The Potter's Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology

by Leighton Flowers

John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, J.I. Packer and later John Piper. Louie Giglio,

I distinctly remember how I felt when I learned that A.W. Tozer and later C.S. Lewis, two men I greatly respected, did not affirm the Calvinistic systematic.

Calvinists teach that Christ self-sacrificially loves a preselected number of individuals.[10]

Traditionalists teach that Christ loves every single person so much that He died for them all.

Calvinists teach that before the world began God predestined some individuals to salvation and the rest to eternal damnation based on nothing having to do with the individual’s

choices or actions.[11]

Traditionalists teach that God has predestined every individual who is “marked in Christ” through faith to be saved (Eph. 1:13), and it is each individual’s responsibility to humble themselves and trust Christ in faith (Lk. 18:8-14).

I now believe the Scriptures reveal a Potter who manifests His glory by sacrificing Himself for the undeserving vessels, not by making vessels undeserving from birth so as to condemn them to display His glory. I came to realize that God is most glorified not at the expense of His creation, but at the expense of Himself for the sake of His creation.

The God I now see revealed through Christ is one who would rather die than condemn another. He would rather pay the price Himself than make His enemy pay it. He desires mercy over justice (Mt. 5:38-41; Mt. 9:13). He loves His enemies and gives Himself up for them (Mt. 5:43-48). He is like the “good Samaritan” who does not pass by on the other side of the road to avoid His enemies, but instead stops to provide for them even in their rebellion (Lk. 10:25-37). I love Him for that. I want to brag on Him, glorify Him, because He is humble at heart and longs for all who are weak to come and find rest in Him (Mt. 11:28-29). I see Jesus as a perfect reflection of the very nature of God. I marvel and boast in the work of Christ because He is not seeking glory for Himself, but for others, and in so doing reveals Himself as the most glorious of all.

Calvinists believe God’s glory is best displayed through the attribute of control (typically referred to as “sovereignty”), whereas Traditionalists are convinced, by Christ’s revelation, that God’s glory is best displayed through the attribute of mercy motivated by His genuine self-sacrificial love for all.

What significance does mercy have in a worldview where there is Divine meticulous control (i.e. “sovereignty”) of the sinful desires and choices of each vessel? Is the Potter merely remolding the vessel that He Himself marred from the beginning by divine decree? Or, has our Sovereign Potter molded vessels with the responsibility of choice and graciously provided the means of redemption for the broken?[15]

The issue comes down to how one defines the characteristic of love. According to Paul, “love does not seek its own,” and thus it is best described as “self-sacrificial” rather than “self-serving” (1 Cor. 13:5). As Jesus taught, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” It seems safe to say that love at its very root is self-sacrificial. Anything less than that should not be called “love.” One may refer to “kindness” or “care” in reflection of some common provisions for humanity, but unless it reaches the level of self-sacrifice it does not seem to meet the biblical definition of true love.

Our point of contention is not whether some are hated and others are loved, but simply how does one go from being under God’s wrath (hatred) to being under His provision of grace (love). Is that transition effectually caused by God for a select few, or in light of God’s gracious revelation, do all individuals have real responsibility to freely humble themselves in faith?

Further, it should be noted, that the term “hate” is sometimes an expression of choosing one over another for a more honorable purpose, and does not literally mean “hatred” (despise, reject). For instance, Jesus told Peter, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).

God’s inability to be unloving is not a short coming of God’s strength and power, but the greatest most glorifying characteristic of His eternal nature!

Therefore, according to Walls, the question Calvinists are asking is backwards. Instead of asking, as John Piper does, “How does a sovereign God express His love?”[22] We should be asking, “How does a loving God express His sovereignty?”

Many Calvinists, though well intending, have wrongly concluded that the Potter has only one “election” or “choice,” and that is for the unconditional, effectual salvation of particular individuals before creation. But, the truth is that our Potter has made several distinct choices in His redemptive plan to ensure the fulfillment of His promise, none of which need involve choosing to effectually save and/or condemn people before the world began.

Take a moment to read the parable of The Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1-14. As you read be sure to note the three distinct choices of our Kingly Potter listed below: Divine Choice #1: The choice of His servants from within His own country, who were given the task of sending out the invitation. Divine Choice #2: The choice to send the invitation first to His own country and then to all others.

Divine Choice #3: The choice to allow only those clothed in proper wedding garments to enter into the feast.

The actual eternal attribute of God in question is His omnipotence, which refers to His eternally limitless power. Sovereignty is a temporal characteristic, not an eternal one, thus we can say God is all-powerful, not because He is sovereign, but He is sovereign because He is all-powerful, or at least He is as sovereign as He chooses to be in relation to this temporal world. Put differently, God is as controlling as He chooses to be over His creation. Sovereignty, therefore, should be described as the expression of God's power, not the source of it.

If the all-powerful One chooses to refrain from meticulously ruling over every aspect of that which He creates, that in no way denies His eternal attribute of omnipotence, but indeed affirms it. It is the Calvinist who denies the eternal attribute of omnipotence, by presuming the all-powerful One has no alternative to meticulous deterministic rule over His creation.

In short, the Calvinist denies God's eternal attribute (omnipotence) in his effort to protect the temporal one (sovereignty). Additionally, an argument could be made that the attributes of God's love and His holiness are likewise compromised by the well-meaning efforts of our Calvinistic brethren to protect their concept of deterministic sovereignty over the temporal world.[29]

Arguing that God’s nature demands that He remains in meticulous deterministic control over every dust particle and all our moral sinful desires is not an argument in defense of His sovereign freedom, but a repudiation of it.[30]

When speaking of God, why is the term “foreknowledge” even employed by the inspired biblical authors if a more applicable term like “predetermine” is available and better suited? If He determines all things that come to pass, then what purpose is there in speaking of His mere knowledge or permitting of anything? Why does such language even exist in Scripture if exhaustive determinism is true? There is no good reason to ever speak of God merely knowing or enabling anything in such a worldview, as such terminology would only serve to placate reality.

Certain philosophical commitments led John Calvin and many Calvinists to adopt a view of God that is not biblically defensible. Our infinite God is not stuck on a linear timeline, looking into the past or the future. He is the timeless great “I AM,” which suggests that His knowledge is less like our set knowledge of past events (or future ones if we had a crystal ball) and more like our knowledge of present reality. We know what is happening right now because we exist in the now, not because we are necessarily determining what we are experiencing in the here and now, though our choices and actions could certainly affect our present reality.

Is God determining to merely correct His own determinations? I have to believe it is a bit more complex than that. There is nothing that impressive about a deterministic worldview, after all even a good computer programmer can create a deterministic virtual world. Certainly our omnipotent God is more creative and complex than what can be manufactured by the most intelligent deterministic philosopher’s imagination.

One presumption that we should bring to Scripture is that our God is good and He is in no way implicit in the bringing about of moral evil. He is a loving God who genuinely desires for all to come to repentance so as to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9). No man will stand before the Father and be able to give the excuse, “I was born unloved by my Creator (Jn. 3:16). I was born un-chosen and without the hope of salvation (Titus 2:11). I was born unable to see, hear or understand God’s revelation of Himself (Acts 28:27-28).” No! They will stand wholly and completely “without excuse” (Rm. 1:20), because God loved them (Jn. 3:16), called them to salvation (2 Cor. 5:20), revealed Himself to them (Titus 2:11), and provided the means by which their sins would be atoned (1 Jn. 2:2). No man has any excuse for unbelief (Rm. 1:20).

Clearly, Jesus used riddles, or parables, to keep the Jewish leaders in the dark for a time so as to accomplish a greater redemptive good. This completely undermines Calvinism’s doctrine of “Total Inability.” There is no practical or theological reason for God to put a blind fold on those born totally and completely blind from birth. And there is certainly no reason to hide truth from those in

the “corpse-like dead” condition of “Total Inability” proposed by the “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP.

Traditionalists believe that at times throughout history God does intervene to determine some things. That is what makes these things “of God” and uniquely supernatural (i.e. redemption on Calvary or the inspiration of Scripture). I also believe God may use means similar to what some

Calvinists speculate in these instances. I do not believe, however, these unique determinations prove God’s meticulous determination of all things, especially mankind’s evil intentions. In fact, in every one of the instances listed above the purpose of God’s unique intervention is clearly redemptive. I refuse to believe God is merely seeking to redeem the very evil intentions and actions that He Himself brought to pass by “meticulous determinism.” God is not merely determining to clean up His other determinations. He is cleaning up mankind’s libertarianly free choices and actions.

Non-Calvinists can and should affirm with our Calvinistic brethren that all men are born enemies of God (or at least born under the inevitable curse to become His enemy). Where we differ is in relation to the sufficiency of the gospel appeal sent by God Himself to invite all His enemies to be reconciled (2 Cor. 5:20). Is the “power of God unto Salvation” (Rom. 1:16) sufficient to enable those who hear it to respond willingly?

Jesus entrusted the truth to only a select few from Israel while He was “down from heaven” (John 6:38–42). The rest were being hardened in their already-calloused, self-righteous, stubborn condition. This was not their condition from birth due to Adam’s sin, but a condition resulting from their own libertarianly free choices. God used this condition to accomplish a greater redemptive good for all.[58]

While on earth, God sent Christ to accomplish a specific part of His redemptive will. That will was not to be a great evangelist and win thousands to faith, like Peter at Pentecost. Rather, God’s will was for Jesus to come “down from heaven” and train a preselected group of Israelites (those given to Him to be apostles) to carry the gospel to the world and establish His church after He is raised from the dead (John 12:32; Matt. 28:19). Some Calvinists fail to consider the first-century context and meaning of Jesus’s words. Instead, they import the concept of the unconditional, effectual salvation of preselected individuals.[60] These same Calvinists fail to acknowledge the fact that Jesus, while “down from heaven,” was judicially blinding Israel by means of riddles (Mark 4:11), a spirit of stupor (Rom. 11:8), and provoking language (John 6:60), while drawing to Himself a remnant of divinely-appointed messengers from Israel. God selected the Jews to carry the Word of God to the nations (Isa. 49:6, Rom. 3:2, 9:5). The purpose from the beginning for which Israel had been elected was to bring the light to the rest of the world (Gen. 12:3). The reason Jesus’s audience in John 6 walked away was not because God rejected them before the foundation of the earth, as the Calvinistic rendering of this passage would

suggest. Rather, God has consistently expressed His desire for the repentance and faith of every person (Matt. 23:37; Rom. 10:31; Ezek. 18:30–31; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; Hos. 3:1). The audience walked away because God had sealed them in their rebellious condition for a period of time in order to accomplish His redemptive plan, as prophesied (Acts 2:23). Israel did not reject God because God rejected them. Rather, God temporarily hardened those in their rebellious, calloused condition in order to accomplish redemption for all,[61] including the very ones who were being judicially hardened (Rom. 11:14–23; 32). God’s purpose in hardening Israel was redemptive, not retributive.

Jesus was provoking Israel in their hardened unbelief, while also drawing a remnant of divinely-appointed messengers to take the gospel to the world so as to draw all to Himself after he was raised up. As Jesus explained, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32).

Every believer, regardless of their nationality, will be “conformed to the image of Christ” by being made “holy and blameless.” How can one be so certain? God has predestined it. This is why Paul refers to a “guarantee” in verse 14 of the

Does Paul ever state that God chose individuals to be effectually placed in Him, or does it simply state, he chose those who are in Him? Does the Scripture teach that Christ redeems individuals so that they might irresistibly be placed in Him, or does it only teach that believers in Him have redemption? Did Paul ever actually say that God has chosen particular individuals to be effectually placed

in Him, or does it simply say that “believers in Him were also chosen?” If we continually remind ourselves that the “us” being referenced through this chapter are “the faithful in Christ” (vs. 1), then the apostle’s intention becomes quite clear. Before the foundation of the world God has predestined us, the faithful in Christ, to become holy and to be adopted (vs. 4-5).

The first chapter of Ephesians is not about God predetermining which individuals will be in Christ. This passage is about God predetermining the spiritual blessings for those who are in Christ through believing the word of truth (vv. 1-3).

Paul means that believers know, from observation of God’s past dealings with those who love Him, that he has a mysterious way of working things out for the greatest good. By observing the stories of the saints of old—those called to accomplish His redemptive purposes—believers can rest

in knowledge of this truth. God can take whatever evil may come our way and redeem it for good. Believers can know this because God has been doing it for generations.

The point is not that God causes everything for a good purpose, but that God redeems occurrences of evil for a good purpose in the lives of those who love Him. Therefore,

it would be inaccurate to use this passage to support the concept of divine meticulous determinism of all things.[75] Again, God does not cause occurrences of evil for His purposes; instead, He redeems moral evil for a good purpose. Traditionalists would typically agree with what John MacArthur, a Calvinistic pastor, wrote on this point: “But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things—including all the fruits of all the evil of all time—work together for a greater good.”[76]

If Paul intended to use the word proginōskō in this sense, then he meant simply that because we have seen how God worked all things to the good for those whom He knew before, we know that He will do the same for those who love and are called by Him now.

Romans 8:29b states “He (God) also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.” Who was “predestined” and to what ends were they predestined, according to this passage? Remember the point of the apostle

leading up to this verse. He began speaking about the futility and suffering that has come into this world due to the fall of humanity into sin (vv. 20–22). In verse 28-29a, Paul provides comfort to lovers of God in his audience by reminding them of God’s trustworthiness for those who have loved Him throughout the generations. Paul reminds his readers that God will redeem the suffering and evil for a good purpose in their lives just as he has done in the lives of those known before and loved throughout the previous generations. It is these whom God previously knew (Israelites whom loved God in the past) who

were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ so as to make t...

“Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David. The term ‘foreknew’ does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb προεγνω is the word for ‘know’ (in an intimate sense) with the preposition προ (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past… Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: ‘For those God formerly knew intimately,

He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.’ The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf.” [85]