of all your labors, and you shall be only oppressed and crushed continually" (Deuteronomy 28:33). If warning is given of a consequence for an action, is it unjust when that consequence is given? If a man warns his child that his toy will be taken away if he hits his brother again, do we not expect it to happen? Of course! But what is the response of the child? Wailing and gnashing of teeth, as if it is a big surprise.

There is a gap of about 800 to 900 years between Deuteronomy and Zechariah. Therefore, not only did Israel have plenty of advanced warning, but also plenty of opportunities to see it applied in their history. See the whole book of Judges for example.

So, how can God's actions be considered unjust? I think we see good reason to dispense with any pretense of ignorance. That leaves us with the other reason, the wickedness of men and our pretended right to judge the morality of God. Isn't that exactly what Satan offered to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:5)?

The Test of Our Commitment: the Doctrine of Reprobation

Most professing Christians would claim that men choose to rebel against God. And, of course, that is true. However, they are appalled by the teaching of Scripture that God has chosen some men to rebel against Him. For example, in Revelation 17, the Apostle John describes someone that he calls the Great Whore and Mystery Babylon. I believe that he is talking about apostate Israel, that portion of the physical descendants of Abraham who reject the biblical faith, especially in regards to the messianic office of Jesus. He also refers to those who will be deceived by, and follow, the Whore. In verse 17, he says of them, "God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled" (Revelation 17:17).

Did you catch that? "God has put it into their hearts." That sentence is undoubtedly contrary to the modern myth that man is completely autonomous, and the purposes of God are contingent on the choices of men to carry them out.

This is reprobation, the reverse side of election. It is the biblical teaching that God has chosen some men to oppose Him, and to be the objects of His justice, both in this world and the next. And men hate that doctrine! Nothing strikes more at the myth of human autonomy! And few doctrines provide a better test of the profession of those who say that they believe that the Bible is the Word of God. If you mean what you say, then you must bow to what it says, no matter how contrary to your preferences. If you don't mind, I won't hold my breath while I wait for that moment.

Men Hate Predestination, but Jesus Loved It!

Who sits on the throne? God or Man?

 After Jesus had sent out the seventy-two evangelists, they returned with glowing reports of overthrowing the power of Satan. In response to these reports (Luke 10:21-24), "Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, 'I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was Your gracious will. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.' Then turning to the disciples He said privately, 'Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.'" 

Jesus says something here that most modern Americans, including most professing Evangelicals, hate to hear: God has revealed Himself to some people and hidden Himself from others. That is the experiential definition of predestination, both in election and in reprobation.

The modern American, including the modern Evangelical, reacts with, "That's not fair!" And it's not, but I don't consider that relevant. To the same objection, the Apostle Paul answered (Romans 9:20-21), "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" So, Paul's response is not to describe how predestination is fair, but rather to demonstrate that it is presumptuous to ask the question. How can any man claim the authority to call God to account for His actions?

However, Jesus goes even further than did Paul: "Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit!" Jesus considered the sovereignty of the Father, not to be unfair, but to be wonderful! And if any mere man fails to come to that same conclusion, then the failure is in the man, not in God.

God's Common Goodness Is No Common Grace

In Matthew 5:45, Jesus tells us, "[God] makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." This is a precious truth, that God is the source of all good things, and that He shares His gifts with all men. God is good to all because God is all good!

However, a problem arises when some people claim that God's common goodness is properly common grace. That is an idea that I cannot accept.

Consider the further words on Jesus in Mark 7:24-30: "He arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And He entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet He could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of Him and came and fell down at His feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And He said to her, 'Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she answered Him, 'Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.' And He said to her, 'For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.' And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone."

Jesus was referring to His own comment in Matthew 15:24: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." During His earthly ministry, His focus was only on ethnic Israel. Of course, that expanded to the entire world after His ascension, but that was later. When this foreign woman came to Him, He was still in the transitional state between the Old Covenant focus on Israel and the New Covenant inclusion of all nations. Yet, the woman said, even when the chosen children are enjoying the feast, there are scraps which fall to the dogs. The Book of Ruth would be an expanded image of what she means.

The application here is the parallel between the children and the dogs in this vivid story and the children of God and the rest of the world in Matthew 5:45. The wicked, when they are enjoying the good gifts of God, are not enjoying God's favor to them, but are rather receiving the overflow from His blessings on His own people, His children, the church. Why isn't this grace? Because it is not to their advantage. Grace is God's favor, the application of Christ's merits, but that isn't what the reprobate are receiving (Romans 1:21):"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Is this blessing for them? Not at all. Rather, as Paul goes on to say, this arrogant and presumptuous use of God's gifts brings these unbelievers to grief (Romans 1:28-29): "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice."

Jesus on the Doctrines of Grace

When discussing the so-called Five Points of Calvinism, people tend to focus on the writings of Paul. that is hardly surprising, since he develops those doctrines much more than any other biblical author. however, he does not have exclusive claim on them.

Sometimes we forget that Jesus Himself taught about the doctrines of grace.

"'What must we do, to be doing the works of God?' Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' So they said to Him, 'Then what sign do You do, that we may see and believe You? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."' Jesus then said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' They said to Him, 'Sir, give us this bread always.'"
- John 6:28-34

Here we see effectual calling, an aspect of irresistible grace. It is not the will of men to believe. Rather, it is something that God causes us to do. That's why Paul says, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).

"Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; whoever comes to Me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.'

- John 6:35-40

This section shows particular atonement ("all that the Father gives me"), irresistible grace ("will come to Me"), and perseverance of the saints ("I will lose nothing").

"So the Jews grumbled about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven.' They said, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, "I have come down from heaven"?' Jesus answered them, 'Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.'"
- John 6:41-44

And here we see reprobation ("no one can come to Me unless the Father draws Him").

Thus, in this one passage, John 6:31-44, Jesus teaches irresistible grace, particular atonement, perseverance of the saints, and reprobation (though not one of the big five). And his assertion that the saved will be those whom the Father has given Him is a description of unconditional election. Twice! The only one not here is total depravity.

I cannot see any alternative to the probability that the failure to see the doctrines associated with Calvinism is no accident, but rather deliberate blindness, which Jesus also talks about: "Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matthew 13:13).

The Closure of the Unbelieving Mind

When I look at the world around me, everything I see is proof, not only of God's existence, but also of providence, His wise organization and care of both myself and the rest of mankind and the world. Yet, unbelievers demand proof of God's existence. It is comparable to a man in a lifeboat in the middle of the sea demanding proof of the existence of water. This is a clash of perspective, of course, but, more importantly a clash of natures. The believing mind has been taken into a relationship with God, and thus recognizes all things as centered upon Him. The unbelieving mind, however, desires to rule for itself, and thus must retain a blind spot over God in its world.

When the Christian apologist seeks to perform his ministry on the basis of commonality between himself and an unbeliever, then he runs into this unbridgeable gap and is necessarily stymied.

In his description of the Man of Sin (probably equivalent to John's Antichrist), Paul tells us (II Thessalonians 2:9-10), "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." The Apostle tells us that "those who are perishing," i. e., unbelievers, will be vulnerable to the deceptions of Satan through this man, not because of ignorance, but because of a willful refusal to accept the truth. In other words, they close their minds to biblical truth, and are thus left susceptible to spiritual deception.

The same apostle makes a similar comment in I Corinthians 1:18: "The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." And again in I Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." In the unbelieving mind, there is an a priori judgment that the spiritual truths regarding God, sin, and redemption, are foolishness, not by a process of reasoning, but rather because of an inherent condition of his heart. His spiritual nature blocks his rational openness to those truths.

The Lord Jesus explained to His disciples the principle that results in the conditions described by Paul (John 14:16-17): "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him." It is the Holy Spirit who creates the gulf between the believer and the unbeliever. A believer is not smarter or morally superior to the unbeliever. Rather, the presence of the Spirit in Him renders him able to understand. And His absence leaves the unbeliever clinging desperately to his refusal to understand. Thus, where Paul says that truth is "spiritually discerned," he isn't talking about a man's spirit, for both classes of men have spirits. he is talking about the action of the Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity.

People Don't Believe Because They Are Pre-Determined Vessels of Wrath

In John, chapter 12, Jesus is preaching to a group of Pharisees (verse 19). In contrast to a group of God-fearing Gentiles (verse 20), however, these Pharisees rejected Him. His response is described in verses 37-41: " Though He had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in Him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 'Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.' Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke of Him" (John 12:37-41).  

How does the passage describe the Pharisees? As unbelieving. However, why were they unbelieving? Because they "could not." Could not? Not would not? That is a stunning choice of words. And John continues that description: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." No doubt there was a judicial element to this, i. e., that the Pharisees had refused to believe, so God punishes them with even greater hardness. However, John explicitly states the God's decree is the source of their rigid unbelief.

This is a shocking thought to our egalitarian American ears. It's not fair! Not fair? Really? The Apostle Paul described that exact question from a hypothetical opponent (Romans 9:19): "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" But what answer does he give? Does Paul back down to such a progressive view? Does he attempt to defend God's fairness? Not at all. Rather, he answers, not with a justification of God's sovereignty, but rather with a refusal to concede that it needs any such justification (Romans 9:20-22): "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" That is, as our Creator, does God not have an absolute right to use us for His own glory and purpose? Of course! Specifically, He has such a right to use some as a demonstration of His holy wrath. There is no concession to egalitarianism here. It is, rather, an unequivocal assertion of the absolute and irresistible sovereignty of God. 

Daniel 4:35: "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'"

Reprobation: A Sorrowful Truth

"You are our Father,
though Abraham does not know us,
and Israel does not acknowledge us; 
You, O Lord, are our Father,
our Redeemer from of old is Your name.
O Lord, why do You make us wander from Your ways
and harden our heart, so that we fear You not?
Return for the sake of Your servants,
the tribes of Your heritage.
Your holy people held possession for a little while;^f
our adversaries have trampled down Your sanctuary.
We have become like those over whom You have never ruled,like those who are not called by Your name."
- Isaiah 63:16-19 

These are very sad words, near the end of the prophecies of Isaiah. Much of the Book of Isaiah is God's declarations of the apostasies of Israel, and her coming judgment at the hands of the Babylonians. And, as a member of the society, Isaiah has natural feelings of sorrow over the spiritual condition of his nation. In these verses, he gives vent to that sorrow. However, we don't see what we often see people say in the face of impending tragedy. At no point is he mystified about why things are happening. He never wonders why God can't seem to do anything. His reaction is very different.

Look at the questions he asks: "O Lord, why do You make us wander from Your ways and harden our heart?" His gut reaction is to attribute all to the sovereignty of God. This is the doctrine of reprobation. In our modern society, even among professing evangelicals, we have a serious problem with this doctrine. After all, aren't we the masters of our own fate? Of course, that very reaction is proof of how far bald-faced humanism has come to dominate both society and professing church. The goal of every man is self-actualization, happiness, self-fulfillment. And, of course, religion is supposed to serve those goals.

However, the Bible-believer must reject that worldview. What does the Bible say? "So, whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31). Ah, that is quite the reverse, isn't it? Life isn't for our fulfillment but for God's! That's why my own Presbyterian forefathers started both of our catechisms with that precept: "What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." They cite as proof both this verse from First Corinthians and Romans 11:36.

Notice that the principle of both Scripture and the Catechisms is God-centered, while society is man-centered. Not only are those contrary principles, they are hostile principles, necessarily in conflict with each other. Thus, I understand the hatred that people, whether professing Christians or otherwise, have for this doctrine. It is because it is a declaration of war on their comfortable self-love.