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

by Leighton Flowers

It was not an unconditional choice to reprobate an unborn baby for His own Self-glorification — a gross misrepresentation of God’s holy character and self-sacrificial love for all people.

God told Israel, “You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother” (Deut. 23:7). In light of this explicit divine instruction, are readers to believe God himself unconditionally detested Jacob’s brother Esau, and the nation of Edom, from before the foundation of the world for no apparent reason?

It is only after the Edomites attack Israel that God curses them, as was conditionally promised in God’s first encounter with Abraham, “I will curse those who curse you” (Gen. 12:3).

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?

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.

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.

No reputable commentator would suggest the term hate in Luke 14:26 should be interpreted literally.

this passage should be understood to mean that individuals must choose to follow God’s will over the will of even the most beloved in one’s life.

God clearly chose one over the other for a noble purpose.

Further, one who follows the implications of a consistent Calvinistic interpretation would have to conclude that Ishmael was likewise hated and rejected by God before the creation of the world. However, Gen. 17:15–26 states, “Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.’

And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh that Ishmael might live before You!’ … ‘As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.’ When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham…. In the very same day Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son.” Clearly,

The biblical account draws a stark distinction between those chosen to bring the Word and those chosen through faith to be blessed by that Word.

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

A strong distinction was made between those blessed to bring the Word and those who may or may not choose to believe in that Word.

It is not consistent to interpret these passages as God’s choice to effectually save one brother to the damning neglect of the others. While that interpretation would serve to answer part of the original question posed in this chapter, it introduces unnecessary problems never intended by the author.[117]

Calvinists interpret vs. 15 to mean that God can choose to save whomever He wishes, which is not a point any Traditionalist would deny. Whom God desires to save is no secret, however. Scripture declares plainly, “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (Jas. 4:6, 1 Pet. 5:5–6). God saves anyone He wishes to save and He wishes to save weak, humble, and repentant believers, regardless of their nationality (Ps. 18:27).

Paul was drawing upon the history of Israel to prove God’s faithfulness to carry out His promise through them despite their unfaithfulness. In other words, Paul demonstrates how God continued to show mercy to Israel even when they were unfaithful and God did so in order to fulfill His original promise.

Some Calvinists would have us believe it was a first century “Arminian” (or “synergist”) objecting to the idea that God chooses to condemn some people to hell before they ever do anything good or bad. But that interpretation simply ignores the context of the Scripture.

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.

concedes that the concept of individual effectual election to salvation “was first clearly seen by Augustine” in the fifth century. 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.

We have observed that God judicially hardens the calloused Israelites so as to accomplish redemption. We have also seen that God uses persuasive means, like signs and wonders, to call out some from Israel to fulfill the purpose for which this nation was elected. This purpose included (1) setting apart certain Israelites to be the lineage of the Messiah, and (2) setting apart certain Israelites to carry His divinely-inspired message to the world (by use of externally persuasive means), and (3) temporarily blinding the rest of Israel to accomplish redemption through their rebellion.

It may surprise some to hear that I do believe God effectually humbles some people. I just do not believe those people will be saved. If you wait on God to effectually humble you, it will be too late! This is one of the dangers of the Calvinistic worldview. If taken consistently it removes the responsibility that Scripture clearly places on man and puts it onto God. Look

I remember Sharilyn telling me that Brianne said that she was not one off the elect. This would be an example of Calvinism taken to its ultimate conclusion. Basically she learned that she has no responsibilty to respond to God's call to repent and believe on Christ because God hasn't made her do it by electing her. since she doesn't feel irresistibly compelled to repent and believe then in her mind God has not elected her. This is a tragic result of unbiblical teaching. So sad.