Key Takeaways
1. The Potter's Character: Glory in Self-Sacrifice, Not Meticulous Control
I now believe the Scriptures reveal a Potter who manifests His glory by sacrificing Himself for the undeserving vessels, not by making vessels undeserving from birth so as to condemn them to display His glory.
Redefining divine glory. The author's journey out of Calvinism fundamentally shifted his understanding of God's character. While Calvinists often emphasize God's glory through meticulous control over all things, including sin and condemnation, Traditionalists see God's glory most profoundly displayed in His self-sacrificial love and mercy for all creation. This perspective aligns with the example of Jesus Christ, who chose to die for His enemies rather than condemn them.
Love's true nature. The Calvinistic concept of God's "love" for the reprobate, often limited to common provisions like rain and sunshine, is challenged by the biblical definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13. Paul defines love as patient, kind, not self-seeking, and persevering—qualities that seem incompatible with a God who predestines individuals to eternal damnation from birth. True love, as exemplified by Christ, is self-sacrificial and desires reconciliation, not predetermined destruction.
God's inherent nature. The question shifts from "How does a sovereign God express His love?" to "How does a loving God express His sovereignty?" God's very nature is love (1 John 4:8), implying He cannot fail to be perfectly loving. Just as a good parent cannot willingly harm their child, God, as a necessarily good and loving Being, cannot but love what He has created. This inherent love is not a weakness but His greatest, most self-glorifying strength.
2. God's Election: Multiple Choices for His Redemptive Plan
Many Calvinists, though well intending, have wrongly concluded that the Potter has only one “election” or “choice,” and that is for the unconditional, effectual salvation of particular individuals before creation.
Distinguishing divine choices. The parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) reveals that God makes several distinct choices in His redemptive plan, which Calvinists often conflate into a single, unconditional election for individual salvation. Understanding these separate choices is crucial for a non-Calvinistic interpretation of election.
Three types of choices:
- Choice #1 (Servants): God chooses individuals (prophets, apostles) to be His messengers, sending out the invitation. This choice is unconditional, not based on the messenger's merit (e.g., Jonah, Paul).
- Choice #2 (Recipients): God chooses to send the invitation first to Israel, then to all nations ("good and bad alike"). This choice is also unconditional regarding the initial recipients.
- Choice #3 (Feast Guests): God chooses to allow only those clothed in proper wedding garments (representing faith in Christ) to enter the feast. This choice for individual salvation is conditional upon a free response of faith.
Avoiding conflation. Calvinists often misapply passages referring to God's unconditional election of messengers or nations (Choice #1 and #2) as proof for the unconditional election of individuals to salvation (Choice #3). This misinterpretation leads to the erroneous conclusion that God irresistibly causes some to believe while denying others the ability to respond, undermining the concept of genuine human responsibility.
3. True Sovereignty: Accomplishing Purpose Through Free Will
Should “sovereignty” be interpreted and understood as the necessity of God to “play both sides of the chessboard” in order to ensure His victory? Or should it be understood as God’s infinite and mysterious ways of accomplishing His purposes and ensuring His victory in, through and despite the libertarianly free choices of creation?
Beyond meticulous determinism. The Calvinistic view of "meticulous determinism," where God controls every detail, including sinful desires, is challenged as undermining God's omnipotence. True sovereignty, as depicted by the analogy of a chess master, is not about controlling both sides to guarantee victory, but about achieving victory despite the free choices of an opponent. God's power is demonstrated in His ability to work through and overcome evil, not by causing it.
Sovereignty as expression, not source. Divine sovereignty, defined as providential control over creation, is a temporal characteristic, not an eternal attribute. God's eternal attribute is omnipotence (limitless power). Sovereignty is the expression of God's power, meaning He is as controlling as He chooses to be. To argue that God must meticulously control everything to be sovereign actually limits His freedom and omnipotence.
Foreknowledge vs. determination. The argument that God's foreknowledge of future events necessitates His determination of them imposes a linear, cause-and-effect construct on an infinite, timeless God. The Bible uses "foreknowledge" (proginōskō) distinct from "predetermine," suggesting God knows libertarianly free choices without causing them. John Calvin's candid admission that God is the "author" of evil, though sinlessly, highlights the problematic logical endpoint of meticulous determinism, a dilemma many modern Calvinists struggle to reconcile.
4. Judicial Hardening: A Temporary, Redemptive Act for the Rebellious
Judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth that could otherwise lead to repentance, like when Jesus spoke using riddles (Mark 4:11-12; Rom. 11:8).
Distinguishing types of hardening. Scripture teaches two kinds of hardening: self-hardening, where morally accountable individuals grow stubborn through their own choices, and judicial hardening, where God actively blinds already rebellious people temporarily to prevent repentance for a time. This divine intervention is always motivated by a greater redemptive purpose, often including the potential redemption of those being hardened.
Purposeful obscuring of truth. The "Messianic secret" (Jesus's use of parables and commands not to reveal His identity) is an example of judicial hardening. Jesus intentionally obscured truth from the Jewish leaders to prevent them from believing before the crucifixion, which was God's ordained plan for world redemption. This was not because they were born totally unable to respond, but because they were already calloused in their self-righteousness, and God used this existing condition for a higher purpose.
God's blameless intervention. In instances like Joseph's betrayal, Pharaoh's hardening, or Christ's crucifixion, God uses sinful wills to accomplish His redemptive plan without causing the sin itself. He permits evil actions, or hides truth from the already rebellious, to ensure His purposes are met. This differs from meticulous determinism, which implies God determines the evil desires. God is not cleaning up His own determinations; He is cleaning up mankind's libertarianly free choices and actions.
5. Contextualizing John 6 & Ephesians 1: Beyond Individual Determinism
Were individuals included in Christ before the foundation of the earth? No, Paul wrote it was “when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation.”
John 6: Hardening, not inability. The audience in John 6 consisted of unbelieving, judicially hardened Israelites and the twelve apostles. Jesus's provocative teachings and riddles were part of God's temporary judicial hardening of already calloused Jews to ensure the crucifixion, not a demonstration of "Total Inability" from birth. The apostles, in contrast, were drawn through clear teachings and miraculous signs, not irresistible internal regeneration. Jesus's statement "I will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32) refers to His post-resurrection drawing, not a pre-creation, irresistible call for a select few.
Ephesians 1: Blessings for believers. This chapter addresses "the faithful in Christ Jesus." The "us" and "we" refer to those already in Christ. Predestination here describes what believers become (holy, blameless, adopted as sons), not who becomes a believer. Paul explicitly states that individuals are "included in Christ when you heard the message of truth" and "marked in Him when you believed." This passage focuses on the predetermined spiritual blessings for those who come to Christ through faith, not on God predetermining which individuals will be in Christ.
Election redefined in Christ. Prior to Christ, Israel was the elect nation. However, with Christ, election is redefined. Jesus is the elect One, and "those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared to be [God's] people, His elect." This universalizes election to include all who are in Christ, shifting the focus from national or individual pre-selection for salvation to the blessings and destiny of those who believe.
6. Romans 8-9: Israel's Purpose, Not Unconditional Individual Reprobation
Paul is addressing one particular issue in this passage, that being, how is it that so many of Abraham’s physical descendants reject the Messiah?
Paul's central question. Romans 8:28-9:33 is often misread as a defense of unconditional individual election and reprobation. However, Paul's primary concern, explicitly stated and reiterated, is: "Has God's Word failed?" (Romans 9:6). This refers to God's promise to Abraham that "all the families of the earth will be blessed" through Israel, despite the widespread unbelief among Paul's Jewish kinsmen.
"Foreknew" and "predestined" in context. In Romans 8:29-30, "foreknew" refers to God's intimate knowledge of past saints (like Abraham, Moses, David) who loved Him, not a pre-salvation knowledge of individuals. "Predestined" refers to God's plan to conform these past saints to Christ's image (to bring the Messiah into the world) and their glorification, which was already completed for them. The use of past tense verbs ("called," "justified," "glorified") supports this historical interpretation, referring to those already in God's presence.
Israel's role and failure. Paul argues that God's promise has not failed because:
- Not all who are descended from Israel are "true Israel" (those who believe).
- Salvation was never guaranteed by nationality but by faith.
- God's purpose in electing Israel was to bring the Messiah and His message to the world, a purpose fulfilled despite Israel's unfaithfulness.
The passage is about God's faithfulness to His redemptive plan through Israel, not about His arbitrary selection of individuals for heaven or hell.
7. "Jacob I Loved, Esau I Hated": A National, Conditional Declaration
This text does not teach that God hated an unborn baby for no apparent reason, as some interpret it to mean.
Beyond individual damnation. The quote "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Romans 9:13, from Malachi 1:2-3) is frequently cited by Calvinists to support unconditional individual reprobation. However, the original Old Testament context, spanning over 1500 years, clearly refers to the nations descended from Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom), not the unborn individuals. Malachi and Obadiah explicitly state God's hatred for Edom was due to their actions of violence and opposition against Israel.
Figurative language and national purpose. Paul's use of the Isaac/Ishmael and Jacob/Esau narratives is figurative, as he himself explains in Galatians 4:22-25, representing the covenant of faith versus the covenant of law. God's choice of Jacob over Esau was for the purpose of fulfilling the Abrahamic promise through a specific lineage, not for the eternal damnation of Esau. The term "hate" can also be an idiom for choosing one over another for a specific purpose, as seen in Luke 14:26 ("hate his own father and mother").
Warning against opposition. Paul uses the example of Edom's curse to warn his Jewish audience: being a descendant of Abraham does not guarantee salvation, and opposing God's Word (now carried by chosen Israelites like Paul) will result in God's curse, just as it did for the Edomites. This interpretation aligns with God's justice and mercy, rather than portraying Him as arbitrarily hating an unborn child.
8. The Potter's Ultimate Plan: Mercy for All Humanity
“For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.” (Rom. 11:32)
God's overarching motive. The entire narrative of Romans 9-11, often seen as a difficult and even "dreadful" decree by Calvinists, is reinterpreted through the lens of God's ultimate motive: mercy for all. God's actions, including the judicial hardening of Israel, are not for arbitrary condemnation but to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose that benefits all humanity. This perspective removes the "shame" some feel about Calvinistic interpretations of God's character.
Inclusive promise. God's original promise to Abraham—"all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Genesis 12:3)—is inclusive, not exclusive. The Potter's plan is to show mercy to all, not just a preselected few. This is achieved by allowing humanity to fall into disobedience, demonstrating the universal need for grace, and then providing salvation through Christ, accessible to whosoever believes.
Hope for the hardened. Even the judicially hardened Israelites, who stumbled over Christ, are not without hope. Paul explicitly states his desire for their salvation (Romans 10:1) and that they can be provoked to envy and grafted back in through faith (Romans 11:11-23). This demonstrates that God's hardening is temporary and redemptive, not a final, irreversible decree of damnation from birth.
9. The "Why Me?" Fallacy: Man's Responsibility, Not God's Determinism
A question begging fallacy presumes true the very point up for debate, and the question above presumes a deterministic answer is required.
Challenging the common argument. The Calvinist's popular question, "Why did you believe the gospel, but your friend did not? Are you wiser or smarter or more spiritual or better trained or more humble?" is a question-begging fallacy. It presumes a deterministic answer, implying that something other than the individual's responsible choice determined their response. The Traditionalist asserts that the cause of a choice is the chooser, accepting the mystery of free will.
Calvinism's own mystery. While Calvinists critique the "mystery" of libertarian free will, they ultimately appeal to an even more problematic mystery: explaining Adam's or Lucifer's first sin without free will, or how God can be the "author" of evil without culpability. This creates a dilemma where God is implicitly responsible for moral evil, a conclusion that compromises His holiness and righteousness.
"Better" by decree vs. capacity. The Calvinistic view implies God makes some individuals "morally better" (irresistibly humble or believing) than others through an effectual work of grace. The Traditionalist, however, argues that all individuals are created with the same moral capacity to believe in Christ. Therefore, if one believes, it is not because God made them inherently "better," but because they freely responded to God's gracious appeal, a response that is not boast-worthy because it is an ability granted to all.
10. "Should Implies Could": Man's Moral Capacity to Respond to Grace
But, doesn’t the command strongly imply one’s ability to fulfill that command?
The implication of commands. Biblical commands, such as "humble yourselves" (1 Peter 5:5-6) or "seek the Lord" (Zephaniah 2:3), strongly imply that humanity possesses the moral ability to fulfill them. To suggest otherwise would portray God as immoral or insane for commanding the impossible and then punishing for failure. This principle, "should implies could," is fundamental to understanding human responsibility.
Law vs. faith. Calvinists often argue that just as man cannot keep the entire law, he also cannot humble himself or believe without irresistible grace. However, this conflates two distinct purposes:
- The Law's purpose: To reveal sin and lead to a realization of the need for Christ (Romans 3:20, Galatians 3:24). It was never intended to be fulfilled for righteousness.
- Faith's purpose: To respond to God's gracious offer of salvation.
Mankind's inability to earn righteousness by works does not equate to an inability to recognize that need and ask for help through faith.
Accountability and choice. Scripture consistently holds individuals accountable for their response to God's revelation. People perish "because they did not accept the love of the truth" (2 Thessalonians 2:10), not because they were born unable to believe. Romans 1:20 states all are "without excuse," a claim undermined if God has predetermined their inability to respond. God desires to show mercy to those who humbly repent in faith, a choice that remains man's responsibility, not God's irresistible decree.
Last updated:
