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

by Leighton Flowers

Romans 8:30 And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. Notice the apostle’s use of the past tense in this verse. If Paul intended to speak about the future salvation of every elect individual, then why would he use these past tense verbs? When writing these words, Paul and his readers had not yet been glorified, so there is no explicit reason to use the past tense. Thus, there is no reason to assume Paul has in mind the future glorification of all believers. The past tense suggests that Paul is referring to former generations of those who have loved God and were called to fulfill His redemptive purpose. They were known in the past generations and predestined by God to be made in the very image of the One to come, “the firstborn among many brothers and sisters,” which is something already completed in the past through the working of God in former generations. These are the individuals whom God called,

justified, and who now, even as Paul was writing these words, are already glorified in the presence of God. If indeed Paul was referencing the saints formerly known and loved by God, he would have communicated the certainty of their being justified, sanctified and finally glorified in a way that some might describe as a “golden chain of redemption.”[87] To presume, however, that Paul’s unbroken chain of past tense verbs is not in reference to people of the past is a linguistic stretch. [88] Calvinists must explain away the use of the past tense verbs in order to maintain their interpretation of Paul’s intent. For instance, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, a Calvinistic

This interpretation may seem foreign to some Western readers because of the philosophical and theological baggage that has been attached to the concept of divine foreknowledge over the years, but to the first century reader the simple concept of proginōskō, understood as “previously known,” would have been far more likely. In fact, if one can objectively back away from their presuppositions and

approach this passage with fresh eyes, I believe they will discover the utter simplicity and clarity of this perspective.

Instead of introducing a complex concept of divine prescience, unconditional election, and effectual salvation never once clearly expounded upon in the Scriptures, could it be that Paul may intend simply to communicate that those who were previously loved and known by God were also predestined to be conformed to the image of the One to come? Paul seems to be giving a brief history lesson of what God ...

The fact that the “Calvinistic” interpretations of Paul’s writings do not appear until the fifth century with Augustine should be of considerable concern, especially given that Augustine did not speak Greek and was known to be former Manichean Gnostic,[98] a group that promoted deterministic philosophy and was notorious for its fights with the early church fathers.[99]

When some hear the word election they immediately think that individuals were chosen for effectual salvation before creation, but even Calvinistic scholars must admit that not all biblical references to election are rightly understood in this manner.[102] God elects nations and individuals to carry out both noble and ignoble purposes in His redemptive plan without regard to the morality of those involved. Likewise, He chooses where His message will be sent without regard to the morality of the people hearing it (Jonah 1:2; Matt. 22:10).

God often makes choices unconditioned upon the character or desires of those involved (Rom. 9:16). When approaching the Scripture one must seek to discern what kind of divine choice is being referenced, without merely assuming every choice of God is about individuals being elected unto effectual salvation.

Jews had come to believe that eternal life was guaranteed to any law-abiding citizen of Israel simply on the basis of their being of Israel. They wrongly assumed that being

the elect people of God secured their own individual salvation. Ironically, the root of this same erroneous conclusion still leads many to misinterpret Paul’s intentions. Israel was elected to carry the word of God so that anyone might believe and be blessed. Israelites were not guaranteed salvation on the basis of being a descendant of Abraham.

Paul is not attempting to teach that only some Israelites have been chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world, but that (1) the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham is not dependent upon the faithfulness of his

descendants; and (2) no Israelite has been chosen for salvation on the basis that he or she is an ethnic Israelite.

If Paul’s intent in verses 11-13 was not to say that God has rejected many before they were born, then what was he trying to say? What other reason might Paul have to reference Esau and the Edomites? Remember the false belief of the Israelites in Paul’s day who assumed they were going to be saved simply on the basis that they were descendants of Abraham? Paul is proving that God’s promise includes cursing those who opposed the fulfillment of that promise, even if they are of Isaac’s

seed. In short, being the seed of Isaac does not ensure your salvation, especially if you stand in opposition to the Word of God, as did the Edomites. Paul attempts to demonstrate that descendants of Abraham have been fighting those who were carrying the promise since the very beginning. This point would bolster Paul’s contention that God’s promise to Israel has not failed, although many of Abraham’s descendants are standing in active opposition, just as Edom had done before them. God’s curse, or hatred, against Esau (Edom) for opposing God’s Word carried by Jacob (Israel) served as a warning for all Abraham’s current descendants, lest they

meet the same condemning curse by opposing the Word of God now carried by chosen ...

In other words, Paul explains that being a descendant of Abraham will not ensure your salvation. In fact, any seed of Abraham who stands against the fulfillment of God’s promise will stand cursed, or hated, by God. If you do not believe that truth, t...

As discussed in chapter one, the term “hate” is sometimes an idiomatic expression of choosing one over another for a greater purpose, and certainly would not mean despise, or reject without the possibility of reconciliation.[115] 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). No reputable commentator would suggest the term hate in Luke 14:26 should be interpreted literally. If so, one would be hard pressed to explain Scripture’s other teachings about loving and honoring one’s parents. Instead, this passage should be understood to mean that indivi...

His noble purposes over one’s parents and their common ...

The typical Calvinistic interpretation confounds the two distinct promises of God as if they are one, causing confusion about the biblical

doctrine of election. The Potter’s blessing given to his vessel Abraham and a particular lineage should be understood as distinct from His blessing of those who choose to believe in the Potter’s promise.

What does “it” refer to in this verse? Calvinists assume that “it” refers to the individual, effectual salvation of unconditionally chosen people,[121] a concept nowhere introduced in this text or any other. Actually, “it” refers back to “God’s purpose of election,” (vs. 11) which is to fulfill the promise of God (vs. 6) in bringing about the redemptive plan through an unconditionally chosen nation of woefully unfaithful individuals.

Who was being hardened in the first century to demonstrate God’s glory and ensure the real Passover? Ironically, it was the nation of Israel who was being hardened in the first century to accomplish God’s redemptive plan (John 12:39–41; Acts 28:27). Although already a rebellious nation, Israel was blinded by God to ensure His promise was fulfilled. Romans 9:17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’

Notice the stated purpose in raising Pharaoh up (and later Israel) is not for condemnation, but in order to fulfill the word of God (vs. 6). This is not about the salvation or reprobation of Pharaoh (or Israel); it is about the Potter’s promise being fulfilled and His Word being made known to the whole earth even through unfaithful vessels.

God shows mercy to the Israelites in the Old Testament in order to accomplish His promise through them, and He hardens the Israelites in the New Testament in order to accomplish His promise through them. This explains Paul’s statement in Romans 9:18. Romans 9:18

Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

Remember the question Paul is answering: Has God’s promise to deliver His Word through unfaithful Israel failed? No. In order to fulfill His promise and deliver His Word, God will show mercy to the unfaithful when necessary and He will harden the unfaithful when necessary. The fulfillment of

God’s promise does not depend on their faithfulness (Rom. 3:3). Whatever the Potter must do to fulfill His promise, He will do — even if that means blinding Israelites in their stubborn rebellion or compelling other sinful Israelites to carry His redemptive message to the world (Acts 9:1–19; Jonah).

Paul, like Jonah before him, was chosen to take God’s Word to those on the outside. Both messengers needed convincing, but God did what was necessary to ensure His Word was delivered. He used external, persuasive means such as a big fish and a blinding light to accomplish this

redemptive purpose, not inward, irresistible means. God’s promise to deliver His Word through Israel did not depend on the messengers being faithful, which is exactly why God’s Word has not failed (Rom. 9:6). His purpose in electing Israel will stand (Rom. 9:11).

The Potter remakes some of this lump for the noble purpose of carrying His Word to the rest of the world.[126] He uses persuasive signs, like a blinding light, to mold the wills of these otherwise rebellious messengers from Israel. He leaves the rest of this already-calloused lump in their rebellion, through which he accomplishes ignoble but necessary and redemptive purposes. Even still, the Potter

holds out hope of their being provoked and grafted back in (Rom. 11:11-23).

If the clay represents all of humanity from birth, in accordance with His eternal decree, then it would imply that the Potter did the spoiling and the remaking. But if the

clay is understood to represent Israel, then it is clear that the spoiling (or callousing) is a direct result of their own rebellious choices, not the molding of the Potter. The Potter merely reshapes the already-flawed clay into something useful for a greater good, such as bringing the means of redemption to all peoples. Some vessels are selected to be used for noble purposes, like apostleship, while others are sealed in their calloused condition to fulfill God’s redemptive plan. This indeed would give cause for all to glory in the free choices of such a righteous Potter sovereignly working to fulfill His promise.

Clearly, the biblical authors speak of the clay as if it is able to respond (and thus be held responsible) to the will of the Potter.[129]

Why does God refrain from displaying His wrath on Israel and show them mercy instead? Because Moses interceded on their behalf, much like Christ does for people today. God had a greater redemptive plan to accomplish through Israel, so He endured them even in their rebellion.

Paul is not attempting to distinguish between those vessels blessed with effectual salvation and those vessels cursed with reprobation, as the Calvinists contend.[130] Instead, he is drawing a distinction between those vessels blessed to carry out the noble purpose of fulfilling God’s promise and those vessels hardened in their rebellion in

order to ensure the fulfillment of that same promise. In other words, it is all about the Potter’s promise.

Not only did the earliest church fathers not interpret the doctrine of election “Calvinistically,” much of their teaching stands in strong opposition to such a conclusion.

Why has the Potter done all this? He is fulfilling His Word by bringing redemption to all the families of the

earth.

Some Calvinists erroneously attempt to equate salvation with the calling out of the divinely-inspired messengers, which conflates the expressed purposes of God in Israel’s election.[135] Likewise, the Calvinistic interpretation convolutes mankind’s natural condition from birth with

Israel’s judicially-hardened condition, which confuses the biblical teaching of man’s ability to respond to the gospel.[136] The fulfillment of God’s Word has never depended on the faithfulness of the Israelite people (Rom. 3:1-7). The Potter will accomplish His plan and bring to pass the promise He first made to Abraham even when His elect nation is unfaithful. Notice that this is still a part of the apostle’s response to the question first raised in Romans 9:1-6. If God has entrusted His Word to the Israelites (vv. 4–5) and the Israelites are standing in opposition to His Word (vv. 2–3), then has God’s

Word failed (vs. 6)? Not only has God not failed to fulfill His Word, but He has fulfilled it through both the active hardening and “mercying” of Israelites to the benefit of all the nations of the earth, as was the original promise made to Abraham. The apostle once again turns to Scripture to make his case. Romans 9:25–26 As he says in Hosea: I will call them my people who are not my people; and I will call her my loved one who is not my loved one, and, I...

The fellow kinsmen for whom Paul desperately pleads in Romans 9 are not without hope. Those hardened have hope of being provoked by envy and saved. Those stumbling have not stumbled beyond the hope of recovery (Rom. 11:11). Paul desperately holds out hope for those cut off to leave their unbelief and be grafted back in (Rom. 11:23). Hope does not remain for the reprobate of Calvinism, but it most certainly remains for those whom the apostle addresses in this text.

God has cut us all off in our sin by giving us the inherence to squander as prodigals and a forbidden fruit from which to take our own rebellious bite. He has allowed us all to go our own way. Why? To show off His meticulous deterministic power by predestining most to eternal torment from before creation? By no means! That is not what Paul is shouting from his rooftop. Paul has no reason to be ashamed of his conclusions about the Father revealed in these pages of Scripture because the motive of his Father is mercy for all. We can rest assured that the Potter’s plan is to show mercy to all, because that was His original promise made to Abraham…“all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). The promise is not for a few preselected families, or some particular group elected before creation, but for every single family of the earth! The promise of our sovereignly free Potter is inclusive, not exclusive. The Potter at the wheel in Paul’s narrative is a merciful Potter; One whose calling is irrevocable (11:29) and promises sure (9:4-6). He is a Potter with a redemptive purpose, a purpose He fulfills through molding unfaithful vessels for both noble and common uses (9:21). He is a Potter who weeps over His hardened clay while longing to reconcile them from their rebellious ways (Lk. 19:42, Matt.

23:37, Rom. 10:21, 2 Cor. 5:20). He is a Potter you would want to tell your friends all about, every single detail. Why? Because He is a good, gracious Potter who always, and I mean always, keeps His promise!