We have been working our way through common objections to God’s divine election of individuals to salvation as part of His eternal plan of redemption established before the foundation of the world. In doing so, our study has centered on Romans 9 as the apostle perceives a number of objections that were not only present in his own day but have been regurgitated throughout history down to our present day. In unfolding the doctrine of election from Romans 9, we have seen that the original defense and presentation of it was due primarily to the Jewish objection that God’s plan for them had changed and that He had broken His promises to them despite their genealogical relationship to Abraham. In other words, given the context of Romans, the condemnation of all men under sin, and the extension of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to not only Jews, but Gentiles as well, this brought into question of whether or not God’s promise of the Abrahamic Covenant had been broken. God’s response, via Paul, was that His plan was always according to the children of promise, not the children of the flesh, which presents a dichotomy with the children of Abraham. Said differently, the very nature of the Abrahamic Covenant had a dual purpose, physical progeny (children of the flesh) and spiritual progeny (children of the promises), which also included some of those from Abraham’s physical offspring, a remnant as we will see. In order to answer the questions brought up by Jews, Paul’s response is to detail God’s plan of divine election of not merely an Israel within Israel, but of Gentiles too. This brought up the next objection about whether God choosing one and passing over another was just. As we saw last time with the very justice of God placed in the dock, the conclusion is that God is not unjust, rather He is free and sovereign to do whatever He wants including being merciful to whom He wills and hardening whom He wills.
With this, we arrive at a third anticipated objection. Given all of this concerning election and the answers to the perceived objections that people may have, does this promote fatalism or the belief that all things are predetermined by God and therefore a person responds with an attitude of resignation. This attitude is summarized in the third objection to divine election as outlined by Romans 9 and is phrased as follows
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Romans 9:19
Perhaps the most common modern objection to God’s plan of divine election is that of determinism or fatalism, which is usually taken to an absurd conclusion that the non-elect, whoever they are, ought to simply resign themselves to damnation having never had the chance to believe the gospel to begin with. The initial problem with this is that no one can know the mind of God, and no one can make that self-determination of their own salvific state. The gospel is free to all and ought to be proclaimed by all for all. Those who have believed are encouraged and warned by God to, “be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” 2 Peter 1:10 The entire letter of 1 John and the warnings of Hebrews are all meant to keep the believer persevering in the faith as we “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in [us], both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:12b-13 Additionally, for unbelievers Christ has placed the command upon them to repent of their sins and place their faith in Him. There is zero hint anywhere that their response is or could be, “But I’m not chosen”.
This brings up a second problem with the fatalistic/deterministic view, one which the Apostle Paul introduces in this 9th chapter of Romans with the verse posted above and sounds very similar to our absurd objection just discussed. To begin, Paul brings up the anticipated objection of, if all of this concerning election is true, then why does He still find fault with those who are the non-elect? How can it be their fault for not believing if it was God’s will all along? With this, we can hear the resignation of fatalism, but ought also to be reminded of what we concluded earlier about who can be self-deterministic concerning their own election?
In answering this, Paul introduces his own set of questions, “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?” (Romans 9:20) Paul’s interpretation of the question asked earlier concerning who could resist the will of God is to reframe it in terms of personal fatalism of, “Why did you make me like this?”, implying of course, why did you make me unable to believe, unable to repent, and unelect? In Chapter 10 of Romans, Paul will get to the answer that we stated briefly earlier, that all those who call upon the Lord will be saved as the Gospel is preached indiscriminately to all. However, here his first line answer is, “Who are you to answer back to God?” This is the answer from which all other questions about God, His character, and His plan as foreordained before the foundation of the world must come back to. It resets the mind concerning the chasm between the Creator and the created, between the infinite and the finite, between the Potter and the clay.
In the book of Job, after he had lost nearly everything including health, wealth, and children, Job and his friends spend chapter after chapter debating the reason for why G,od acts the way that He does. Job at multiple points even concludes that it would have been better for him not to have been born, a certain questioning over the plan of God to even bring him into the world. In fact, over the course of the debate arguments concerning God’s justice, providence, and the very manner in which He chooses to govern the world were brought into question. Far from being a disinterested, deistic, cosmic watch maker, God answers Job out of the whirlwind. Let’s rest assured that if God is going to speak to us, we do not want it to be, “out of the whirlwind.” His opening response to Job is as follows,
“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:2-4a
3 Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
In effect, God replies to Job in the same manner that Paul replies to the objection of fatalism, Who are you to answer back to God? In answering Job’s question of why, God answers with the statement of Who, with the express purpose of highlighting the chasm between man and God, creature and Creator. After asking a series of rhetorical questions regarding where Job was when He created and controlled the universe, God addresses Job with a question He wants answered,
Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
Job 40:2
He who argues with God, let him answer it.”
This response from the Almighty God isn’t just for Job’s situation. It’s a one-size fits all response to those who would question the plan of God, whether it be with respect to His sovereignty in planning and foreordaining the world, including those who would be saved (the elect) or in how He executes and governs this plan, as in the case of Job. This questioning by God gives Job just enough time to come up for air to say he’s not going to question God anymore but resigns himself to cover his mouth with his hand. With this, God pours it on again with more declaration about Who He is that absolves Him from any questioning about what He has done. After the defense of God mercifully concludes in chapter 42, Job’s response is relevant for our discussion here in Romans 9.
“I know that you can do all things,
Job 42:2-6
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”
The lesson from Job isn’t limited to times of personal tragedy, it is a witness for all persons at all times to stop asking why and start asking Who? Returning to Romans 9, Paul’s answer to the hypothetical objector follows a very similar line as what we just saw with Job. Not only did he begin by asking who they are to question God, but he exalts the Creator’s right to do with the creation whatever He wants. With this, Paul sets forth the two options that he began with, not all Israel is Israel, not all are Abraham’s children, children of the flesh vs. children of promise, elect vs. non-elect, recipients of mercy vs. recipients of hardening. This time he frames the options as clay lumps in the hand of the Potter who has the right to make one a vessel for honorable use and the other a vessel for dishonorable use. Again, the freedom rests in the Potter, not the clay. After setting forth this argument, Paul again asks his own questions of his objectors
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, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Romans 9:22-24
Here yet again we see God is in His exalted position as sovereign Creator with rights extending over all of His creation, including humanity, not because rights had been given to Him by some outside authority, but because of His very nature and person as God. The duality here is focused even more now upon those vessels of wrath who were prepared for destruction and those vessels of mercy who were prepared beforehand for glory. Both vessels are recipients of God’s attributes, wrath to one and mercy to the other, while it is also explicitly added that those of the former experience God’s patience. This particular attribute of God’s long-suffering nature was previously mentioned in Romans 2:4, there in context that His kindness, forbearance, and patience were meant to lead towards repentance. In other words, God is even gracious towards those vessels of wrath.
Now this brings up the objection again, which can be restated from another angle. On the one hand, objectors to divine election would default again to fatalism by saying what does God’s patience matter if they were condemned from the start? While we ought to keep Paul’s warning to us about questioning God, there is another facet of this passage that needs our attention. The words translated above as for each vessel (vs. 22 & 23), are two different words. In the case of the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” the verb is passive, meaning God is not acting upon them to make them prepared for destruction. They are preparing themselves by rejecting Christ and choosing their sin. Contrasted to this is the preparation of the vessels of mercy, which are acted on by God. In other words, corresponding to Paul’s earlier declaration that all mankind is guilty in Adam and none seek after God, there are those whom God leaves in this condition and those whom God acts upon mercifully such that man is entirely responsible for his own damnation and God gets all the glory for those whom He has foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Romans 8:29-30).
The answer to the objection of fatalism begins first and foremost with understanding there is a massive chasm between Creator and creature, so much so that to question God is the height of arrogance, as we saw in the passages from Job. God is free to extend mercy upon those whom He wills and to harden those whom He wills. Despite the best efforts of those who bring up the fatalistic argument to want the “non-elect” to respond with, “I can’t believe because you won’t let me”, their actual response is “I won’t believe because I don’t want to”. Ultimately God’s wrath is not in competition with His justice. Equally and perfectly, they proceed from God as He wills, to whom He wills, and He is glorified in the display of them both.
Soli Deo Gloria!
