Romans 9 and Radio Free Geneva Continued

A mighty fortress is our God. A bulwark never failing.

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them. They're following men instead of the Word of God.

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

On top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out, he died for all. Those who elected were selected.

For still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe. His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the Reformers.

On earth is not his equal.

I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.

You're not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choosing. Doomed before the womb? You ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he. Lord saw both his name. Read my book. From age to age the same.

And he must win the battle.

Introduction to Radio Free Geneva and the Romans 9 Response

From our underground bunker, hidden deep beneath Liberty University, where no one would think to look, safe from those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say to his own eternal glory.

And turn it down. There you go. Well, there you go. And welcome to Radio Free Geneva. Hey, he never went to broadcaster's sound engineering school. So you just can't blame him if he leaves the sound way too high up there for me to be even heard.

Anyway, welcome to The Dividing Line, a special edition of Radio Free Geneva. For those of you who were here last week, you know that we took the time to work through Romans chapter 9. We have in fact provided just the Romans chapter 9 exegesis as a separate file.

I need to get that linked over on the side of the website as well. It's in the blog right now. And so we were doing that because a number of months ago I began responding to a gentleman named Steve Gregg.

Steve Gregg posted nine files on the Internet, MP3s, each an hour and a half long on the subject of Calvinism. And we did a number of Radio Free Geneva's in response to Mr. Gregg and responded to his assertions therein.

But the one thing we never got to was what he said about Romans chapter 9. And for those who were not here for those programs, a number of Mr. Gregg's disciples, supporters, had basically told us that dealing with people like George Bryson or Dave Hunt is basically picking the low fruit.

That the best man to deal with was Steve Gregg. He's got it all down. And especially this Romans 9 stuff. He's got Romans 9 figured out and so we need to deal with him. So finally we're getting around to providing that response to Romans 9.

And we began last week by looking at the text itself and walking through beginning back in Romans 8 all the way through 924. And we pointed out that it's important to do so because there is one subject, one topic being discussed and it all stands together.

And it has been my experience for those of you who have read The Potter's Freedom. It has been my experience that responses to Romans 9 tend to come in a sort of scattergun type of mode. In other words, I found it very odd that when Norman Geisler attempted to respond to Romans 9, he did so in at least three different sections and not even in chronological order.

That is, he dealt with one section over here, then another section someplace else, and then a few verses over here. And that's about the only way that I know of for people to do this because if they use the nation's defense, that only works in a portion of Romans 9.

It doesn't work in all of it. And so it's easier just to use that in one portion and then come up with something for another portion over here, rather than seeing the text as a whole. So we presented the text as a whole, charted the consistency through the Golden Chain of Redemption in Romans 8, and into Romans chapter 9, and pointed out that the key issue is Paul's answering the question, has the Word of God failed?

Have these promises failed? Because the majority of those who call themselves Jews today, who are the descendants of Abraham, do not accept this message of Jesus Christ. And Paul's response is to point out that not everyone who is descended from Israel is Israel.

And he demonstrates this truth of freedom, this truth of God's sovereignty in the history of Israel, and that there has always been a remnant according to election. And he goes through and demonstrates this, and the entire section is consistent in making this same argument all the way through.

And so we presented that last week, and what I'm going to do is I'm going to play for you. Now, I was looking for a particular section. Remember, there's nine hour-and-a-half MP3 files, so trying to find something in all these MP3 files is difficult.

I was looking for something, and I stumbled across another section in Romans 9. I thought I had them all, and so I'm actually going to start with that one. So I've got more of it. One of the other ones may actually be this one, but I just started farther in.

I don't know. I'm just going to have to play it and see what comes out. What I'm going to do is I'm going to play a lot of Steve Gregg today without interrupting him, because I think, hey, there are people who sincerely believe that he's got his finger on the pulse of this thing.

He's figured it out. And so I'm going to let you hear what he has to say. I'm going to be sitting here with a pad and paper, and as I do in a debate when I'm listening to my opponent giving his presentation, I'm going to be making the notes, and then hopefully I'm going to have time to give a rebuttal.

I've already given my presentation, and obviously it's my program, so I've got more time. But how many people, honestly, folks, do what I'm doing right now? Would Steve Gregg play all my stuff? He might now that he's got it.

I'd certainly invite him to, though it would be sort of hard for him to fit on his radio program. But I'd invite him to play my Romans 9 exegesis and respond to it. But we're almost the only folks who do this kind of thing.

I mean, Gene Cook does some of it, but we are very consistent in allowing those who have different viewpoints, we play their stuff and then respond to their stuff. Now, most of the time it's because they wouldn't come on anyways and wouldn't want to come on, but that's just sort of how it goes.

I want to read a couple quotes really quickly and then start in with Steve Gregg. First, I saw no evidence. I never heard any citations. I saw no evidence that Steve Gregg has read Dr. John Piper's The Justification of God.

It is my understanding that Dr. Piper's work on Romans chapter 9 was his doctoral dissertation. It is published by Baker Books. I cannot help but remember Dave Hunt's somewhat mocking of it, because it has so much of the original languages and it's so highbrow and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, which is a sad thing to hear someone saying.

But anyway, tremendous work, not the easiest thing in the world to read, but that's because it is very in-depth. And in discussing Romans chapter 9, and the primary response offered in contradiction to what I presented to you last week, is that Romans chapter 9 is not about salvation.

It's about national privilege, Israel over against other nations. And Dr. Piper points out, and I pointed out last week, that what you have to do is you have to ask of any interpretation, does it allow Paul and his context to determine the context of his comments?

That is, if Paul is answering the objection that God's word has failed, that his gospel makes God's word a failure, the Jews have rejected the gospel, if you have to turn his response into something that no longer answers that question, then you've obviously missed the point someplace.

You're not accurately handling the word of God. On page 58 of Dr. Piper's book, he says the following,. It is a remarkable and telling phenomenon, that those who find no individual predestination to eternal life, in Romans 9, 6 through 13, and by the way, that will include Steve Gregg, he says this repeatedly and with fervor, cannot successfully explain the threat of Paul's argument as it begins in Romans 9, 1 through 5 and continues through the chapter.

In other words, what he's saying is, since they have to cut off the first five verses, and the first five verses end up having nothing to do with what follows, that is the telltale sign of the error of their way.

I continue,. One looks in vain, for example, among these commentators, for a cogent statement of how the corporate election of two peoples, Israel and Edom, in Romans 9, 12 and 13, fits together in Paul's argument with the statement, not all those from Israel are Israel, Romans 9, 6b.

One also looks in vain for an explanation of how the pressing problem of eternally condemned Israelites in Romans 9, 3, is ameliorated by Romans 9, 6 through 13, if these verses refer not to salvation, but to position and historical task.

I found the impression unavoidable that doctrinal inclinations have severely limited exegetical effort and insight, not so much because the answers of these exegetes are not my own, but because of the crucial exegetical questions that simply are not posed by them.

And I agree with Dr. Piper 100%. I think we're going to see that in what is going to follow. Now, I just note that the section that I stumbled on today, that goes into Romans 9, begins that this was what I was looking for, partially.

The primary person that Steve Gregg is responding to, and the primary person that he read and listened to and studied, was Dr. R .C. Sproul. And I, in fact, played one portion of this for Dr. Sproul recently when we were together in Hawaii, and you'll hear the section when we play it here.

Obviously, what he's going to be doing in his presentation, Romans 9, is he is using Sproul's outline and trying to respond to it and refute it. And that's the background of his comments. So I'm going to start here.

And I'm not sure how long this goes. And I'm not sure if this is the second section I have, but I started someplace else. We'll find out. This is called live webcasting. It's how it goes. We'll figure it out.

But I'm going to allow Steve Gregg now to have his say, and then I'll come back and respond to it. Let's start listening to Steve Gregg on Romans chapter 9.

Jacob, Esau, and the Meaning of Election in Romans 9

An example of this, and here again we have an example where the Calvinists understand the material very differently than the non-Calvinists. And we'll just see which is correct here. Talking about Esau and Jacob, talking about Esau and Jacob, it says in verse 11, Romans 9, 11, for the children, talking about the twins, Esau and Jacob and the womb of their mother, not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand not of works, but of him who calls.

It was said to her, the older shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whomever I'll have mercy.

And I'll have compassion on whomever I'll have compassion. So then, it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared in all the earth.

Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills, he pardons. Now, here we see very clearly God's rule over the nations. Unfortunately for the Calvinists and for the church at large, because of the Calvinist misunderstanding, this verse is considered to be one of the most potent passages about individual, unconditional election for salvation, when Paul doesn't even discuss the subject in the passage.

R .C. Sproul said that he had trouble for a long time with Calvinism. He was, I guess, an atheist or an agnostic before he got saved. I'm not sure, I think when he was in college. At first he was against Calvinism, but he finally was converted to Calvinism.

He said, by Romans 9. It just broke down all his resistance. I have a quote in here, actually from R .C. Sproul, about Romans 9. Let me read this to you. It's on page 22 of your notes. This is off one of his tapes, his Interact tapes on Romans, number 48.

Let me just take the time to read this, because it's kind of interesting. He says, as you probably all are already aware, chapter 9 of Romans is the chapter which is most acutely clear with respect to the doctrine of predestination and divine sovereignty.

An Arminian must hate Romans 9, verse 11, because verse 11 destroys any rational foundation for Arminian theology. So he thinks. Now, some have tried to get around this position by saying, well, really, all Paul's talking about here is the fact that God chooses one nation over another nation, and that these people are representatives of nations.

He's merely pointing out that Judaism comes down through a certain national line. He's not talking about the election of individuals. He's not talking about the predestination of private people, but he's talking about God's sovereign election of one nation over another nation.

But let's think about that for a second, Sproul continues, because that's all it should take to dispel this idea. In the first place, if we would grant the fact that all Paul's talking about is the election of a nation, one nation over another sovereignly, by the sheer act of his own grace, without any view to the virtue or vice of any given nation, all of the problems that surround the predestination of individuals would still apply to the predestination of nations, only on a higher scale.

But more to the point is this, that the apostle is laboring the fact that the selection of which he is writing is in fact of individuals, Jacob over Esau. It may have national repercussions as a result of it, but the election here of which he speaks is one man is elect while another is passed over, having nothing whatsoever to do with the virtue, foreseen or otherwise, of these two individuals.

Here we have the plain teaching of scripture that at least in one instance, very clearly, God chose to save one rather than the other. God gives his promises of salvation to one, he does not give the promises of salvation to the other, and he does it before they're even born.

That God's electing purpose might stand. He says further in the same tape, I just have to say to my Arminian brothers, I'm glad he calls them brothers, what could be more clear than verse 16? What does he mean?

So that it's not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. He says I have just this to say to my Arminian brothers, what could be more clear than verse 16? Is there something wrong with me that I don't see something here that's not there?

Paul says it specifically, explicitly, or explicately, didactically, so then it is not of him who wills. What's the Arminian do? That's the death blow to Arminianism. Now, I love to quote Sproul, because he's such a classic statement of what Calvinists say, and his reasoning shows how illogical they are.

I mean, he's the epitome. Most Calvinists look to him as, he's our boy, he's our poster boy of modern Calvinism. I say, well, I'm so glad he is, because he sticks his foot in his mouth so terribly, and yet he's a professor of theology and philosophy, and he doesn't even see the irrationality and the illogic of his own statements.

Check this out. First of all, he says, Arminians say that this choice of Jacob over Esau is a choice of nations, not individuals. But he says, but that wouldn't even solve the problem, even if it was, because that just elevates the problem to a higher scale.

You still have all the same problems. Furthermore, he says, this is, he says in verse, that is in the third paragraph, but more to the point of this, that the apostle is laboring the fact that the selection of which he is writing is in fact of individuals, Jacob over Esau.

Now let's look at the passage. Is in fact Paul saying that? Because Sproul goes on to say, interestingly, but not accurately, he says, God chose to save one rather than the other. God gives his promises of salvation to one.

He does not give the promises of salvation to the other, and he does it before they're even born. Now, let me see, Mr. Sproul, does it say here that God gave his promise of salvation to one, and not to the other?

Does it say he elected one for salvation and not the other? I don't see the word salvation here. What I see him saying is this, God sovereignly, unconditionally, chose Jacob over Esau. But for what? For salvation?

Where in the Bible elsewhere would we read that Jacob was saved and Esau was lost? And where do we find promises of salvation made to the man Jacob and not to the man Esau? Where do we find this? Not here.

There is no statement here that Paul is talking about individual election for salvation. What is he talking about? He doesn't leave us in suspense. He answers it. He quotes two verses to make his point.

Verse 12, it was said to her, the older she'll serve the younger. Meaning Esau, the older twin, will serve the younger twin, Jacob. And also he quotes from Malachi, Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated.

Is that not proof positive? This is the election of individuals? Well, that depends. Paul might be expected to quote verses that have something to do with his point. So what verses does he quote? He quotes Genesis 25 and he quotes Malachi chapter 1.

Let's see what those verses actually say. Since Paul knew what they said, his readers hopefully may have known what they said. And by quoting them, Paul was making a point relevant to his discussion. What do the verses say?

Genesis 25, 23 is the first one that Paul quotes. Check it out. The Lord said to Rebekah, while the babies were in her womb, God said two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body, one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the older shall serve the younger.

Now Paul only quotes last night, the older shall serve the younger, but he's making a point from this verse about God's election. This election was unconditional and sovereign. I agree, there was no condition stated.

This is not based on anything Jacob or Esau would do. God made this choice sovereignly, but what is the choice that he made? Did he choose one man to be saved and another man to be lost? If so, it's totally absent from the context.

What it's saying is that God, in choosing a nation to be his functioning agent on earth, chose the nation that would come from Jacob. He did not choose the nation that came from Esau. There were two nations in the womb, one represented by Jacob, the other by Esau, and forever afterwards, those nations are called the nation of Jacob or Israel, as his name was also called, and the nation of Esau or Edom, as his name was also called, Edom and Israel.

These are two nations. And all the predictions there are about the nations. Two nations in your womb, two peoples, peoples, not people, but peoples, people groups, two ethnic entities there. And the one people will be stronger than the other people.

The Jews will be stronger than the Edomites. And the older, which are the Edomites, coming from the older son, will serve the younger. That is, the Edomites will serve Israel. Now, if you want to make this a matter of individuals, a prophecy about Jacob and Esau, then it's an untrue prophecy, because Esau never in his life served Jacob.

Jacob bowed down seven times to Esau, but Esau never served Jacob. It never happened. If God was making a prediction that pertained to individuals, the prediction failed to come true. But even if it was pertaining to individuals, which it was not, it is not anything about salvation.

To say one man will serve another man is not the same thing as saying one man will go to heaven, the other go to hell. And to say one nation will serve another nation, one nation will be chosen for prominence over another nation, isn't the same thing as saying all the people in that chosen nation are going to heaven, and all the people in that unchosen nation are going to hell.

This is not a prophecy that has anything to do with eternal salvation. It has to do with the unfolding of God's historical purposes. He wanted to choose a nation. He had two choices here in the womb of Rebekah.

One that would come from Esau, one nation would come from Jacob. He chose the nation that would come from Jacob. For what? For salvation? Hardly. The majority of Jews are in hell today who have lived.

Jesus said to himself, they are the father of the devil. But that didn't change the fact that their nation was chosen to bring forth the purpose of God, including the production of the prophets and the Messiah and the scriptures.

Yes, God used them. He was choosing a functioning tool. And he chose Jacob's nation to be that tool. He did not choose Esau's. Were all the Jews saved? Of course not. Were all Edomites lost? Of course not.

Job was an Edomite. Was he lost? Now, what I'm saying is that the verse Paul quotes presumably has something to do with the point he's trying to make. Therefore, if the verse he quotes tells us that God chose the nation of Israel to be useful in temporal purposes, but not necessarily for eternal salvation, over the choice of Edom, then that must be what Paul's talking about.

This is further confirmed by the other verse that he quotes, which is Malachi chapter 1, verses 2 and 3, where he says, Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated. This is not about the individual man. This is not talking about individual salvation.

Not in the least. All one has to do is look at what Paul was quoting. He knew what he was quoting. And we can know, too, if we look there. In Malachi chapter 1, verses 2 and 3, it says, I have loved you, meaning Israel, the nation, says the Lord.

Yet you say, in what way have you loved us? Notice the you is plural. I've loved you, Israel, us. Then he answers, Was not Esau Jacob's brother, says the Lord? Yet Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated, and I laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness.

Oh, God punished Esau by laying waste his mountains. Did this happen in Esau's lifetime? Not hardly. It happened in the Babylonian exile. But God restored Israel. He didn't restore Edom. This is the proof of God's favor of Jacob over Esau.

What? The destiny of the nation of Jacob is better in God's sovereign purposes than the destiny of the nation of Edom. God laid waste the Edomites' territory, but he restored the Jews to theirs after the Babylonian exile.

This is his proof of his love for one over the other. Jacob and Esau are nations, and God favored one nation over another, not necessarily for salvation, but for his temporal purposes to judge them, to restore them, to use them.

You see, in the whole context of Romans 9, Paul is not even interested in that discussion about individual election. He's talking about Israel. He's talking about the significance of Israel and why it is that most Jews are not Christians.

Because there's a remnant who are, and that's all that ever would be, that God makes his choice of groups, not necessarily for salvation, but to be the group that he favors, the group that he works on.

Within those groups, sometimes there are individuals who are lost. And in the groups that he doesn't favor, there can be individuals that he saves. He gives the example of Pharaoh. But Pharaoh isn't just a man.

He's not talking about Pharaoh being chosen to go to hell. He's talking about God hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he could judge Egypt. The judgment of Pharaoh was the judgment of a nation. Just like the fact that we have an obstinate leader in our nation is a judgment on our nation.

Egypt was worthy of judgment. God actually said to Abraham, back in Genesis 15, that he was going to judge the nation in which the Jews would be captivity. That judgment came in the form of judging Pharaoh, hardening his heart.

This was a national judgment. Sure, Pharaoh was lost. But God didn't harden his heart in order to determine he'd go to hell because God had no mercy on him. God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart until he was already a wicked man.

Pharaoh determined his own relationship with God by his own earlier choices, killing Israelites, forcing them into bondage, being an oppressor and a tyrant. He was a bad man. God comes along and says, OK, your judgment time has come.

You've been a bad man. You've chosen to be a bad man. Here comes your judgment. You're going to be sealed in your present condition. You'll harden your heart. You can't repent anymore. I could kill you right now and you wouldn't get any more opportunity to repent.

But I've got use for you, so I'm going to keep you around. But your judgment has begun. You'll not repent anymore. That is the judgment of God on a nation. Pharaoh had already determined his own actions before God ever intervened to harden his heart.

But you cannot use Paul's statements in Romans 9 as if Paul is saying something about individual salvation. It's not even in the discussion. And when he says, therefore it's not of him who wills or of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy, it means yes, of course.

God's showing mercy to Israel to make them his chosen temporal instrument instead of Esau, to make Israel favored over the nation of Egypt, which he judged on their behalf. For him to show mercy to Israel and not show mercy to Egypt, that's God's sovereign choice.

He can do that if he wants. But that has nothing to do with individuals going to heaven or hell. And Romans 9, you have to take this section of Romans 9 totally out of the context of Romans 9, 10, and 11 to make it an interesting discussion relevant to individual election.

And that's what the Calvinists do, but they have to do it by exclusion of context, ignoring the verses Paul quotes, ignoring the issues involved. And that is not a very good way to interpret Scripture, it seems to me.

And when R .C. Sproul says, well, by making it nations instead of individuals, you just have the same problem only on a national scale. Not at all. It's a very different thing to say that God unconditionally chose to bless this nation, let's say with prosperity, and didn't choose that nation to bless them with prosperity.

That's different than saying that God arbitrarily chose you to go to hell and burn forever and me to go to heaven and be glorified forever without any conditions. You see, on the one hand, if God chose you to have a child who would grow up to be the president of the United States and save the world from disaster, and he didn't choose me for that, I might be a little jealous, but I really don't have anything to complain about.

I mean, God can unconditionally choose people for those kinds of earthly purposes if he wants to, and there's no injustice in it. But if, without anything in me or you being under consideration, he chose you to go to heaven and me to burn in hell, that's a very different issue.

That's not the same issue at a different level. That's an entirely different issue. You see, a person could be in Edom, which is a nation God chose not to bless, but that individual, like Job, could be blessed because of his righteous choice.

He could still enjoy a relationship with God and have eternal bliss, despite the fact that he was in the unchosen nation. And a person could be born in Israel and enjoy all the blessings of being in national Israel and go right to hell like the Pharisees did.

We are not talking about individual election here, but what Paul is talking about is God chooses to intervene in the affairs of state, in international politics, to raise up a nation, bless it, use it, do whatever he wants with it, or not do so.

He can put down a nation, he can bring up a nation, and that's exactly what Paul is saying.

God has every right to do this, and this is consistent with the whole teaching of Scripture about God's sovereignty in history. It says in Proverbs 21 .1. Okay, so there's that presentation. Now, I had another section here.

I'm going to start it, and if we start hearing the same thing again, then I'll know I just cut into here and that's where it went. I can't imagine he went over this twice. I would have remembered that.

Let's just play a section of it here, see if it was just a portion of what I just got done with. First of all, he says, Armenians say that this choice of Jacob over Esau... Yeah, let me just jump down a little bit farther just for a second.

...wanted to choose a nation. Yep, okay. All right, we just did that. All right, good. Now, what we didn't hear was after about 918, because he had already, for some reason, dealt with the conclusion of the discussion.

What shall we say then? But he had done it earlier, so he had flipped them as if there really wasn't... This isn't a continuation of what went before. So, let's listen to what he says about Romans 919 and following, and you're going to have to listen really carefully here, folks, because I had never heard anyone interpret this text this way, and if I hadn't, then chances are most of you didn't either.

So, listen carefully to what he has to say here, because I think you have to listen carefully to understand it. This is a shorter section, then we'll get to our response. Now, by the way, these verses in Romans 9.

Are very commonly used by Calvinists to prove that, in fact, everything does happen according to God's foreordination, because he's like a potter and history is like clay. But we will look at that passage in more detail later on.

It's interesting. In verse 19, he introduces this image by saying, You will say to me then, why does he still find fault for who has resisted his will? Now, he's quoting somebody detracting from his doctrines.

He's an objector. Oh, you who hear me say this, probably some of you are going to say, well, how can God find any fault with us, and who has resisted his will? The question is rhetorical. Who has resisted his will?

Implying no one has. God's sovereign. He can do everything, can't he, Paul? Aren't you saying that everything is ordained by God and why can God fault us for it? Aren't you saying, Paul, that God makes everything happen?

It's all his eternal unchangeable decrees? Then no one can resist his will, right? Who has resisted his will? That is not Paul's doctrine. That is the doctrine of an objector to Paul's doctrine. And Paul answers that objector saying, Well, who are you, O man, to reply against God?

What's he saying here? The questioner says, Well, who has resisted God's will? As if to say no one has. Paul says, Well, someone has. Who are you? You're replying against God. Is that not resisting his will?

If a man replies against God, is he not in that very act resisting God? If you ask rhetorically who has resisted his will implying that no one has, let me tell you, some people have. You are doing so at this very moment by asking the question, by resisting God.

Paul's doctrine here is not that no one resists God's will. The objector to his doctrine suggests that. And Paul points out the fallacy of it. He says, No. You are resisting his will even now. But you have no right to.

That's different than saying you have no power to. You're like the clay owned by the potter. The potter has every right to do whatever he wants with his clay. If you don't like it, that's too bad. You may object to.

You might resist his will. But ultimately, he has the right to enforce his will. To do it his way. Now, what Paul is affirming here is that God, like a potter and clay, has every right to do whatever.

He owns it. He makes it. If a man makes something, he owns it. He can control it. He's got the authority over it. But Paul is certainly not agreeing with the detractor who says, Well, I guess then everything happens the way God wants it to happen.

No, not at all. Does God want you to resist him right now? Obviously not. That's a wrong thing for you to do. You're resisting his will right now, Paul says. People have understood Calvinists especially have understood this passage just the opposite of the way that it's meant.

They think that Paul is affirming what is said in verse 19. That no one has resisted God's will. God, you know, seemingly can't find fault because no one resists his will. And basically what the Calvinist says is well, the first part of that is wrong and that's what Paul is rebuking.

The second part is right. Namely, that no one has resisted God's will but it's wrong to say that God shouldn't find fault because that's God's business. Who are you to answer against God? In other words, it may not be reasonable but God doesn't have to give any reasons.