Vincent Cheung .com » Blog Archive » More than a Potter (4)

More than a Potter (4)

Posted by Vincent Cheung on September 3, 2005

This leads us to a discussion about a related objection against divine sovereignty. However, this time the objection is not based on an extra-biblical analogy, but a direct attack against Scripture. The passage is in Romans 9, and it is enough to cite only verses 18–21:

¹⁸Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. ¹⁹One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" ²⁰But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’" ²¹Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Paul refers to an objection against God’s total and direct control of human hearts, including his power to directly cause faith and unbelief in them. The objection assumes that if God cannot be resisted, then humans should not be blamed. In other words, like many non-Christians, Arminians, and inconsistent Calvinists, it adopts the unbiblical assumption that responsibility presupposes freedom. We have already addressed this false premise.

This other objection that I have in mind, related to the one about robots and puppets, attacks the analogy in verse 21. I have come across it in the writings of liberal theologians who reject the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and also in conversation with several professing Christians. That is, they identify with the objection against divine sovereignty in verse 19, and they consider Paul’s response in verse 21 fallacious. Paul writes, "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"¹⁰ Against this, they exclaim, "But surely we are more than clay and pottery!"

In other words, they assert that Paul’s response fails because his analogy is false. He likens humans to clay and pottery, but humans are more than clay and pottery, and therefore the analogy cannot explain how humans are held accountable under an absolutely sovereign God, one who can directly act on the mind to cause both good and evil. The challenge is directed at not only Calvinism, but Scripture itself. In reply, we will offer the following points.

First, the attack against verse 21 neglects the point that Paul is asserting. He does not claim that humans are exactly like clay and pottery in every way, but he is reminding his readers of the relationship between the creature and the Creator. In verse 20, he says that the creature has no right to "talk back," and in verse 21, he says that the Creator has every right to make whatever he wishes out of the creature. The truth of Paul’s point does not depend on whether humans are exactly like clay and pottery, but on whether God is the Creator and whether humans are the creatures. Since God is indeed the Creator and humans are indeed the creatures, Paul’s point in verse 18 stands.

Second, and this is related to the first, although Paul could point out that the objection falsely assumes that responsibility presupposes freedom, he does not explicitly do it here. However, he achieves the same effect by answering the objection from the perspective of divine rights versus human rights. The objection goes, "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" Paul answers, "God has the right to do whatever he wants with you, or to make anything out of you, and then still hold you accountable (see v. 22). But you have no right to talk back." This reply, of course, is contrary to popular Calvinism, which would tend to say, "God has the right to show mercy to whomever he chooses, but he merely passes by the reprobates, who have damned themselves." Instead, Paul’s answer is that the creature has no right to talk back, but that God has the right to make some into objects of mercy and to make others into the objects of wrath.

Third, perhaps blinded by a humanistic indignation that man has been reduced to clay and pottery, the objection has forgotten about God. Outside of the analogy, it is true that humans are more than clay and pottery, but then God is more than a potter!

Now, an analogy is an analogy, and a successful one only needs to accurately make its intended point. Scripture is perfect, and Paul’s inspired analogy is perfect for its purpose. It illustrates that the divine potter has the right to fashion the human clay into any type of vessel and for any purpose he chooses, and the creature has no right to protest against the Creator.

But an analogy remains an analogy — it does not intend to represent every aspect of the objects that it illustrates. By pointing this out, the objection seeks to protect human freedom. However, we cannot relax the analogy for one object without also doing the same for the other objects in the same analogy; otherwise, there would be a tremendous distortion between the relationship of these objects. So, if we must break away from the analogy to consider the true nature of man, then God must also break away from the analogy so that we can consider his true majesty and power.

Contrary to their expectation, once we relax the analogy, the situation becomes even less favorable for our opponents. Rather than preserving any human freedom, the full sovereignty of God is exposed, and all the limitations imposed upon the "potter" by the analogy are now lifted. And for the same reason already mentioned when we discussed robots and puppets, God has much more control over us than a human potter has over clay and pottery. By breaking the analogy, the objection moves to reclaim freedom for man, but instead it destroys all traces of human freedom and fully uncovers God’s sovereignty, a creating and ruling power infinitely greater than any human potter can exercise over lumps of clay.

As for moral responsibility, we have already addressed the topic. The truth is that moral responsibility presupposes divine sovereignty and judgment, not human freedom, and the more sovereign God is, the more sure the judgment will be. The more control God has over all things, the more moral responsibility is established. Since divine sovereignty is absolute, divine judgment is therefore certain — because God is sovereign, there will be a judgment. God is sovereign and man is not free. Blessed be the name of the Lord. Without hesitation or qualification, we can boldly proclaim, "Our God reigns!"

Notes

¹⁰ As a side note, Paul does not say, "God makes the noble vessels out of the common vessels," or "God makes the noble vessels, and allows the common vessels to make themselves," or "God makes some of the clay into noble vessels, and passes by the rest preexisting common vessels." No, instead, Paul says, "God makes the noble vessels and the common vessels out of the same lump of clay." Thus this passage offers definite support to unconditional active reprobation and supralapsarianism. It does not help to regard the "clay" as already sinful, since Paul says that God makes the common vessels out of it. He does not use passive terms like "permit" or "pass by." Reprobates do not make themselves. It is God who makes them, and he makes them as reprobates.