In Romans 9, Paul writes about God’s sovereignty in election. God chose Jacob over Esau before either had done anything “in order that God's purpose of election might continue” (Rom 9:10-13). He says, “It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16). He says, “He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom 9:18). Very clear. Very complete. Very jarring. It’s so jarring, in fact, that Paul feels the need to answer the obvious objection.
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? (Rom 9:19-20)Paul’s answer is “You don’t get to tell God what to do. You have no standing to complain.” He uses the analogy of the potter. “Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?” (Rom 9:21). And he describes two “vessels”—one type is “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” and the other is “vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory” (Rom 9:22-24).
Paul explains that it is God’s will to demonstrate His power and wrath, and He intends to do so on the former vessels—the vessels of wrath. But He also chooses to show mercy to another group—vessels of mercy. Note that the latter are different from the former. The vessels of mercy are vessels that He prepared beforehand. They didn’t do it themselves. He did it. Nothing in them made them worthy of His mercy; He made them.
Here’s the part I missed before. Both are God’s design. Both are in place for God’s purpose. What purpose? To display Himself. In one case, we see His power and wrath. In the other, we see His mercy. This harkens back to Paul’s language in Romans 3 where he describes God as “just and the justifier” (Rom 3:26). It goes all the way back to Romans 1 where Paul says God made Himself evident to us (Rom 1:19).
We might think that people facing eternity in Hell is a bad thing, and, in a sense, it is. We might see that as a failure on God’s part. Some even consider it proof that He doesn’t exist, or, at least, that He’s not good. But there is a very real sense in which both the saved and the unsaved—the glorified and the damned—both serve God’s divine purpose of displaying His full glory. It’s not that those of us who go to heaven do a better job at it than those who don’t. No, God uses both to magnify Himself. He makes vessels for honorable use and for common use. What they have in common is that they’re all for His use.
And that is the point Paul presses home. God is not reacting to history; He is revealing Himself through it. In judgment we see His holiness and justice; in mercy we see His compassion and grace. Both the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy serve His purpose of displaying the fullness of His glory. And because His glory is the highest good, nothing in His sovereign design is wasted. Our task, then, is not to sit in judgment over His ways, but to bow in worship before the God who makes Himself known in all that He does.
5 comments:
I can see how/why it seems capricious of God, on the face of it, to treat two of His created objects so differently. Why create any “vessels of wrath” at all? As you have pointed out, the contrast in the treatment--one left to their sins and the other rescued from them--displays God’s grace and mercy like nothing else could; therefore, both serve His purpose, as you say. It strikes us humans perhaps as arbitrary and unloving of God to pick and choose like that--for no good reason other than His own glory--but there is no higher consideration or entity than God’s glory.
“You don’t get to tell God what to do. You have no standing to complain.” I must never forget this! The entire world and all that is in it is His to control as He pleases. If I create a work of art and then later trash it, that’s my prerogative as its creator; I don’t need to explain my actions to the object. Neither does God. We humans think we are the center of all existence, but He is.
I had an atheist tell me he doesn't believe in God because of the suffering of animals, why would a good God allow innocent animals to suffer. He later asked me why God allowed hatred. I honestly had to tell him, I don't know, He didn't say. But knowing the nature of God through His Revelation, we can know that it is for ultimate good that there is suffering and hate. I found it interesting that this atheist pointed out," If I as an ant compared to God can imagine a world without suffering, then He can't exist because there is suffering." Paul answers that here, "Who are you, oh man, to tell God how best to run His universe?"
He DID say, David. Remember the "vessels" for "honorable" and "common" use? Remember His aim? "To make His power and wrath known"? A world without suffering or sin would lack a full display of the glory of God. And it's the natural human's refusal to appreciate the full display of the glory of God that makes this purpose unacceptable. So God's answer to your atheist would be "Because in it my character is most fully displayed" and that would be an affront to your atheist.
David, Isn’t this the basic matter of theodicy, i.e. how a good God can allow evil in the world? Animal suffering (not to mention human suffering) is a by-product of man’s sinful choices--i.e. neglecting care and compassion towards others, as well as sin’s effect on the created world (bringing death). Hatred is simply the absence of love, just as evil is the absence of goodness and darkness is the absence of light. To my mind, the existence of evil in the world actually proves there is a good God, or else we would not see any contrast anywhere, as all we would see was evil done by man. When the atheist sees hatred, he is confirming that sin is real and that people are sinners, just as the Bible says (he should investigate the rest of the story!). It is no reflection on God but on man! You could tell him that God did once move to remove evil (the flood) but is currently long-suffering towards the human race, with other plans in store.
The problem is that he claims that good and evil aren't real categories. I tried pointing out that under that rubric his syllogism is self defeating, but he doesn't see it. I've given up engaging him and am leaving it to prayer.
Post a Comment