Who are you, oh man to Question ME?

I have had a number of congenial conversations with friendly (and not so friendly Calvinists). I don't mind discussing the issue, and I generally make it known that I consider them orthodox, even if they don't think the same as I do. We can agree to disagree. We likely both affirm at the end of the day that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. As each of us sees our own view, it would be silly to boast in salvation, since it is Christ who does the work of Salvation. Yeah, call me a monergist (mono - one, erg - work: One Work - Christ's). My work for salvation? None. My ability to trust God without his grace? None. On these things we do actually agree.

Now I prefer to defend my view, but in fairness, I will expect you to justify yours. Often this winds up with my friendly opponent making an error. You see, Calvinism rightly understood affirms certain information and explanations are not granted to us. Certain questions have no answer, like, "Why is one chosen and not the other?" At this point(or later if you want to detour through "to glorify God"), one should say, "well, I don't know, but I trust God." Cry to uncle Mystery, I might not agree with you(I draw distinction between mystery and contradiction), but I'd rather we disagreed and left it at that than you wander off into vain philosophy.

Most Calvinists I know are fine with uncle Mystery. I am as well if it comes to that. How does the trinity work? Well, I don't think I can rightly describe it, there is mystery(not contradiction) here.

The second group, however, has a tendency to love their own reasoning. I sit and ask a simple set of questions, and they become increasingly agitated. Eventually it winds up with a bunch of machine gun hermeneutics and finally their "trump card". Romans 9:20: " But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”(NIV)

This is quite unimpressive. And frankly desperate. So, I write this post to explain why I don't immediately change my ways and agree with people who play that card.

Firstly, I am not questioning God I am questioning you.

Now don't get me wrong, I think it is OK to question God in certain contexts, but in this case, my questions are not directed at God, they're directed at you. There are two reasons your appeal to Romans 9:20 might move me.
1. You are actually God.
2. Your theology of God is infallible and complete, to the point where you can answer any question as God would.

Many people are so proud as to claim (2), but I find that it is not a position I would want to defend. I am human and God is not. Further, I obviously don't agree with your interpretations of scripture, and rather than get into that with me, you seek to shut me down by an appeal to an authority you do not have.

Secondly, you're doing violence to scripture quoting that at me (It is out of all context).

To fully address this, I would have to go through the entirety of Romans, however, others have done that far better than I, so if you ask, I'll point you to them. But I do want to address a bit of context here. Why does Paul write this?

First look at Acts 18:1-18. What we have here is a situation where the Jews had been kicked out of Rome. By the time Romans is written, some are back, (we know because Paul addresses them (and over external data)). Next look at Romans 9:1-5. Paul is speaking specifically to Jews and he is using a rhetorical device here. He is having an argument in the text with an imaginary Jew to illustrate something.

Why might a Jew be upset, as the one in the text so clearly is? Is it possibly because Jews considered their heritage - their link to Abraham - the source of their salvation. Jesus himself refutes this misconception (John 8:39-44 and on). But it appears there was friction in the Roman church between Jew and gentile. Not to get too deeply into it, but essentially Romans 9 is Paul arguing down a Jew who is upset that "saved by faith" has upset his worldview of being one of the only chosen people.

In other words, the Jew, who sees himself eternally secure because of his heritage, is being told, no, and God's word hasn't failed, and stop talking back to God, this is what God has done.

Read in context, I think the verse speaks more to a(type of, perhaps?) Calvinist who says "Only the elect, I am secure in my election, God's eternal decree" than the Arminian who says "Only Christ. I am elect and secure only in Christ".

I'm going to get a lot of flak for this view, but I believe it is the way the church saw it before Augustine, and I think they had the context and they're right on this one.

Conclusion
In order to use this passage to admonish me, you have to do a lot more work to show it actually applies to me, than to just rip it out of context and scream it at me.

Don't be surprised if it doesn't impress me when you just throw it down to try and silence the hard questions I may ask. If you want an out, I'll happily agree to disagree or point you towards mystery, but in throwing this one down makes you sound like you're desperately trying to convince yourself.

Hey, I'll call you brother even if we disagree on the implications of the context here - we're all human and fallible.

COMMENT RULES ** IF NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS.
As always, keep any comments respectful, and I reserve the right to not publish anything I feel violates the spirit of this blog and the principle of charity. Also, if you do not carefully read, at least the first paragraph where I affirm salvation by grace through faith and not works, and it becomes evident you didn't in your comment, don't wonder why I did not publish it.

What we get wrong about Sovereignity

Certain sections of modern Christians are absolutely fascinated with God's sovereignty. And by no means is God not sovereign, so don't get that wrong.

The English word "sovereign" refers simply to "a supreme ruler, especially a monarch.". If we want to  apply it as an adjective, it means "possessing supreme or ultimate power." And that is where we go off the rails. We see that word "power", and all sorts of lights go off in our heads. Picture in your head Jeremy Clarkson in some super-car screaming "MORE POWER".

I was told to imagine the sovereignty of say, David, or Solomon, say hundreds (or more) times more and that would be God. That, with respect is nonsense. David's kingship might be a picture in some way of God's kingdom, but you cannot get God's kingdom by making Davids kingdom "many times more".  Yet we see the word "power" and we think "God has infinite power, therefore God is infinitely sovereign". This is what is called an inference. We have done (somewhat poorly) logic to get here. We infer, that if a king has power, and God has more power, God is more sovereign than a king. This is because we love to compare things. Frankly because our God looks just like us fallen creatures to us, and also loves to do power comparisons.

In reality, these concepts are not as closely tied as we think. We're obsessed with power, and it is no surprise that we think only in terms of "who is stronger". And as a result we have reasoned ourselves into quite an absurd position where we are comparing God's power with David's power.


What is the distinguishing feature of sovereignty though? If I have a lot of raw power (many soldiers, and weapons), but I must answer to the Colonel and do as he says, am I sovereign? Obviously not. I must answer for what I do. If I use it badly, I was not sovereign  while using it badly, since I must still answer for how I used it.

So me having 100 more soldiers than Fred under my command does not affect my sovereignty in relation to Fred. Neither of us are sovereign, since firstly, neither of us are rulers and both of us must answer to Colonel Panic. Clearly the distinguishing feature of sovereignty is not raw power or force,  but to whom one answers. The meaning of God being sovereign is not He has more power (we have a word for that already -omnipotence), but that He does not answer to anyone - instead, all must answer to Him.

The difference between David and God? David answers to God, but God does not answer to David. It is not a matter of scale (100 times or a million times), but of Authority. Not raw power, but Authority. God is not many times David - God is God and David is not.

How then does God use his sovereignty?  Well, in John 14:9, Jesus affirms to Phillip that Jesus is the very representation of the Living God. If we know Jesus, we know God. How does Jesus use his authority then? Does he micromanage the disciple's lives? Is He ever disappointed in them, does He correct and teach them? Does God's sovereignty mean He is never disappointed, because He has all power and authority? The Bible shows us otherwise, we see God express deep sorrow over the world(the Bible uses the term regret, not that God wishes to take back His decision to create, but that He wishes to redeem fallen creation), and we see Jesus weep over Israel. We see in Isaiah 5, God ask(rhetorically) "What more could I have done?"

Might this not be, because God knows what humans have never grasped - raw power is not sufficient to get what you want. Perhaps God can no more force Israel to submit to him without violating his character than He can choose to cease to be God? 

Some people will suggest this makes God impotent, but that is nonsense. There are things God cannot do - He cannot sin, or lie, for example. He cannot be tempted. These things do not make him impotent.

Now, I am not saying here that God will fail, but I am saying that raw power is not why He wins. Had God's plan of salvation relied upon raw power, Jesus would have come in power and force. And sometimes that does mean mourning over the lost who will not heed him. Scriptures like Ezekiel 18:23 tell us plainly what God desires. Yet the wicked still perish. And if we think God is happy about that, we call Him liar.