Provisionism just strikes me as an ‘-ism’ presentation of the plain old, Sunday school Gospel. The Gospel presentation we use in street evangelism. The Gospel that the simple, everyday, common folk hold and understand.
We’ve all sinned. God loves you. Jesus died for the forgiveness of your sins. He was raised to life again so that you can share in eternal life. Repent, believe this message, and be saved! This is the Gospel – hear it, understand it, take it or leave it. It’s your choice and your responsibility.
No hidden caveats about God’s Secret Will and decrees. No underlying convolutedness from unfreely free Compatibilism. No unspoken assumptions about Total Inability and Elect or Reprobate. No doublespeak or ungenuine invitations as with General Call vs Effectual Call.
If the Bible says you can believe its words, it means it (John 20:31). If God says He’s waiting for you to respond, you really can (Hebrews 3:15). You’re invited, and you really can come (John 3:15-16). What you see is what you honest-to-goodness get.
It’s the simple, childlike faith, fishermen’s Gospel. It’s been called Traditionalism. It’s retro.
This post is a summarized compilation and cleanup of my many posts of this passage.
——-
WHAT IS THE CONTEXT OF THE POTTER CITATION?
The passage in Romans 9 I want to focus on:
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?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? – Romans 9:20-21
This is a lynchpin of Calvinism, as it is used as a prooftext for Unconditional Election of individuals by God to salvation or damnation.
But 16th-century Europeans were not the original target audience Paul had in mind. The intended recipients of the Book of Romans was the mixed Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ. They would have been familiar with the Old Testament stories, passages, citations and references that Paul brings up – the potter of Jeremiah 18, the lineage of Messiah, Pharaoh and the judgment upon Egypt.
Here is Jeremiah’s potter for comparison:
So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. Then the word of the LORD came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. – Jeremiah 18:3-6
But notice what happened to the clay vessel – it became spoiled. That is why the potter repurposed it for a different usage. The potter did not toss the misshapen clay into the trash. Vessels are used to carry contents – oil or perfume or waste fluids – not made for the specific purpose of being smashed and trashed.
And take heed what follows immediately after in Jeremiah:
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’ “But they say, ‘That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ – Jeremiah 18:7-12
Did you get that? The full context of the Potter quote is God stating that He will change the original purposes He had for a nation (NOT INDIVIDUAL) if the nation DOES OR DOESN’T TAKE HEED. This clearly is at odds with Total Depravity.
Even other Old Testament passages likening God to a potter (Isaiah 29:15-16; Isaiah 45:9-10; Isaiah 64:8-9) have as their context Israel refusing to serve God’s original purpose for them (Isaiah 29:13-14; Isaiah 42:18-20 & 43:22-24; Isaiah 63:10). See POTTER PROOFTEXTS – TALKING BACK TO GOD & THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA for the full citations.
And the LORD said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. – Jeremiah 14:14
Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind – Jeremiah 19:4-5
They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. – Jeremiah 32:35
Catch that? Repeatedly God states that He did not command, decree or even think the horrible things the people are doing – such evils are a deceit of THEIR OWN minds.
——-
HOW DOES PAUL INTERPRET PAUL?
Does Paul think Romans 9 is about Unconditional Election of some individuals to salvation – and therefore on flip-side, some others to damnation? Read on to Chapter 11 and see:
So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! … And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. – Romans 11:11-12, 23
Does Paul teach that vessels have no say or response in the designated role that God has elected them to? Or does he rather agree with Jeremiah 18, where he gets his Potter citation from? There is actually another letter where Paul uses the vessels analogy for us to compare:
Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. – 2 Timothy 2:20-21
So the point of vessels is what they are USED for, not what their own fated destination is. After all, a potter doesn’t make vessels just for the sole purpose of tossing them in the trash for his own glory, does he? And Paul expects the vessels to be able to change the very purpose they are to be used for!
Read that portion of Romans again, and take note of how the vessels are described by the Calvinistic-leaning ESV:
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?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable USE and another for dishonorable USE? – Romans 9:20-21
Did you catch that again? The vessels are for honorable or dishonorable USE, not ETERNAL DESTINATION.
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument [vessel, skeuos] of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. – Acts 9:15
And who is the objector against Paul’s theology? Is it a “man-centered synergist” accusing God of being unfair for predetermining most of humanity to eternal torment before they were born? Or rather, is it a self-righteous Jew who has been cut off / hardened in his rebellion by God for a redemptive purpose?
This is not the first time Paul anticipates this interlocutor’s questions. Back in Romans 3:1-7, Paul goes through virtually the exact same diatribe as he does here in Romans 9. Allow Soteriology 101 to place the parallel verses side by side for your consideration:
Chapter 3 – “A human argument.” Chapter 9 – “Who are you, O man?”
Also, in Revelation, the correct way Romans 9’s vessels should be understood is easy to see:
Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.” – Revelation 16:1
Vessels/bowls are used to store and carry things. In modern usage for comparison, “A can of sweetener” or “A bottle of cleaner”. It is not that the vessels in Romans 9 are made to be the target of glory or wrath – it is that they carry and deliver the contents of glory or wrath (though there is some overlap, just as the can or bottle inevitably gets some of the contents stuck to it).
SO IF ROMANS 9 IS NOT ABOUT SALVATION, THEN WHAT IS IT REALLY ABOUT? …SERVICE ROLES.
Harkening back to the vessels references, Romans 9 is about the roles that people (individuals or groups) play in God’s redemptive plan. Some are used to bring grace and blessing, some are used to bring judgment and punishment. There is much overlap between service role and salvation status, but those things are not 100% synonymous.
As Calvinist Douglas Moo admits (but caveat, he still later goes on to explain why the Individual Salvation view is reeeeeeally right actually):
N.T. Wright who is one of the foremost New Testament scholars and theologians shares the service view:
“So what you’ve what you’ve got there is something to do with the choice of individuals to carry that purpose forward.And Paul does not address the question that we who have read Luther and Calvin and indeed many others before and since – Aquinas for instance – always want him to address. Which is the ultimate Predestinarian question: Does God actually, before all time, determine that certain persons will be Elected, Chosen, Predestined for salvation?
He seems determined to stick with his question which he’s much more interested in. Which is how God’s redemptive historical plan is being carried forward through the people of Israel.“
Dr Ben Witherington, who says the early church fathers taught the same corporate view of election, and election to purpose. Predestination is God’s plan for those who love Him. Calvin smushed together election, salvation and stuck predestination onto it. Regarding Romans 9 ‘Jacob I loved, Esau I hated’ – Hebrew & Aramaic don’t have good ways to compare things. So to say ‘Jacob I loved, Esau not so much’ they have to use antonyms.
Former Calvinist and good friend to James White (also has debated James White on these issues), Michael Brown:
Beyond the Fundamentals has a study going through every word translated as Election or Chosen etc, showing that it’s always about purpose rather salvation:
Follow up to the above video:
——-
And my posts of Romans 9 from where the above is cobbled together from (plus some other stuff too):
A record of my journey exploring and ruminating on this issue. I strive to present the issues in as simplified a manner, in order to aid understanding. Great thanks especially to Leighton Flowers, Kevin Thompson, William Lane Craig, Tim Stratton, Braxton Hunter, Eric Hernandez, Michael Heiser, and the many posters and commentors on various FB groups whose insights and explanations (from many different viewpoints) have proven invaluable.
I have cleaned up and organized all my posts related to this topic. Click on this to sort for only those posts:
The following are the most important ones that have to do with common proof-texts or arguments for Calvinism, as that is the crucial issue in my opinion:
Free thinking, but not a Free Thinker.
A Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist.
Believing in a universal church, but not a Catholic.
Trying to be a saint in these latter days, but not a Latter Day Saint.
A witness for Jehovah, but not a Jehovah's Witness.
Sumitted to God, but not a Muslim.
Seeking knowledge, but not a Gnostic.
Rational in thinking, but not a Rationalist.
Upholding humanity, but not a Humanist.
A supporter of liberation, but not a Liberal.
A supporter of democracy, but not a Democrat.
Acknowledging the importance of social values, but not a Socialist.
Seeking and valuing truth, but not a Truther.
THE SCOTTTCAST 