Particular and General: A Key Tension in Reformed Soteriology

Reformed soteriology is humble and grand enough to tolerate significant tensions. One evidence of this is its ability to view the overarching, eternal purpose of God in both general and particular ways. In doing so, it maintains a clear line of division between the generalities we can know and the particulars known to God alone. It views the particulars abstractly, as categories without content. For example, we know abstractly that God has sovereignly elected some (i.e., the "elect" as a category); but we do not know concretely who they are (i.e., the content of the "elect" category). At the very same time, Reformed soteriology views the generalities concretely, as partially categorized content (for example, we know the general truth that God loves and desires to save every living person, without exception). The Biblical Calvinist does not apply election in an unwarranted way; he does not use this truth to invalidate God's general love for the non-elect and His general desire to save all sinners. Election is specific to a subset of humanity, but God's love and saving desire are all-humanity-wide. God is love.

Let's imagine for a moment that we are speaking with two unbelievers. God knows that one of them is elect and is going to be brought to repentance, and He also knows that one of them will die in the stubbornness of his heart. For our part, we don't know which one of them is elect, or if both of them are elect, or if neither of them is elect. We don't know if either of them will repent and be saved. Even if they both appear to repent and believe, we won't know for certain that their conversions were genuine until we meet them in heaven. On earth, we can't know with absolute certainty that they are truly saved and will persevere to the end. Those are particulars that belong to God's own purpose and wisdom. 

What we can know for certain and by faith is this: God has a purpose for both of them. Both are created in God's image and are loved by Him. Both are enemies of God. Both, in their current state, would gladly choose an eternity in hell over intimate fellowship with their Creator. Both are sinners who need saving grace. God would be pleased greatly by the salvation of both, and He will also be pleased to display His justice if they remain His enemies and perish. If they repent, they will be saved. From the standpoint of generalities--from our human standpoint--both unbelievers are identical. In our eyes, both are potentially elect. But from God's standpoint--in His own omniscient knowledge of the particulars--they are very different. One is elect and will be brought to faith, and the other is destined for damnation. Even if we knew for certain that one of them was elect, we wouldn't have any way of knowing with any certitude which one it is. So unconditional election is a solid and certain truth, but it is equally a mystery.

So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. (Romans 9:18) 

High Tension Wires:
Very Powerful!

We can approach these two unregenerate souls with the sure knowledge that God elects, but not that God elected either of them in particular. We can approach them in the certain understanding that God will bring justice directly upon some human beings, but not in the sure knowledge that either of these sinners will have to personally bear the wrath he justly deserves. We can know that both of them are currently under the wrath of God, already condemned for their unbelief--yet neither of them has perished yet, so we can be hopeful about both of them. We know that both will perish if they do not repent. We know that Jesus bore the wrath of God, and we know that if either of these unsaved persons repents he will no longer be under God's wrath. He will pass from death to life and will be created anew in Christ. We look at these two people and see potentials, not particulars. We see conditions, not determinations. We see a process partly finished, but up to the point of our visible horizon neither one is differentiated from the other. In God's mind they may be different, but in our minds they cannot be. It is enough for us to know that God knows.

What happens when you remove
the tension from one side?

The great error of the hyper Calvinist is to attempt in his own mind a coalescence of the generalities and the particulars, so that they become one in his mind. He tries to know things he cannot know, and is forced to rely on his own senses to determine who is and is not elect. He seeks to preach God's love to the elect only, to communicate God's saving desire to the elect only, to preach the Gospel to the elect only. He tries to be as efficacious in his efforts as God is in His ordination of all things. Thus, the hyper Calvinist simultaneously exalts his own perceptions while oversimplifying the complexities of God's dispositions. He limits everything to the unknowable particulars, which he concretizes, having no room in his thinking for the generalities or the undefined abstractions. The inherent arrogance of this approach should be obvious. The lopsidedness is striking.

This understanding will help us to take a Biblically balanced view of many topics, among them the extent of atonement. We can posit particular redemption from the standpoint of divine particularity. God knows whom He saves by the atonement. Once we have said this much, what need is there to limit the sufficiency or the potentially salvific nature of Christ's work? The fact that God will not apply the redeeming power of the blood of Christ to all people is no reason to believe it does not essentially contain that power. From the standpoint of generality, we can make no assumptions. So, in considering the elect abstractly, we can say "Christ died especially, efficiently, particularly for them." In looking concretely at the masses of lost humanity, we must say, "Christ died for the whole world." We can tell a lost sinner, "Christ died for you," and this will be true in many senses whether the person we are speaking with is specifically elect or not.

The best Calvinist thinkers and scholars of the past have embraced key tensions and important distinctions between the general and the particular. Those who have been most Biblically grounded have warned us to remain purposely ignorant of those things which God has not seen fit to reveal, and to hold solid and steadfast in embracing all that He has made known in His awe-inspiring wisdom.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 2

This is Part 2 of a discussion of Randal Rauser's recent essay, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist." Click here for Part 1.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

In part 1, we discussed the first of two points:

1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Now we will move on to the second point:

 

2. Rauser clouds the Biblical texts with vague hermeneutical speculation rather than accepting the plain teachings of the passages.

He suggests the teaching of Romans 9 is very complex, and proposes we use John 3:16 as an interpretive control against the Calvinistic understanding. In my view, a better approach is to hold the clear truth of Romans 9 in balance with the clear truth of John 3:16. Otherwise, we are in danger of skewing our perspective by discounting valuable Scriptural data.

Back to the text . . .

I will be the first to admit there are passages in the Bible that are hard to understand. However, Romans 9 is not one of them. It is hard to accept, but not so hard to understand at the basic level. Without any doubt it is "strong medicine." But the strong medicine of God's Word is the cure for our sin-sick souls' deepest diseases, and we need to be willing to receive it full strength. Let our Systematic Theology feel the pain if it must, but Scripture is non-negotiable.

Rauser dilutes this medicine by proposing the following "complexities": 

(his words are in orange, with my responses following)

Rauser: The specific individuals Jacob and Esau serve as symbols representing people groups

Me: Sure, these individuals are heads of nations. But that doesn't change the fact that they are themselves individuals, as Rauser's statement candidly admits. They are individuals who represent nations, and nations are of course made up of individuals. One of Paul's points is that being ethnically a part of an elect nation does not make the individual elect (Romans 9:6-8). Isaac and Ishmael were both descendents of Abraham, but only Isaac was elect. Jacob and Esau were both descendents of Isaac, but only Jacob was elect. In other words, election extends beyond the national/ethnic level to the individual level.
Rauser: There is the potential for the hyperbolic use of language.

Me: It is true that Scripture sometimes uses hyperbolic language, but Rauser needs to show how the language is hyperbolic, and what is meant by the hyperbole. Otherwise, this claim does nothing to clarify the meaning of the text. It would have to be some kind of extreme hyperbole for the text to mean, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved equally." That interpretation is, in fact, antithetical to the context as well as to the terms employed.
Rauser: Insofar as “election” is in view there is the distinction between election for a particular task and election for an eternal destiny.

Me: Is this idea drawn from the text, or brought to it by the interpreter? Let's see . . . the entire previous chapter and the letter itself are about salvation. Paul begins the passage by speaking of the eternal destiny of Israel (Romans 9:3). Does he change course somewhere along the way? Would election to different tasks cause us to question God's justice (Romans 9:14)? Paul is certainly referring to eternal destinies in Romans 9:23-28, as is the case in Romans 9:30, where he says the Gentiles have attained righteousness by faith. That's not "task" talk, it's "salvation" speak. Where, exactly, does Paul switch from discussing eternal destinies to discussing tasks? Rauser would need to present some strong exegesis to make this claim believable.
Rauser: Insofar as one accepts the appropriateness of the “scripture interprets scripture” principle there is the question of whether texts which seem to teach divine omnibenevolence (e.g. John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4) should function as interpretive controls of those texts that seem not to.

Me: As shown in Part 1, the Biblical Calvinist does not have this problem. Omnibenevolence is taught in Scripture, and God's hatred of the unregenerate is also taught, along with God's election of some to salvation. For Calvinists it's both/and (or "all three"), not either/or. This is the reality of Biblical paradox, under which our thoughts must be forged like steel on the anvil. Among the soteriological options, it is our judgment that Calvinism alone has the epistemological integrity to withstand the full weight of the tensions found in divine revelation. Rauser's theological commitments seem to require him to affirm the omnibenevolence of John 3:16 without any tempering from other Scripture passages. It's much easier - and more common among theologians - to declare a passage "complex" and then just ignore the tension it creates.
Rauser vs. The Text

Romans 9 is not as mysterious as Rauser's suggestions imply. Let's see if we can understand the place of "Esau I hated" in the flow of its teaching. This will be both edifying and educational.

Graphic by Eddie Eddings of calvinisticcartoons.blogspot.com, 
 a site everyone should visit often.

In Romans 9:13, Paul's reason for quoting "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is to reinforce what he has just said about God's sovereign election of Israel as opposed to other nations - including those nations descended from Abraham (which is also Malachi's point) - by the election of the individual named Jacob as opposed to the individual named Esau. Since the type of election Paul references occurred prior to birth (Romans 9:11-12), it was unconditional. Since it was related to specific persons (Romans 9:7; 9:13; 9:17), it was not merely national in scope but was particular to the individual. Since Paul's discussion of this election includes descriptions of the "children of God" (Romans 9:8), the display of God's saving mercy (Romans 9:15-16), the call to faith (Romans 9:24), the people of God (Romans 9:25-26) and those who will "be saved" (Romans 9:27), it is clearly more than election to a task. It is election to salvation and righteousness by faith (9:30-33). Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 to support this unconditional, individual/national, salvation-focused election. Anticipating that some people will think this exercise of divine prerogatives is inherently unjust, Paul asks, "Is there injustice on God's part?" Then he answers, "By no means!" (Romans 9:14). And what is Paul's justification for this claim? He says God's sovereign election of persons and nations is not a question of justice, but of mercy (Romans 9:15), and he says that man is in no position to question God's right to make such choices (Romans 9:20-21). All of this accords perfectly with the teachings of mainstream Calvinism, especially the teaching that election is God's saving mercy toward hated sinners, His pre-determined plan to specially love them by satisfying the demands of justice on His own Son in their behalf. In terms of election, God pre-determined to give justice to Esau and saving mercy to Jacob.

To recap: in terms of Common Grace, God clearly loved both Esau and Jacob. In terms of election, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Both are true according to Scripture, and both are affirmed by Calvinism.

Thus Rauser's claim that Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3 contradict Calvinism is unfounded. These verses only contradict Rauser's mistaken understanding of Calvinism. Unfortunately, Rauser seems unwilling to correctly interpret the texts that would lead him inevitably to that beautiful system of Biblical paradox called "Calvinism."

Conclusion

This looks scary, but it's not the real thing.

It seems clear that Dr. Rauser is wrestling with a misunderstanding of Calvinism and not the genuine article. He is trying to address Calvinistic conceptions without fully grasping them. This leaves room for the hope that he may someday gain a better understanding of Calvinism, and embrace it with the same enthusiasm with which he now opposes it.

Isaiah 53:1 - Faith and Election

Who has believed our message?

With these words we enter the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, which really should have begun at verse 13 of the 52nd chapter, as Calvin wryly notes:

"This division, or rather dismemberment, of the chapter, ought to be disregarded; for it ought to have begun with the thirteenth verse of the former chapter, and these words ought to be connected with what goes before." (from Calvin's Commentary)

And we will treat it thus.

Here our thoughts are directed to the pertinent question: who has faith? Who has believed the Word of God through His prophets? Who trusts in Him? Who takes His words to heart?

The stunning revelation of Christ's Person and work was, to human thinking, unbelievable. Apart from divine help, man cannot believe the truth of the Gospel. He cannot because he will not. And this stubborn unwillingness is incurable apart from the intervention of God.

Background Study

The 17th Century English theologian, Matthew Poole, rightly describes the meaning of this phrase:

"Who, not only of the Gentiles, but even of the Jews, will believe the truth of what I have said and must say? Few or none. The generality of them will never receive nor believe in such a Messias as this. Thus this place is expounded by Christ himself, John 12:38, and by Paul, Romans 10:16. And this premonition was highly necessary, both to caution the Jews that they should not stumble at this stone, and to instruct the Gentiles that they should not be surprised, nor scandalized, nor seduced with their example." (from Matthew Poole's Commentary)

NOTE: Although Poole's sentiments are correct, he misses the fact that it is John who is speaking in 12:38, not Christ (the verse is quoted below). But ALL the Word of God is Christ's teaching. And from Whom did John learn these things in the first place?

John applies this verse in a remarkable way, not simply as asking who will believe, but as predicting the unbelief of Israel . . .

John 12:36b-40 These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.

John is reminding us that the tragic unbelief of the Jewish nation was not a surprise to God. In this he agrees perfectly with Paul's description of Jewish unbelief as the very means by which God opened the door to the Gentiles (more on this below). But first . . .

The BIG QUESTION

What is meant by all of this blinding and hardening? (You may want to refer to my series called "Hardened Hearts and Human Choices" for a discussion of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart). On the surface, I see two major (and inter-related) theological problems in this text. On an initial reading, this passage appears to contain an affirmation of a certain type of imbalanced Calvinism, but also a defeater for all Calvinsim. The seeming contradiction is enough to leave one entirely baffled. But we are going to look at this in light of the whole Biblical balance and a study of the related texts, and thereby discover the TRUTH of the matter, which is hidden just under the surface.

The thrust of the passage is that God was sovereignly at work in the hardening of the reprobate within Israel. This shows the sovereignty of God in man's salvation, and that's the essence of Calvinism, plain and simple. No problems with this generality, but what about the particulars?

The Theological Trouble Begins Here

What indeed shall we do with this: God is said to harden and blind people who, according to the doctrines of grace, are already hardened and already blind! If everyone is totally depraved, there is no need for God to actively harden the reprobate. All He has to do is leave sinners in their natural condition, for their eyes are indeed blind and their hearts are already hardened. So, all at once we have an apparent and implied denial of total depravity (a sure defeater to all Calvinism) and an apparent affirmation of active reprobation (a necessary tenet in the more hyper brands of Calvinism). Worst of all, God appears malevolent, as though people are trying to believe, ready to have their eyes opened, but He isn't letting them simply because He wants to bring them to destruction. It seems we may have to completely re-work our understanding of soteriology (the Biblical doctrine of how God saves people) to make sense out of this passage. Perhaps we will be forced into some sort of hybrid that includes elements of both Pelagianism and Hyper-Calvinism! But at the same time we would find ourselves fighting other Scriptural truths - such as total depravity (which is clearly taught), and the ultra-foundational issue of the sheer goodness/kindness/benevolence of God. What to do? What to do!?

Before we abandon reason and Biblical faith to go off on a wild theological goose chase that might lead us to a "newer" and "better" theology, let's spend a little more time (and effort) examining the Scriptures. Too many have used just such cases as this to justify their departure from orthodoxy. Sadly, this only reveals the very type of unbelief John is warning us against.

NOTE: Arminianism offers us no help here. Total depravity is the ONE tenet of Calvinism that is affirmed in classical Arminianism. And if one seeks refuge in "open theism," that is also defeated by God's blinding and hardening of the reprobate. All man-centered theology falls flat if God has ANY REAL sovereignty at all in the matter of salvation. The question here is, how can we maintain the Biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty without painting God as unloving, unkind, capricious or unjust? I will argue that a Biblically balanced Calvinism best explains all of the Biblical data.

Who Hardened Whose Heart?

After quoting Isaiah 53:1, John mentions the following passage from Isaiah 6 . . .

Isaiah 6:8-13 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed.” Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, houses are without people and the land is utterly desolate, the LORD has removed men far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, and it will again be subject to burning, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.”

Read this through a couple of times, and let the meaning sink in. This is God's response to "seeker sensitive ministry." God notes that people aren't looking for Him, rather they are rejecting Him. Unrepentant sinners can pretend to be looking and listening, and "searching," but apart from real repentance, real spiritual sight, a real hearing and taking to heart of the Word of God, all of the preaching and teaching is only making them more resistant to divine overtures.

Notice that the passage is not phrased the way John puts it. John says God hardened the hearts of the people, but in the original passage God told Isaiah to harden their hearts. Rather than seeing this as a contradiction, we should recognize John's intent: to magnify the sovereignty of God. Though people chose freely and voluntarily to harden their hearts, God's sovereignty was nonetheless entirely in control of the situation. What He did through Isaiah, HE did. The prophet was His instrument, but the ends achieved were God's Own ends.

How did God achieve these ends? Here we come to the heart of the matter. The means by which Isaiah was to harden the hearts of Israel was the preaching of God's Word. The same message that effectually draws out the elect for salvation also hardens the reprobate into a more settled state of unbelief. Like Pharaoh, the people of Israel had already hardened their hearts and closed their eyes. Because they lacked faith, God's commands to them through the prophet only served to deepen the conditions that already existed in them. So Isaiah is making hard hearts even more stubborn simply by proclaiming the truth. Here we see the terrible reality of total depravity: apart from electing grace, sinful man can get worse, but not better. Apart from faith, the Word is always unprofitable to us. This is not due to a lack of grace in God, but man's ongoing choice to reject the grace that is offered. It is not that man is seeking God and sincerely looking for Him, but is being prevented by a hateful Deity. No, no, no! Man has utterly rebelled against the Sovereign One, though God has given him - and continues to give him - every reason to repent. The passage is not presenting a defeater to total depravity, but instead is radically affirming it! Thus we conclude that sinful man is all at once totally depraved and fully responsible and choosing freely and unable to do otherwise without help from God. These are sensible paradoxes, but to the fallen mind they are loathesome.

NOTE: here's some gasoline to throw on the fire: II Corinthians 4:4 says the "god of this world" (i.e., satan) has "blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." The paradoxes only deepen when we realize satan has his own evil role in the process of reprobation, yet God is still fully sovereign and man is still responsibly choosing.

Looking Through the Eyes of our Hearts

On to the NEXT BIG QUESTION: why would God NOT elect many of the individuals within His chosen nation? Why would some in Israel be left hardened and blinded? For the answer, we must turn to Paul's lengthy discussion in Romans 9 through 11. We must be careful not to approach this question with our native human logic at the forefront. We can only understand these matters by grace, through faith, and without our humanistic, limited, earth-bound "reasoning" fogging up the glass. Our false, natural ideas are constantly breathing over the surface of our hearts, which function as a spiritual lens, as it were. Because of this fog, we're not going to see eternal things as clearly as God does. But we can see them to some extent, and in fact we must grasp the basics if we are to get any rest for our troubled minds when it comes to this matter of divine election and the fate of the non-elect.

Extending the heart-lens analogy a little further, we might say that Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists tend to demand hard human logic, which is the equivalent of purposely breathing all over the glass and then using one's fingers to draw out 2-dimensional mathematical equations. Voila, they say, it's sooooo simple! Sure, it's simple if you refuse to examine the balance of Scripture, and if you never gaze into the dimensions of eternity where human reasoning starts to disintegrate and God's transcendent TRUTH comes into focus - knowable, but beyond the grasp of human minds. Yes, TRUTH is bigger than the mind of man. Let's clear off the glass and look beyond the human logic (and above it) to discover the thoughts of God. Our approach is to STOP BREATHING, hold our breath for a moment, and gaze through with eyes of faith, folding our hands together, calming our hearts before God, and keeping our grubby fingers out of the way. Anyhow, this is the aim. And in this posture, what do we see?

Paul's Answer: God is Sovereign Over All

Paul says: "So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:16) . . . So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires (Romans 9:18) . . . Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles (Romans 9:21-24) . . . Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, 'though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved.' (Romans 9:27) . . . However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our report?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Romans 10:16-17) . . . But as for Israel He says, 'All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.' (Romans 10:21) . . . I say then, God has not rejected His people, has he? May it never be! (Romans 11:1) . . . God has not rejected His people, whom He foreknew (Romans 11:2) . . . there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice (Romans 11:5) . . . What then? What Israel was seeking it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; just as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day.' And David says, 'Let their table become a snare and a trap, and a stumbling block and a retribution to them. Let their eyes be darkened to see not, and bend their backs forever.' I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles . . . (Romans 11:7-13)

Notice that God's intention in hardening and blinding the reprobate is not so much to destroy the reprobate as it is to "make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy." Notice that this hardening is actually an expression of His patience, not a manifestation of His wrath!

In the Biblical picture we see GOD, saving, BY GRACE, a people of HIS OWN CHOOSING, for HIS OWN GLORY, and bringing about a beautiful work by redeeming believing sinners. We see the fruit of Christ's work on the cross! We see God's infinite goodness in action! We catch sight of His eternal glory! And this glory is magnified by two things:

1. God's JUSTICE in bringing wrath on the unbelieving.
2. God's MERCY in saving His elect.

He is stretching out his hands toward the elect and the non-elect ALL THE DAY LONG, drawing all men to Himself - even though most continue steadfastly in their refusal of His mercy.

It's Just Plain Bible-ism

This isn't just Calvinism, it's Paul-ism, and it's John-ism, and it's Isaiah-ism, and it's Jesus-Christ-ism, and it's Bible-ism. Who has believed their message? Do you believe it?

I do not ask if you can explain it (I am fairly sure you can't), but only if you believe . . .

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 3 - John Piper

John Piper gets a THEOparadox T-shirt.

The following is taken from a sermon on Romans 9, found at this link

In the sermon, Piper says...

My aim here this morning is not to analyze how this can be, but to urge us all to embrace the paradox of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. The sad thing is that some embrace the sovereignty of God over the human will and say: "It is wrong to portray God with his arms stretched out, inviting and calling." And others embrace the responsibility of man and say, "If God invites and calls and beckons, then he can't really be sovereign over man's will, and man really is ultimately self-determining and God is not really in control of all things."

Both of these are sad mistakes. It is sad, because one group rejects something deep and precious that God has revealed about himself for our strength and hope and joy and love - namely, his absolute sovereignty. Oh, how sweet it is when all around our soul gives way, and we need a reliable and firm rock in a world that sometimes seems utterly out of control and meaningless and cruel. Oh, how sweet at these times to know that God is not good and helpless, but good and sovereign. And the other group (who embrace the sovereignty of God) sometimes rejects something utterly crucial for understanding the justice of God in dealing with people, and they fail to see how we should plead with people and persuade people and invite people and woo people with tears, to Christ, and on behalf of Christ.

So my aim is not to explain the paradox but simply to underline it with three other examples (and there are many more), in the hope that God will cause your mind to submit to his word, whether you can explain it all or not.

In Matthew 11:25 Jesus says, "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." And then in verse 28, he says, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." He has hidden the truth from some, and he invites all.

In John 6:35 Jesus says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." And one verse later he says, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." All are invited to Christ. And the Father gives some to Christ.

In Acts 13:38 Paul says to the synagogue in Antioch, "Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed." And in verse 48 Luke says, ". . . And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." All are invited to believe and be forgiven. And as many as were appointed to life did believe.

I am not explaining it this morning. I am simply proclaiming it. This is what it means for God to be God. Man is not the final, ultimate sovereign over his own life. God is. God is the potter. We are the clay. But on the other hand, God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). He holds out his hands all day long to Jews and the Gentiles of the Twin Cities. He calls, he beckons, he invites.

Hardened Hearts and Human Choices - Part 2

As promised, here is part two. I've probably bitten off more than I can chew, but I'll try to offer a few edifying thoughts on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. This is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject by any means, just a little excursion into the wonder of God's grace and mercy toward sinners, with Pharaoh as an illustration. Let's take a brief look at Romans 9:6-24 ...

The Question at Hand

In Romans 9, Paul begins a lengthy discussion concerning the salvation of God's elect nation, Israel. He has just written eight chapters decisively showing that Jesus Christ is God's one and only remedy for man's sin. Yet the leaders of Israel rejected that remedy. Doesn't this mean that God's promises to Israel failed to come true? Paul will show in many ways over the next three chapters that this is not the case, beginning with the statement, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants . . .” (Romans 9:6-7)

The Matter of Choosing

Paul shows that in Israel's history the chosen were divided from the unchosen according to God's sovereign choice (Romans 9:7-13):

Isaac and Ishmael were both sons of Abraham – but only Isaac was heir to the promises
Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac – but only Jacob was chosen to carry on the Jewish line

Significantly, in both examples the younger son was chosen, not the older. This reversal of tradition emphasizes God's sovereignty, since no one can say it was the “natural” choice that was made. It was SUPERnatural choice.

This picture has some bearing on the discussion, but don't take it the wrong way. Arminians would say that God chose first and now it is up to us. But Scripture teaches us that mankind universally chooses sin, that no one seeks God on his own, so it is GOD ALONE who can save us. Jesus Christ is the AUTHOR and the FINISHER of our faith.

In the passage we are examining (or is it examining us?), divine sovereignty is shown in the following phrases:

v. 5 “Christ ... who is over all”
v. 11 “So that God's purpose according to His choice would stand ... because of Him who calls”
v. 16 “So then, it does not depend on the man ... but on God ...”
v. 20 God is referred to as “the molder” and man as “the thing molded”
v. 21 God is referred to as “the potter” who has “a right over the clay ...”
v. 23 vessels of mercy are “prepared beforehand for glory”

These verses proclaim that God is completely sovereign over His creatures, and therefore He can choose to do as He sees fit with them.

The Issue of Justice

At this point, Paul preempts the logical leap of the fallen human mind, which immediately accuses God of injustice by asking, “If God is that powerful, why does He choose one over the other, and not choose BOTH?” In our sinful way of thinking, we believe that if we were God, we would choose both. We THINK we are smarter than God.

Paul proposes a different question and offers a decisive reply: “What shall we say, then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” The reason for the final outcome – some saved, some lost – cannot be injustice on the part of God. So it must be rooted in something else.

The main theme of the book of Romans is the justice of God (or “righteousness” of God – it's the same word in Greek). This justice is demonstrated in the Gospel, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, where God poured the wrath we deserve down upon on His own Son, Who lovingly offered Himself as our substitute. Thus, God's justice was fulfilled and we were saved by grace. We aren't getting what we deserve – Jesus got our punishment. Instead, we have received GRACE. The the righteousness of God has been vindicated in Christ, and sinners can be saved (see Romans 3:21f). But is God's sovereign choice of some and not others unjust? If it is, this will undo all that Paul has said in the first eight chapters. How can a God who goes to such great lengths to prove His justice be involved in an inherently unjust transaction? Paul has proven God's justice in saving sinners, now he must demonstrate the justice of God in His sovereign work of election. To accomplish this, Paul calls Pharaoh as a key witness.

For He (God) says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then, He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9:15-18)

Notice Paul's theme in this paragraph: MERCY. With these words, the entire discussion is turned from a question of perceived injustice, in which some are not getting the chance they deserve, to a question of MERCY, in which we are receiving a salvation we most assuredly do NOT deserve.

This Wonderful Thing Called Mercy

Charles R. Erdman explains:

“The sovereignty of God is absolute; yet it is never exercised in condemning men who ought to be saved, but rather it has resulted in the salvation of men who deserved to be lost.” (Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 1925, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, pg. 109)

You and I have no place at all to call for justice for ourselves or to cry out for what we deserve. As sinners, the justice we deserve is death and hell. Early in the book of Romans, Paul lists a catalog of traits including “full of envy ... gossips ... arrogant, boastful ... disobedient to parents ... untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful,” and then he declares “... those who practice such things are worthy of death ...” (Romans 1:29-32). That is the sentence passed by God in Eden, when He said, “you will surely die.” The sentence remains upon all of Adam's children. Each one of us is guilty enough to go into the fiery hell (Matthew 5:22). We have exercised a stubborn self-will in turning against God, disobeying His commands, discounting His advice, and going a way we believe is better than His way. Isaiah calls it “our own way ... the iniquity of us all.”

God's judgment against sinners is just. It is what we deserve, and since by our own choice we have rebelled against Him, it is in some sense giving us the very thing we WANT. Heaven would likely be far less comfortable than hell for an unredeemed soul who has rejected the grace of God. Hell itself may be one final mercy by which God spares sinners from having to suffer even more torment by dwelling IN HIS IMMEDIATE PRESENCE FOR ETERNITY. Instead, they go into the place prepared for the punishment of evil spirits, to outer darkness. No unrepentant sinner wants to live perpetually in the magnificent light of God's holy presence, in the shadow of an omnipotent being they do not trust. To the lost, hell would most likely be preferable to heaven (at least initially).

Mercy is not a matter of fairness, or justice, or deserving. If deserved, it would not be mercy. If merely just, it would not be amazing. If fair, no one could ever be saved. Mercy is undeserved kindness shown to depraved wretches who are headed headlong for hell.

In His mercy, God does not allow all of fallen humanity to perish. He sovereignly selects those who will be saved, and this is His absolute right as Creator. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.” In doing this, He leaves the lost to their choice and the justice they deserve. The saved are brought to a point of choosing Him, and often they do not realize until much later that they were first chosen by Him. This is pure irony: God chooses us, therefore we choose Him, but we cannot know He chooses us until after we have chosen Him.

A Hint of Explanation

In view of this undeserved mercy, no one can accuse God of injustice in election. But the relentless logic of the human mind jumps to another question: if God is absolutely sovereign and exercises His right to choose some while allowing others to perish, how can He condemn those He does not save? (Romans 9:19)

Paul has already called us to an exalted view of God. Now he calls us to a less exalted view of ourselves, answering once again with a question: WHO ARE YOU? Who are YOU to “talk back” to God, to answer your Creator to His face, as if you were His equal? (Romans 9:20). Paul is going to address the question that has been asked, but only after our pride has been confronted and our attitude adjusted. He skillfully combines the explanation with a brilliant rebuke and question wrapped together. What good is it be to be full of knowledge about the ways of God if that knowledge inflates our pride?

Another question follows: WHAT IF? What if God is showing His great patience in the way He deals with man's depravity? What if He is doing this in order to magnify the glory of His saving work on behalf of the elect? The question is designed to be humbling, to stop us in our tracks and get us thinking in a new direction. It gently and purposefully leads us to think about a possibility we may never have considered. The previous verses have shocked our man-centered sensibilities, but now we get a bit of the divine rationale to ponder and digest - now that we have been firmly reminded of our creaturely status.

By leaving the lost in their condition, God makes grace shine brighter and clearer on the redeemed. In Exodus, Pharaoh's hardened heart led to Israel's first Passover celebration, and mercy was wondrously revealed to the Hebrew people. In our day, a believer looks around and wonders, “Why me? Why did God save me and not leave me as I was? There are so many still in their sins, but I, a mocker and rebel, have been saved by His grace.” The gratitude and joy flowing from this realization can be overwhelming at times. It is not a pride or arrogance of being among the “elect” – rather it is a profound appreciation for the mercies God has rained down on a being who is utterly undeserving.

The lost are “prepared” for destruction. A.T. Robertson notes, “Paul does not say here that God did it or that they did it.” (Word Pictures In The New Testament, note on Romans 9:22). According to Robertson, the Greek word means “to equip” and refers to a “state of readiness.”Some would argue that God actively works against the lost, bringing them to reprobation, but that is unlike God and also unnecessary. The lost are already on the path to destruction, and God is actually delaying it for a time. Sin is inherently self-destructive. The lost are, through their rebellious choice, in a state of readiness to be destroyed. God's response is to “endure with much patience” rather than making His power known by swift, active judgment. This is further evidence of His mercy.

The saved are “prepared beforehand” for glory. A completely different word is used here than in the case of the lost, and God is clearly the active agent. Only He can prepare us BEFOREHAND. Although we have “fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), He has planned our restoration and He is working to bring it to pass. Blessed be His name! This is far more amazing than the fact that God allows some sinners to go their way and remain hardened against Him.

I will go no further. After considering just this first part of Paul's discourse, it is no wonder that the apostle of grace is overflowing with praise by the end of chapter 11. “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Romans 11:33) His ways are unfathomable because they are laden with paradoxes too mysterious for human minds to fully grasp. In Paul's rather sharp mind, this was a good reason to worship the One Whose wisdom and knowledge vastly exceed our own. And a compelling motivation for humble service to his own people, Jews by birth, and also to Gentile "sinners" whom God has called out for faith in and obedience to His Son. All according to His great mercy!

Soli Deo Gloria – to God alone be glory!

Notes

A few great books helped me with this post, most notably "Romans Verse By Verse" by William R. Newell and "Handbook On The Pentateuch" by Victor P. Hamilton. "IVP New Dictionary of Theology" also offered some helpful insight. In addition, my discussions with Tony Hayling at agonizomai concerning election and reprobation played a role.