Freeindeed, this backs up the Calvinist's thinking )

For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his
good purpose. (Philippians 2:13)

It does not mean we know it is happening to us, but it does, and we find ourselves acting (will - ing) in a manner pleasing to Him. Amazing, isn't it.
Pilgrim

Pilgrim,

Again, thank you for "relishing" in the opportunity to converse with me. I really appreciate everyone's time in reading and addressing my questions.

Your first post in reply deals with this conversation on pride. It was your original point that Calvinistic beliefs (a.k.a TULIP) crucify pride in the hearts of men, because it is a "system" that strips man of any and all ability. In response, I simply stated that many Calvinists seem to be proud of their "system", which is ironic but only a mere observation that doesn't mean much to what we're discussing. The meat of this is the stripping away of man's ability, which I would argue is an idea that misplaces the cause and solution of pride in the hearts of mankind. Again, my problem with this idea is that it releases man from all ability and thus responsibility, which robs God of His holiness by making Him the one who sins against His own nature. So I think to myself, "There's got to be a better way. Surely I don't have to destroy God's holiness to give Him sovereignty. There must be something I'm not seeing."

I too agree with not taking credit for accomplishments, for the Word says "...every good and perfect thing comes from above..." Arminian teachings would never deny such a truth either, but this surely does not mean that my own will is in bondage. Your second post in reply deals with God's Spirit working in me without my realizing it; you also use the example of salvation here. Again, I totally agree that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men, but saying that this replaces free will and responsibility doesn't seem to make sense. In the same post you write, "This is 'key' to understanding, Chris. God never forces anyone!" And I say, EXACTLY! Yet if I do not have free will, then I am indeed forced, and you are speaking doubletalk.

So in believing that salvation is a "divine-human" thing as opposed to a "divine-only" thing, what do I have to boast upon? I believe redemption is a "divine-only" thing indeed, but this has already occurred. Salvation, on the other hand, requires that a man hears something. No doubt there is a "getting ready grace" that allows a man to hear, but the grace given can't be enough to save the man otherwise he wouldn't need to hear something. So a man must still have a choice and a responsibility to listen so that he can believe and be saved. Is the fact that I heard and believe a right to boast? No. Faith is not a possession to boast of, otherwise salvation couldn't be through it by grace; it simply comes by the Word-and the Word has been given to the whole earth. Even if I could be prideful in having faith, I could just as easily be prideful in having been "chosen" as an "elect" member of God's club. This is why I write that the real issue seems bigger-in my mind it is more about what Calvinistic beliefs pin on God. Crucifying man's pride in this way comes at the expense of crucifying God's character.

It is interesting that you quote Philippians 2:13 as backing up Calvinist thinking, but I would say otherwise. Verse 2:12 says, "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Seems like I have some responsibility there! Verse 13, "For it is God who works in you both to will (speaking of man's will) and to do (man's works) of his good pleasure. So I take this to mean that God works in us so that we have the power to will and to do, but the acts of volition and work come from the man. Just because one has power does not mean one will choose to use said power. If this were not true, I don't see how Paul's exhortation in the previous verse to "work out your own salvation" would make any sense at all. I do not take this to mean that we are possessed and simply do God's will no matter what. God has no part in sin, nor does He tempt, and those truths are very clear in the Word.

In trying to apply Calvinist thought to actually help my Christian walk, you stated that one mustn't get "head knowledge" over "heart knowledge." That's interesting. I do like the way you put that, and I can certainly think of many ways I could apply that to my natural life. But surely this does not apply to God and His Word!?? You mean to say that there are truths, or "head knowledge", that I must actually put "aside" or "under" this "heart knowledge" to do as God's Word says? That seems like it would create a cold religion full of conflicted people? Shouldn't all knowledge compel me towards the work of Christ? How does one reconcile that with this idea that my sin was also caused by God? Again, it seems like Calvinism is knowledge that must be "put away" at times, lest I find doctrinal reasons to blame God??

Is that a little clearer than what I wrote before? I don't want to seem impossible, but I feel like perhaps I didn't communicate all that well in my last post. That's not to say that you must satisfy these questions of mine; it just seems like most side-step them. Maybe that's because there are no answers? Or am I totally missing what you're saying?

Blessings,
Chris

Chris, I enjoyed your last post very much. The idea that we are not in control of anything does indeed cause difficulty. It is akin to sitting on our hind ends waiting for a miracle to happen. Throughout the Bible we see things happening because a man did a certain thing. Often it is prayer and often it is by some kind of physical action.

My goodness, if God controls everything I do and it is only by His will I do things I don't need to pray any longer, do I? Does God know when I am going to pray? Certainly He does. Does He tell me when to pray? No. I must make a decision and take an action in order to pray.

My word, if everything I do is controlled by God then I don't sin any more. Halleluja!

In Christ,
George

Greetings:
I just wanted to say that George's post is very rationalistic. We must bow our human reasoning to Divine revelation. The Scriptures do not say we will be able to understand it all; if that were the case then we would be God.
Some verses to remind us that God is absolute sovereign, and is orchestrating all things, and is directing all things for His glory and honour:
Acts 2:23" Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain".
Acts 4:27-28 " For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done".

Also Philippians 2:12-13 " Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure".

All this is true and we are still responsible, rational creates. Not pupets on a string - free agents. No free will here!
Bro. Tom

Yes, the Lord uses man for His instrumentation of the Gospel.

Would it be fair to say that Calvinists teach that God sovereingly controls everything we do, say and think and then holds us accountable for what He has forced us to do, say and think?

"Would it be fair to say that Calvinists teach that God sovereingly controls everything we do, say and think and then holds us accountable for what He has forced us to do, say and think?"

Such should have been written - "Would it be fair to say that the Word of God teaches that God sovereingly controls everything we do, say, and think and then holds us accountable for what He has ordained us to do, say and think?"
At first that doesn't sound fair, but that's one reason why Romans 9 was given to us:

God uses the wickedness in man - like those who crucified our Lord, and Judas who betrayed our Lord, but they all acted as free agrents and were held accountable, but as the Scriptures reveal, they did just what God ordainted from eterinty past! That does not make God the aurthor of Sin, nor unjust in any way, because God is Holy, righteous, and doeth all things well. Such truth is also revealed in the Bible.

In Judas' case:

Such is true and we accept it as true by faith, though we can not understand it. To rationalize such true away, and call it the Calvinist's fault is to undermind the Holy Scriptures, and to dishonour our God.

Bro. Tom [/quote]

"For it is God who works in you both to will" Freeindeed, this is not speaking about man's 'will' but rather the aspect of God working in you (by his Spirit) "TO" will towards something. It is He that supplies the power by his Spirit to conform us to His Will.
Pilgrim

Chris posted:"So in believing that salvation is a "divine-human" thing as opposed to a "divine-only" thing, what do I have to boast upon?"

Usually what 'man' boasts of is that 'he' accepted Christ in his heart, or came to Christ, or walked the isle, etc. Just the fact that you believe that salvation is divine-human is somewhat prideful, as if God couldn't do it alone, he needs man to reply, or accept or something.

another interesting discussion might be on the stages of salvation. For you seem to lump it all as 'salvation'. Whereas the Word specificially states that God 'draws'....which we are not aware of occuring as it is His Spirit drawing us....this is called regeneration, when the Spirit's work is accomplished and we find ourselves believing the Gospel. There is no 'will' from us to believe, for if there were we would have believed sooner. The man that heard the Gospel yesterday, but 'refused' (willed not to believe) and died today would be in big trouble and somewhat a fool. I don't believe that 'salvation' in general is complete until we see him face to face....that is the 'working out' part that Paul speaks of...our Sanctification is an on going process.
Pilgrim

Chris posted: "In trying to apply Calvinist thought to actually help my Christian walk, you stated that one mustn't get "head knowledge" over "heart knowledge."

Sorry, Chris, but you got that backwards. I said one has to get his head knowledge into his heart. Meaning that many can know doctrines and can recite the Word without error, but when it comes to living the Truth, they fail miserably...it is because it is simply 'head' knowledge without the 'heart' (mind, soul, spirit) ever having be re-born by His Spirit. The two have to be in conjuction and His Spirit has to reside and be active.
Pilgrim

Chris: this Christian explains the workings of God 'in' us better than I can, take a few minutes and read this.

"Whereas it is impossible to obey God's moral laws before conversion, when God converts
a person, he enables this person to obey them by the Holy Spirit.
There is now enough information to produce a statement on soteriology, and to relate it to
biblical metaphysics and epistemology. The sinner is spiritually dead in sin. He is in a
condition such that conversion requires a radical21 reconstruction in intellect and
personality amounting to a spiritual resurrection. Now, one who is merely sick and blind
may perhaps do something to help himself, or at least receive a gift that is offered to him.
However, one who is dead can do or decide nothing for himself; therefore, before this
radical reconstruction or spiritual resurrection, a man cannot contribute to or cooperate in
his own salvation, nor is he willing to do so. Romans 8:7 says, "The sinful mind is hostile
to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
Therefore, it depends solely on God to decide and carry out a person's spiritual
regeneration. Verse 12 of the prologue says, "Yet to all who received him, to those who
believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God," and so faith in Christ
is indeed the means by which God effects a person's justification and adoption. However,
whether a person has faith in Christ does not depend on the person, since if it does, then
the person will never have faith, being dead in sin. Rather, whether a person has faith in
Christ depends only on God's decision, since faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:. A
spiritually dead person cannot produce or exercise faith, and God must first regenerate
him, but God regenerates only those whom he has chosen. Therefore, the biblical order of
what happens when God saves a person is regeneration, faith, justification, and adoption.
Paul writes, "What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect
did. The others were hardened, as it is written: 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so
that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day'" (Romans
11:7-. The false gospel of Arminianism says that it is man who chooses whether he will
accept Christ, but Jesus says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you
to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last" (John 15:16). Deceived by the false gospel of
21 By that I mean "fundamental" or "at the root."
50
"free will," many people have been persuaded to go through the motions of receiving
Christ; however, unless they have been chosen by God to be saved, their choice is false
and futile. They have not been saved, and they will not bear true and lasting spiritual
fruit.
Faith in Christ is the mind's true assent to the gospel of Christ, and this means that
soteriology presupposes epistemology. That is, salvation presupposes knowledge. Thus
the question becomes how one comes to know, understand, and accept the gospel? When
Peter says to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus replies,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by
my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:16-17). Peter did not observe the particular words and
works of Christ, and then by a process of induction infer that he must be the Christ.
Instead, God sovereignly illuminated his mind to know the truth about Christ. Again, this
shows that a person cannot just decide to be saved, since he cannot even know or
understand the gospel unless God sovereignly decides to reveal it to him.
Nicodemus said to Jesus, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God.
For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him"
(John 3:2). However, his observation failed to produce the knowledge necessary for
salvation. By observing the same works of Christ, the Pharisees inferred, "It is by the
prince of demons that he drives out demons" (Matthew 9:34). Knowledge can never
come by the empirical method, since any inference from sensation is bound to be an
unnecessary inference, and thus invalid.
This is also true when it comes to the knowledge necessary for salvation; that is, biblical
soteriology cannot rest on a non-biblical epistemology, but it rests on a biblical
epistemology that emphasizes the sovereign God and the infallible Scripture. The
knowledge necessary for salvation comes by the immediate operation of the logos on the
mind by means of the Scripture or the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, "faith comes
from hearing the message" (Romans 10:17), but at the same time it is a sovereign gift
from God (Ephesians 2:, so that not all who hear the gospel receive faith, but only those
to whom God sovereignly grants assent to the gospel.
Another important passage is 2 Corinthians 4:4-6:
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that
they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is
the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ
as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God,
who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in
our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Christ.
The preaching of the gospel in itself does not save, because for the light of the gospel to
penetrate, it is necessary for God to directly act on the human mind to produce faith. It is
51
God who "made his light shine in our hearts," so that "neither he who plants nor he who
waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow" (1 Corinthians 3:7)."

Pilgrim

"If God determines all that we do so that we are not free from him in
any sense, then we are nothing more than robots and puppets."
This is one of the most common objections against the teaching of divine sovereignty.
Popular Calvinism answers it by attributing to man some kind of freedom or power of
"self-determination," alleging that this is somehow "compatible" with God’s control over
all things. Some Calvinists (e.g. A. A. Hodge, R. L. Dabney, etc.) answer the objection in
a way that sounds dangerously close to open theism. They say that since God knows the
dispositions of his creatures, he is able to "control" their decisions and actions by
manipulating their surrounding circumstances, and thus "inducing" them to "freely" think
and act in ways that are in accordance to God’s plans.
But many of these Calvinists also realize that this explanation of God’s "control" over the
decisions and actions of man is in fact logically incompatible with their alleged belief in
God’s sovereignty. So after some initial explanations and evasions, they finally have to
call it a "paradox" and a "mystery." It will save everyone a lot of time if they will just
admit the self-contradiction at the beginning, and call it a "paradox" and a "mystery"
from the start. This way everyone can go home early.
Since I reject compatibilism and human freedom in any sense relative to God, it also
follows that my answer to the objection is different. Instead, I affirm that God is
sovereign and man is not free. This position provides the only biblical and rational
answer, which also happens to be the simplest and boldest response against the challenge.
And since I have already extensively explained and defended the biblical teaching of
divine sovereignty elsewhere,1 I am not going to repeat all of that here. What follows will
be an application of what I have already written about divine sovereignty to the above
objection.
We begin by noting that the objection is incomplete. It fails to specify what exactly it is
about robots and puppets that would make them relevant. Why would we be like robots
and puppets if God indeed determines all our thoughts and actions? What would be the
similarities? Then, the statement fails to even become an actual objection by neglecting to
note why it would be a problem for us to be robots and puppets. Would it mean that
Christianity is false if we are robots and puppets? The objection does not explain. Would
it undermine moral responsibility if we are robots and puppets? The objection fails to
prove or even mention this.
We must not allow our opponents to get away with making lazy and half-baked
objections. They assume that they understand the issues and that their objections are
unanswerable. One of the things that we must do in defending the faith is to show that our
opponents are not nearly as intelligent and careful as they think, so that rather than
challenging the teachings of Scripture, they ought to humble themselves before the
wisdom of God.
1 See Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, Commentary on Ephesians, The Author of Sin, and Ultimate
Questions.
3
The competent apologist should be able to show that no objection against biblical
revelation ever makes any sense. After showing that the opponent fails to issue a
challenge that demands an answer, since the challenge itself is unintelligible and the
opponent himself never knows what he is really asking, the apologist can then address the
topic from a position of knowledge and authority.2 That is, we answer objections not
because our beliefs are so apparently problematic that we must awkwardly put out fires
left and right, but we first humiliate the spiritual rebels, showing that they speak nonsense
even in their protests, and now we pronounce to these defeated foes what God is saying
to them through the Scriptures – to repent and believe the truth.
It is always possible to neutralize any objection against Christianity before we even begin
to answer it. After showing that the objection is careless and incomplete, we will now
proceed to address the topic anyway, but not because the objection logically compels us,
since it has already been neutralized.
First, the fact that God controls all of our thoughts and actions does not make us robots
and puppets, because even when completely controlled by God, humans are very
different from robots and puppets. Humans have minds – they reason, decide, and emote.
In fact, since our identities are preserved even when we are disembodied, it is more
accurate to say that humans are minds that live in bodies.3 Robots and puppets are not
minds, but are entirely physical objects. They have no thoughts to be controlled, but only
physical parts and properties to be manipulated.
Some of our thoughts are occasions for physiological events. There is no inherent and
necessary relationship between mind and body, but it is God who directly controls both,
usually correlating the two. Nevertheless, we are still different from robots and puppets,
since they have no thoughts at all. Their physical movements are not occasioned by their
own thoughts, since they have none, but by the thoughts of those who use their hands and
instruments to control them. And it is in fact God who directly controls them all – the
human mind, the relationship between the human mind and the human body, the human
body itself, and the relationship between the human body and the instruments, the robots
and the puppets. That is, on the occasion that God directly acts on one (for example,
when he causes the human mind to decide to move a finger), he also directly acts on the
other (in this case, he causes the finger to move).4
Remember that the objection does not explain why it is a problem for humans to be
robots and puppets, and this is one reason why it fails before we even answer it. So we
are pointing out the differences that humans have against robots and puppets not because
the objection compels us, but because we are addressing the topic in spite of the
2 See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Apologetics in
Conversation.
3 Peter refers to the body as a "tent" that could be "put aside" (2 Peter 1:13–14; also 2 Corinthians 5:4). See
also "The Ching Ming Festival" in Vincent Cheung, Doctrine and Obedience.
4 For an explanation of the metaphysics assumed here, please see Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions and
Captive to Reason.
4
objection. The differences are there to be noted, so that even if humans are completely
controlled by God, they are unlike robots and puppets.
Second, although sometimes unstated, the objection falsely makes human freedom the
basis of moral responsibility. The assumptions are: (1) It is necessary to affirm that
humans are morally responsible; (2) Moral responsibility presupposes human freedom;
and (3) Robots and puppets are not free. Given these assumptions, the objector rightly
reasons that if God is absolutely sovereign, then humans are not free. Then, he likens
these humans, who are not free, to robots and puppets, which are also not free. This in
turn means that humans are not morally responsible if God controls all things, but since it
is necessary to affirm that humans are morally responsible, it means that we cannot
affirm that God controls all things.
We will first dispense with a less important problem with this reasoning, and that is the
unnecessary analogy of controlled humans to robots and puppets. This step could be
skipped altogether and the objection would still be intact; in fact, it would be clearer
without the analogy. In other words, it would be simpler to just say, "If God controls all
things, then humans are not free. But since moral responsibility presupposes human
freedom, this necessarily means that if God controls all things, then humans are not
morally responsible. But then, since it is necessary to affirm that humans are morally
responsible, we must therefore deny that God controls all things."
The process of reasoning is sound in itself, so that the conclusion would be correct if all
the assumptions were true. However, not all the assumptions are correct, and therefore
the objection crumbles. The fatal error is in assuming that moral responsibility
presupposes human freedom. This premise is explicitly contradicted by Scripture, and it
has never been justified in the history of theology and philosophy. It is so ingrained in
most thinkers that when they even bother to mention it or consider possible ways to
justify it, they would often just say that it is intuitively known and then move on.
But as I have repeatedly stated elsewhere, the assumption is false. By definition,
"responsibility" refers to accountability. In other words, for one to be morally responsible
means that he is morally accountable to some person or standard. The issue of whether
this person is free is irrelevant to the discussion. The only relevant issue is whether the
one who has authority over this person has decided to hold him accountable. Since God
rules over all of humanity, and he has decided to judge every man, this means that every
person is morally responsible, regardless of whether he is free. Human freedom has no
logical place to even enter the discussion.5 Moreover, the only reason to affirm that
humans are morally responsible is because of this same reason in the first place – that is,
that God has decided to judge all of humanity.
God could just as easily hold robots and puppets responsible, not in the sense that they
could understand their actions, but in the sense that God could reward or punish them if
he so pleases. Jesus cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit. The tree was not free, or
5 I have discussed this extensively and repeatedly in my other writings. Please see Vincent Cheung,
Systematic Theology, Commentary on Ephesians, and The Author of Sin.
5
even conscious, but it was punished, and Jesus was fully justified for doing it. Of course,
the tree and the curse were symbolic, but the symbolic (what is apparent, on the surface)
cannot contradict that which is symbolized, or the one would not really be symbolic of
the other. The fact is that, whatever deeper meaning is intended, the tree failed to bear
fruit, and Jesus cursed it for this reason. Likewise, if God so pleases, he could destroy a
robot for malfunctioning, and since he is the sole standard of morality, he would be
righteous by definition for doing so. He certainly does not need our permission or to
satisfy our false assumptions.
In other words, humans are morally responsible for precisely the opposite reason
assumed by the objection -- we are responsible because God is sovereign and we are not
free.
Third, contrary to its intent, the objection uses an analogy that ascribes too much freedom
to humans relative to God. The objector would expect the Christian to explain how
humans are more free than robots and puppets, or how humans have genuine freedom
while robots and puppets do not. Those who affirm popular Calvinism will also try to
affirm God’s total sovereignty at the same time.6 This plays right into the objector’s
expectation – it exposes the fact that the position of these Calvinists is indeed incoherent
and paradoxical, and that it is affirmed by sheer force, as even the major Calvinistic
theologians admit.7
However, if we would cast aside the usual unbiblical and irrational assumptions, we
would confront the objection by claiming the very opposite. The objection fails to apply
not because its analogy denies freedom to man, but because it concedes far too little
control to God.8 Certainly, God has infinitely more control over us than we have over
robots and puppets.
6 Even "total" (or equivalent terms) has become relative for some of those who affirm popular Calvinism.
They would affirm God’s "total" sovereignty against those who challenge them, but then they would turn
around and challenge me for affirming God’s "total" sovereignty and its application to metaphysics,
epistemology, and soteriology. They (these "Calvinists") would even begin their objections against me by
saying, "But if God controls everything…," indicating that they do not really believe that God controls
everything (for example, see section I of "Short Answers to Several Criticisms" in Vincent Cheung,
Captive to Reason). The truth is that they do not believe in God’s total sovereignty – they just believe a
stronger version of God’s crippled sovereignty than the Arminians.
7 See "Forced to Believe" in Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin, in which I use A. A. Hodge as an example
of this incoherent Calvinism. He writes, "Although the absolute origination of any new existence out of
nothing is to us confessedly inconceivable, it is not one whit more so than the relation of the infinite
foreknowledge, or foreordination, or providential control of God to the free agency of men, nor than many
other truths which we are all forced to believe." I respond, "Biblical doctrines are inconceivable only if
measured against some irrational premise or standard. What we need to do is to cast aside these false
principles and assumptions that are not part of the biblical worldview in the first place. But if you are going
to take principles and assumptions from two contradictory worldviews and try to jam them together, then,
yes, you are going to end up with something inconceivable. Just don't call that Christianity or Calvinism."
8 See "Determinism vs. Fatalism" in Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin, in which I respond to the charge
that my position on divine sovereignty amounts to fatalism by noting that fatalism is in fact weaker than the
biblical determinism that I affirm – it ascribes too little control to God over his creation.
6
With robots and puppets, we can only rearrange and combine preexisting materials to
form objects whose designs and functions are limited by its materials, by our intelligence
and creativity, and then by our ability to maintain and manipulate them.
This is not so with God. Whether we are speaking of robots, puppets, or humans, God is
the one who creates, sustains, and controls the very materials from which they are made.
He is the one who conceived their designs and functions, and even then he is not limited
to these, but he can change them at any time if he so wishes. He can create out of nothing
(Genesis 1:1), change water into wine (John 2:9), turn stones into humans (Matthew 3:9),
and humans into salt (Genesis 19:26). He could cause any object to function in ways that
is apparently beyond their original design, such as to cause a donkey to speak (Numbers
22:28, 30; 2 Peter 2:16), and stones to cry out and praise him (Luke 19:40).
In the light of Scripture’s testimony, it is an abominable insult to God’s majesty and
power to assert that he has no more control over us than we do over robots and puppets,
or that we have more freedom relative to him than robots and puppets have relative to
us.9 Of course humans are greater than robots and puppets, as we have already
acknowledged. But then, God is far greater than humans.
This leads us to a discussion about a related objection against divine sovereignty.
However, this time the objection is not based on an extra-biblical analogy, but a direct
attack against Scripture. The passage is in Romans 9, and it is enough to cite only verses
18–21:
18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he
hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: "Then
why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are
you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who
formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’" 21Does not the potter
have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for
noble purposes and some for common use?
Paul refers to an objection against God’s total and direct control of human hearts,
including his power to directly cause faith and unbelief in them. The objection assumes
that if God cannot be resisted, then humans should not be blamed. In other words, like
many non-Christians, Arminians, and inconsistent Calvinists, it adopts the unbiblical
assumption that responsibility presupposes freedom. We have already addressed this false
premise.
This other objection that I have in mind, related to the one about robots and puppets,
attacks the analogy in verse 21. I have come across it in the writings of liberal
theologians who reject the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and also in conversation
9 As the following discussion of Romans 9 would imply, it is fine to use an analogy to illustrate God’s
control over his creation in a relative sense, but no analogy can absolutely represent God’s infinite control
over his creation. The error, therefore, is not in using an analogy to illustrate God’s control, but it is in
asserting or implying that the analogy fully represents God’s power.
7
with several professing Christians. That is, they identify with the objection against divine
sovereignty in verse 19, and they consider Paul’s response in verse 21 fallacious. Paul
writes, "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some
pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"10 Against this, they exclaim, "But
surely we are more than clay and pottery!"
In other words, they assert that Paul’s response fails because his analogy is false. He
likens humans to clay and pottery, but humans are more than clay and pottery, and
therefore the analogy cannot explain how humans are held accountable under an
absolutely sovereign God, one who can directly act on the mind to cause both good and
evil. The challenge is directed at not only Calvinism, but Scripture itself. In reply, we will
offer the following points.
First, the attack against verse 21 neglects the point that Paul is asserting. He does not
claim that humans are exactly like clay and pottery in every way, but he is reminding his
readers of the relationship between the creature and the Creator. In verse 20, he says that
the creature has no right to "talk back," and in verse 21, he says that the Creator has
every right to make whatever he wishes out of the creature. The truth of Paul’s point does
not depend on whether humans are exactly like clay and pottery, but on whether God is
the Creator and whether humans are the creatures. Since God is indeed the Creator and
humans are indeed the creatures, Paul’s point in verse 18 stands.
Second, and this is related to the first, although Paul could point out that the objection
falsely assumes that responsibility presupposes freedom, he does not explicitly do it here.
However, he achieves the same effect by answering the objection from the perspective of
divine rights versus human rights. The objection goes, "Then why does God still blame
us? For who resists his will?" Paul answers, "God has the right to do whatever he wants
with you, or to make anything out of you, and then still hold you accountable (see v. 22).
But you have no right to talk back." This reply, of course, is contrary to popular
Calvinism, which would tend to say, "God has the right to show mercy to whomever he
chooses, but he merely passes by the reprobates, who have damned themselves." Instead,
Paul’s answer is that the creature has no right to talk back, but that God has the right to
make some into objects of mercy and to make others into the objects of wrath.
Third, perhaps blinded by a humanistic indignation that man has been reduced to clay and
pottery, the objection has forgotten about God. Outside of the analogy, it is true that
humans are more than clay and pottery, but then God is more than a potter!
10 As a side note, Paul does not say, "God makes the noble vessels out of the common vessels," or "God
makes the noble vessels, and allows the common vessels to make themselves," or "God makes some of the
clay into noble vessels, and passes by the rest preexisting common vessels." No, instead, Paul says, "God
makes the noble vessels and the common vessels out of the same lump of clay." Thus this passage offers
definite support to unconditional active reprobation and supralapsarianism. It does not help to regard the
"clay" as already sinful, since Paul says that God makes the common vessels out of it. He does not use
passive terms like "permit" or "pass by." Reprobates do not make themselves. It is God who makes them,
and he makes them as reprobates.
8
Now, an analogy is an analogy, and a successful one only needs to accurately make its
intended point. Scripture is perfect, and Paul’s inspired analogy is perfect for its purpose.
It illustrates that the divine potter has the right to fashion the human clay into any type of
vessel and for any purpose he chooses, and the creature has no right to protest against the
Creator.
But an analogy remains an analogy – it does not intend to represent every aspect of the
objects that it illustrates. By pointing this out, the objection seeks to protect human
freedom. However, we cannot relax the analogy for one object without also doing the
same for the other objects in the same analogy; otherwise, there would be a tremendous
distortion between the relationship of these objects. So, if we must break away from the
analogy to consider the true nature of man, then God must also break away from the
analogy so that we can consider his true majesty and power.
Contrary to their expectation, once we relax the analogy, the situation becomes even less
favorable for our opponents. Rather than preserving any human freedom, the full
sovereignty of God is exposed, and all the limitations imposed upon the "potter" by the
analogy are now lifted. And for the same reason already mentioned when we discussed
robots and puppets, God has much more control over us than a human potter has over
clay and pottery. By breaking the analogy, the objection moves to reclaim freedom for
man, but instead it destroys all traces of human freedom and fully uncovers God’s
sovereignty, a creating and ruling power infinitely greater than any human potter can
exercise over lumps of clay.
As for moral responsibility, we have already addressed the topic. The truth is that moral
responsibility presupposes divine sovereignty and judgment, not human freedom, and the
more sovereign God is, the more sure the judgment will be. The more control God has
over all things, the more moral responsibility is established. Since divine sovereignty is
absolute, divine judgment is therefore certain – because God is sovereign, there will be a
judgment. God is sovereign and man is not free. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Without hesitation or qualification, we can boldly proclaim, "Our God reigns!"

how do you explain: John 1:13, explains how a person is born again, “which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Doesn't that defeat your idea of being or having 'free will'?
Pilgrim

I agree with this statement whoelheartedly

But, again not to argue but look at the verses preceding the one you quoted directly above:

Here we see a few verses where the sovereign God came to his own, but they didn't receive him. We also see that the whole world which was made by him received him not. We also see in the twelfth verse that men received him.

The only thing I am trying to balance here is the conception that people could get from a hyper-calvinistic view(please understand, I am not accusing you of this) of irresistable grace which states that men have no acknowledgeable choice in the matter of salvation. That man cannot quench or resist the spirit, that they cannot have a mind of their own, if they are of the elect(according to their mind).

Hyper-calvinism states that the elect are set, that there is no need for evangelization because the elect will be saved no matter what, and if you are not of the elect(according to their mind), then you cannot be saved. It states that if you are not of the "elect" then there is no way the Holy Spirit will ever urge you and you have no chance for salvation.

These are the things of hyper-calvinism which I am against.

Love in Christ,

Jim

The other thing of which I am against in hyper-calvinism is the fact that the hyper-calvinistic doctrine seems to claim that they know who is urged by the Holy Spirit.

If a man is struggling with the idea of salvation, and seems to be fighting the Holy Spirit, and he goes out and gets killed in a car wreck, did he effectively resist the Holy Spirit? Or was he really indeed being urged by the Holy Spirit? We do not know, plain and simple. It is for God alone to know, we only instrumentate the Gospel as we are called to be a witness.

True Calvinists know to say that according to God's sovereignty, God alone knows who he will, and will not urge(John 6:44). It is not for any Calvinist, Arminianist, or anyone else for that matter, to know.

Love in Christ,

Jim