A response to Chrysostom -- (and the man who quoted him)

I recently had a lively conversation with someone of the Orthodox persuasion.

He supplied this article to support his view that the Synergistic description of salvation is true to Scripture.

The article was a quote of Chrysostom's commentary on Romans 9.

Verse 20, 21. “Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter (Read Jeremiah 18:1-10) power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?”

Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. (emphasis supplied)

Is this really so?
The article continues to say:

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, divers incongruities will follow for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these , and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice.

Assertion 1. Romans 9 is not addressing God's sovereignty over man's will.
Assertion 2. If God is responsible for Election, man is not responsible for his actions.

And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice.

Assertion 3. The text does not claim that God chooses whether a 'vessel' is 'honorable or dishonorable', but in fact, man chooses the honor / dishonor of a vessel.

Verse 22, 23, 24. “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath chosen, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.”For that it is not God’s wish that His power be so made known , but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways.

Assertion 4. God's long-suffering with Pharaoh was principally to allow repentance, God did not desire that Pharaoh be destroyed.

As then Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath by his own lawlessness, so did these become vessels of mercy by their own readiness to obey.

Assertion 5. There was a real (not merely theoretical) possibility of Pharaoh repenting of sin, and yielding to God.

Assertion 6. The essential distinction between objects of wrath and mercy rests entirely in the will of the creature.

Assertion 7. The Bible promotes the idea that man possesses free will, in the modern usage of "free will".

I was warned (after referencing Paul's praise of the Bereans for comparing Paul's teaching to Scripture) that, quote, "Challenging the accepted wisdom of the church universal is a dangerous thing to do when armed with only your (or my) personal (and failed) understanding of scripture.

My answer to this, speaking as a Protestant, is that I do not view any non-canonical source as above scrutiny. I make no apologies for this.

In fact, the more a text is associated with a tradition, the more natural it is to challenge whether its claims conform to Divine Writ. Man has an enormous ability to elevate tradition above God himself (as Jesus testified in Mark 7). Traditions are often accepted uncritically. If every true child of God is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, nothing prevents those who seek it to be led into all Truth by the same Spirit who was sent to do just that.

Let us weigh the statements made here, to determine whether they resonate with the clear tones of Scripture, or whether they run at cross-purposes.

Reply #1: This text is speaking directly, intentionally, and specifically to God's will being sovereign over man's destiny.
I maintain that this is consistent with the passage, (chapter and book) as well as the tone, direction and context:
a) The topic of the chapter: verses 1-6 Paul lamenting apostasy of Israel.
b) Apostasy is not to be considered evidence of God's word failing. (v. 6)
c) Children of promise are the TRUE Israel. (v.7,8) (Who's promise? God's!)
d) Contrast of Jacob / Esau --- Loved / hated, "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand" (v. 11, 12)
- Defense of God's righteous character with respect to selection "d". (v. 14/15)
- If decision had been based on the merit of Jacob's /Esau's choices (whether articulated as past or future events) who could possibly charge unfairness or favoritism? But if they are elect -- solely on God's decision -- then human views of reward / punishment will cry 'foul'. This explanation is provided for exactly that objection.
e) Mentions God's active will in v. 18 (whom he wants to harden)
f) Refers to the remnant, giving God credit for its existence. (compare "I have reserved for myself 7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal.)

Reply #2: In answer to "election removes responsibility of man's actions."

Dead wrong.

Man is completely responsible for guilt. (All are guilty) What God is responsible for, is redemption or judgment.
a) God is not the author of sin.
b) Man's moral obligation to live uprightly still stands. If man did so, he would merit heaven. His moral inability -- rather than being a helpful excuse for this failure -- is a further evidence against him.
c) Man sins anyway. He has an appetite for sin. This causes man to prefer worldliness to godliness. It makes him an enemy of God, and subject to God's wrath.

John 3:19,20 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed

d) Divine justice would thoroughly vindicate a Holy God had He purposed to condemn the entire race. If He did, any man judged had only himself to blame. [...let not he who is tempted say he is tempted by God.](James 1:13)"
e) To some among this sorry lot of humanity -- each one being every bit as wicked and God-hating as the Devil himself -- God graciously grants saving faith. This faith, (itself a gift of God (Eph 2:8)) quickens the recipient to repent of sin, and exalt Jesus Christ.

Reply #3. In response to "the Potter (God) does not choose honor / dishonor, but the way it is used determines that."

Really?

Can an ashtray, garbage can or chamber pot be used "honorably?"
Is a clay pot on equal honor 'footing' with a Ming vase? Can an ashtray choose to be served as a fine China?
a) Review the context: "Then why does God still blame us?"
-Q. Blamed how? A. For moral failings worthy of eternal judgment.
- Q. Why ask this question? A. If God determined which articles are to be used "for honor" and which for "dishonor" how does man retain responsibility for a decision made by God?
- If the context is suggesting that God does NOT purpose the eternal destiny (Election) of men, [as is claimed by Chrysostom] then this question need not be asked let alone answered. It would be obvious that God has 'no part' in man's response to the invitation of grace, and it would be stupid to blame God for our response.
-Q. What distinctions are being made, what two groups are being represented in this imagery? Righteous / unrighteous... Jacob/Esau... etc. Answer: the elect and the condemned.
-who has resisted his will? (v. 19) (still trying to transfer blame for their condition to God)
-the cry might go up: "Unfair! You created me for destruction!"
-The Potter analogy is the answer the charge of God's choosing being somehow unfair, and its meaning (taken in context) is completely opposite to the one proposed by Chrysostom.

Reply #4 In answer to: "God was providing Pharaoh opportunity to repent. Destruction resulted only following his rejection of grace."
This is inconsistent with God's own account elsewhere.
a) God takes credit (assumes responsibility) for the hardening of Pharoah's heart. (See: Ex. 7:3,4; Ex 4:21; Ex 9:12; Ex 10:1; Ex 10:20, 10:27; Ex 11:10; Ex 14:4, 14:8; 14:17 etc.) This is also interspersed with other verses in which Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The hardened heart was BOTH/AND. Both God AND Pharaoh hardened the Pharaoh's heart.
b) There are scriptures where God is patient, waiting that all should repent. (2 Peter 3) Although cited above to imply God waited for Pharaoh's salvation, this does not, in context, mean God is waiting for all people to repent. It means God is suspending judgment until the end of the age for all who will repent, throughout all the ages. (See Matt 13)
c) Israel was made to wait until the earlier inhabitants of the promised land filled up the measure of their wickedness, before God gave it to them.

Reply #5. In response to: "yielding to God was a legitimate option realistically available to Pharaoh."
How could Pharaoh possibly have yielded to God?
-God was an active participant in the hardening of his heart.
-God resists the proud.
-Refer again to John 3:20.

Reply #6. In response to the notion that: whether something is an object of wrath or honour is entirely dependent upon the purposes (will) of the creature.
This is not borne out in scripture.
a) We are all commanded to repent, but some were told to repent and seek him, with no specific promise that God would accept them when the had done so. (Acts 8:22)
b) John 1:13 says specifically that salvation is not initiated by the agency of human will ("not of the will of man, but of God.")
c) We do not control the circumstances of our repentance.
-There is a time in which one may wish to repent, but will be unable to. Heb 12:16,17.
-There is a time in which "He may be found" Isaiah 55:6-7.

Reply #7. With respect to free will, this article claims that Paul "always bestows chief honor upon free choice."
What??
In what sense is man's will ever free in the modern, secular sense, particularly in the Pauline writings!?!
We are truly slaves either to sin or righteousness. Unless God is a liar, that is.

Romans 6:16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Truth be told, the Reformed position is genuinely consistent with free choice.

Sinful man:
-John 3:20 "hates the light, and will not come into it lest his deeds be exposed" and
-Has a carnal mind which
-is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)

-does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)

-will act in a manner consistent with his own character by embracing evil over good, when presented with both options. He will crucify the Lord of Glory, and call for the release of a murderer. To do otherwise is to deny the truth of his nature.
Even good itself does not appear to be "good" to such a person in the fallen state.

Try to pronounce life to Ezekiel's dead bones.
Call Lazarus from the grave.
Command the paralytic to stand and take up his mat.
Command the dead soul to "live to God".
What happens?
-Nothing, most of the time.
Nothing, if it is done merely "by the will of man".

If, however, it is accomplished through a divine miracle, we see with new eyes. We are given new affections and appetites. We have been granted faith to believe, and have become a new wineskin.

As truly as we authentically sought our own destruction, and could do nothing less, we now (being no longer blind) recognize the goodness of God, and embrace it.

Thus, God is truly Sovereign, and gets the glory due His Great Name.
Also, man has acted in complete agreement with his will.