One of my favorite classes that I ever took as a student was a 16th century Reformation class at Milligan College my sophomore year (30 years ago this fall). We met once a week for three hours, I think it was on Thursday evenings. I started that semester in a 1/4” thick plastic brace that went from my neck to my pelvis due to a fractured vertebrae that the brace was intended to stabilize. The injury is significant to the story because I broke my back near the end of my freshman year while playing baseball for the Buffaloes, and when I went home for the summer, I couldn’t work or do much of anything due to the pain and numbness.

I got a ridiculous brace, and all my friends got jobs. I was at home, and got so bored of watching VHS tapes of “Home Improvement” that in desperation I decided to…read a book. Tucked into some bookshelves full of English literature, my mom had a couple books that caught my eye: The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink, and The Five Points of Calvinisms: Defined, Defended, and Documented. I was in trouble the rest of the summer.

By the time I got back to Milligan I had learned about God’s sovereignty in salvation. The doctrines of grace answered questions I’d had and it reinvigorated my biblical studies. I started talking to fellow students at Milligan, I soon after started a small Bible study of about six, and we went through verse after verse about man’s sinfulness and God’s election and Christ’s atonement and the Spirit’s regeneration and the hope of perseverance unto eternal life. Around campus I started getting labeled as a false teacher, a false prophet, David Koresh, and one girl called me the antichrist. Another acquaintance pleaded with me to stop this Bible study and, when I said I didn’t think I would, he said a group of students were going to gather outside my room the following Friday night and pray that God would cast the devil out of my soul. I said, “Thanks! Because if the devil is in there, I don’t want him to be!”

It was that same fall semester when I was taking the Reformation class. Dr. Craig Farmer was a graduate of the Duke Divinity school, and had I stayed at Milligan I’m sure I would have encountered difficulties with some of his beliefs. But he was a Calvinist on the down low. And after some weeks of reading Erasmus complaining about the Pope, we got to reading Erasmus complaining about predestination. We read On the Freedom of the Will (De Libero Arbitrio). But we read it in a copy that was followed by Martin Luther’s On the Bondage of the Will (De Servo Arbitrio).

Erasmus presents a sympathetic position to how a lot of Christians feel today. Erasmus was especially concerned that some of these things shouldn’t be put as a burden upon “lay” Christians, the regular, non-academic theologians. In the preface he writes:

For there are some secret places in the Holy Scriptures into which God has not wished us to penetrate more deeply…. (38). Moreover, some things there are of such a kind that, even if they were true, and might be known, it would not be proper to prostitute them before common ears. (40) Some things for this reason are harmful because they are not expedient, as wine for a fevered patient. Similarly, such matters might allowably have been treated in discussion in the learned world, or even in the theological schools, although I should not think even this to be expedient save with restraint. (41-42)

Erasmus was sure that it would lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of God, even to an increase of impiety among weak men as well as to division among believers. You could come in the house (of Scripture), but there were a lot of rooms that would be off limits unless you had special training, and even then, best to stay out.

Luther gave no quarter to Erasmus, and all the Reformers were driven to attack any who would keep God’s Word from the people. Among many choice responses about why God’s Word is so good for us, Luther wrote:

For if I am ignorant of what, how far, and how much I can and may do in relation to God, it will be equally uncertain and unknown to me, what, how far, and how much God can and may do in me, although it is God who works everything in everyone (1 Corinthians 12:6). But when the works and power of God are unknown, I do not know God Himself, and God is unknown, I cannot worship, praise, thank, and serve God, since I do not know how much I ought to attribute to myself and how much to God. (117)

This makes Erasmus’ plea, as virtuous and humble as he presents it, full of pride. Does God know what He revealed? Does God need us to edit what He’s said, to protect His people from certain parts of His Word? By no means! Should we do our best to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)? Of course. Should teachers be careful because they are going to be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1)? Absolutely. Is refusing to read, teach, and exhort from, any part of inspired Scripture more honoring to God who spoke it (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21)? By no means!

”What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God.” (—John Calvin, Commentary on Romans)_  We want to read the Word, preach the Word, receive and believe the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

I’m fine with nicknames that attempt to summarize what we find. I’ve often thought that it’s a mercy that whoever acronym-ized the doctrines of grace gave us TULIP, a beautiful flower, rather than something such as BRICK or BLADE or BLUDGEON. Because we are talking about God’s emphasis on mercy. He is sovereign over all, and all His attributes are infinitely excellent. But He reveals that some make others stand out more. His righteousness is His commitment to the glory of His name, and while we learn to fear Him for His forgiveness (Psalm 130:4), His forgiveness is that much more significant because of His omniscience (Psalm 130:3) and because He is holy, holy, holy (Isaiah 6:3).

So even in Romans 9, and especially in Romans 9:19-23, His righteous wrath makes His righteous mercy even more outstanding, and it is His mercy that we ought to marvel at most.

I’ve spent a long time getting back to the paragraph because it’s fine to take a couple weeks to look at these truths. If you love them already, lingering probably doesn’t frustrate. If you don’t love them already, there are any number of reasons, including maybe having heard distorted accounts or not attending to the passage itself. We want to see what’s here before we complain about all the other things.

Question: How is God fair? (verse 19)

Among those who’ve been around (and around and around) in these conversations about God’s sovereignty, there is a common, and commendable push back about how the greater scandal is not that God judges anyone but that God forgives anyone. And from one angle, that is true. None of us have ever not sinned. We all sinned in Adam, we all sin—as in we want, intend, and commit to disobey. We mean it when we do evil. We all deserve death. The rotten tree produces rotten fruit and is rightly identified by the fruit. If we got what we “deserved” there could be no justification. “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Peter 3:18), but that isn’t fair. We tend to minimize how much mercy was required in the blood of Christ so that God “might be just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26).

In Romans 9 we certainly ought to be fired up about Isaac and Jacob and the elect-elect in Israel that got mercy. They weren’t entitled their election, the did not deserve God’s compassion or love.

But that is not the complaint Paul raises and responds to starting in verse 19.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (Romans 9:19 ESV)

The problem is fault , the problem is “blame.” The problem isn’t undeserved mercy, the problem here is (what looks like) undeserved judgment. Okay, fault for what?

The most recent character in context is Pharaoh, providing an example of those who God chose not to show mercy, after Ishmael and Esau. The final inference in verse 18 says that God “has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” Is mercy unconditional and hardening conditional? Many commentators think so.

“His hardening always presupposes sin and is always part of the punishment of sin.” (Leon Morris)

“It must be borne in mind that Paul is not now dealing with God’s sovereign rights over men as men but over men as sinners. …[Sovereign hardenings] presupposes sin and ill-desert. It would be exegetically indefensible to abstract verse 21 and its teaching from these presupposed conditions.” (John Murray)

So this is a question of whether God is righteous to let sinners have more of the sin that they already have shown that they want?

But if we’re dealing with God’s response to unrighteousness than why would we ask how He finds fault? He found unrighteousness, that’s how He found fault. If He finds fault first, then He finds a condition for hardening. When the motive condition is met in a man, God’s motive is off the hook.

Isn’t this partly why Paul didn’t leave the Isaac over Ishmael example by itself? There was something obviously lesser about Ishmael. There was no difference between Jacob and Esau that we could see or that God was looking for according to human standards.

“If the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit.” (John Calvin)

Of course we should be careful on this ground because God “neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 5:4) And James 1:13-14 make clear that God is not tempted with evil and tempts no one. But is He sovereign over sin and evil in any way? And if judgment/wrath is only based on man’s fault, what is the purpose of this paragraph?

Conclusion

Paul’s answers, or at least his responses, come in the next verses. We are pots, and the Potter has all the power to make pots into what He wants (20-21). We are pots, and the Potter has ultimate purpose (22-23), which ultimately is to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy. God did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us that He could also graciously make us conquering sheep (Romans 8:32, 36-37).

---

Charge

Because God has a great purpose, He sent His Son to suffer and die for us. Because God has a great purpose, He calls you who have been given eternal life in Christ to come alongside one another and be a blessing to each other. The Potter has made you a vessel for honorable use, so live as a pot for His great purpose.

Benediction:

For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:9–11, ESV)