What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath were fit for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (v.22-24)

22. And what, etc. A second answer, by which he briefly shows, that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the tidings contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God's predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.
   But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost every word must be examined. He then argues thus, - There are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction: they are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God's vengeance and displeasure. If the Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful examples, and also to make known his power, to exhibit which he makes them in various ways to serve; and, further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth ; - what is there worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction, is no matter of wonder. He indeed takes it as granted, according to what has been already said, that the reason is hid in the secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose justice it behooves us rather to adore than to scrutinize....It is the second reason which manifests the glory of God in the destruction of the reprobate, because the greatness of divine mercy towards the elect is hereby more clearly made known; for how do they differ from them except that they are delivered by the Lord from the same gulf of destruction? and this by no merit of their own, but through his gratuitous kindness. It cannot then be but that the infinite mercy of God towards the elect must appear increasingly worthy of praise, when we see how miserable are all they who escape not his wrath.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power overthe clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (v.19-21)

Here is the really deep mystery of God's sovereignty over creation. Even though God is ULTIMATELY responsible for everything that happens, man must accept some moral responsibility. If that were not the case, then God would be the author of sin. This is a problem with the supralapsarian position taken by many Calvinists. We have been made by God and he ordains our ends but SOMEHOW we still have free will and are are (sic) responsible for our actions while God is free from any taint of moral blame. What the objector in these verses was seen as doing according to St. Paul is denying free will and moral responsibility, not divine predestination. God made us with free will and we misuse it. That is not God's fault. It is ours.
   Admittedly, this is not a simple matter to resolve. How can God be toatlly (sic) sovereign while man is still personally responsible for sin? There is no simple answer. This is a mystery that should humble us. But we need to have faith in God and his goodness as well as his overall sovereignty. Likewise we must accept moral responsibility and admit that we are sinners before God.

Paul well knew the objections man presents to the words he had just penned. If God has mercy solely based upon His good pleasure, and if God hardens Pharaoh on the same basis, all to His own glory and honor, how can God hold men accountable for their actions, for who resists His will? Paul's response is swift and devastating: Yes indeed God holds man accountable, and he can do so because He is the Potter, the one who molds and creates, while man is but the thing molded. For a pot to question the Potter is absurd: for man to answer back to God is equally absurd. These words cannot be understood separately from the fundamental understanding of the freedom of the Sovereign Creator and the ontological creaturelinessof man that removes from him any ground of complaint against God. Though already devastatingly clear, Paul makes sure there is no doubt left as to his point:

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:21-24)

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part V)

07/24/2005 - James White

   Sippo continues in reference to Romans 9:14-16,

This is locus classicus for the doctrine that there is no strict merit before God. God is not obligated to reward the creature for morally upright works done by the natural man apart from God or His covenants. This does not exclude the possibility of condign merit {due to the obedience of faith under enabling grace} or even congruous merit {rewards based on a covenantal agreement}.

Jacob and Esau were not a part of the Abrahamic covenant? Where does the text discuss such issues as condign or congruous merit? Such an introduction of extraneous concepts utterly derails the Apostle's argument, showing once again how the faithful Roman Catholic simply cannot engage in direct exegesis of the text when Rome has "infallibly" defined what the text can or cannot say. When you find someone not deriving their beliefs from the text, but instead having to argue, "well, that does not necessarily exclude what I believe," you know you are looking at unbiblical presentation. Once again Calvin spoke with clarity:

It may indeed appear a frigid defence that God is not unjust, because he is merciful to whom he pleases; but as God regards his own authority alone as abundantly sufficient, so that he needs the defence of none, Paul thought it enough to appoint him the vindicator of his own right. Now Paul brings forward here the answer which Moses received from the Lord, when he prayed for the salvation of the whole people, I will show mercy, was Gods answer, on whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. By this oracle the Lord declared that he is a debtor to none of mankind, and that whatever he gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that he can confer it on whom he pleases; and lastly, that no cause higher than his own will can be thought of, why he does good and shows favor to some men but not to all.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part IV)

07/23/2005 - James White

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. (v.14-16)

   Our readers might find it useful to compare and contrast Art Sippo's comments on this text with my own from my response to Dr. Norman Geisler in The Potter's Freedom. First Sippo's commentary:

This is a classic statement about the sovereignty of God. Notice what this DOESN'T say. It does not say that God will condemn whomever he wills to but only that he will be merciful on anyone whom he chooses. This is why the Council of Orange in 529AD determined that God predestines the righteous to glory but does not actively predestine the wicked to perdition. This council's teaching was defined as official Church teaching by the Popes contemporary to it and reaffirmed later at the Council of Nicea II in 787AD.

Now, my own:

Paul is ready with an Old Testament example to buttress his arguments: Exodus 33. This tremendous passage contains themes that find their full expression only in the New Testaments full revelation of the doctrines of Gods free and sovereign grace. God showed mercy and compassion to Moses, choosing to reveal His glory as an act of grace. We must understand, in light of the prevailing attitude of the world around us, that Gods mercy, if it is to be mercy at all, must be free. Literally the text speaks of mercying and compassioning, again verbs of action that find their subject in God and their object in those chosen by His decision. It does not say, "I will have mercy on those who fulfill the conditions I have laid down as the prerequisite of my plan of salvation." Both the source of compassion and mercy and the individual application find their ultimate ground only in the free choice of God, not of man.
   This divine truth, so offensive to the natural man, could not find a clearer proclamation than Romans 9:16. We truly must ask, if this passage does not deny to the will of man the all-powerful position of final say in whether the entire work of the Triune God in salvation will succeed or fail, what passage possibly could? What stronger terms could be employed? The verse begins, "so then," drawing from the assertion of God that mercy and compassion are His to freely give. Next comes the negative particle, "not," which negates everything that follows in the clause. Two human activities are listed: willing and literally "running," or striving. Human choice and human action. Paul puts it bluntly: it is not "of the one willing" nor is it "of the one running." Paul uses two singular present active participles. The fact that they are singular shows us again the personal natureof the passage. The interpretation that attempts to limit Romans 9 to "nations" cannot begin to explain how nations "will" or "run." In contrast to these Paul uses a present active participle to describe Gods act of "mercying," showing mercy. Man may strive through his will and his endeavors, but God must show mercy.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part III)

07/22/2005 - James White

   I continue with my response to Art Sippo regarding Romans 9. Sippo then cited two very lengthy passages of Scripture, Ezekiel 33:8-20, and the entirety of Romans 2. Unfortunately, he offered not a word of exegesis, and not the slightest interaction with the texts themselves, outside of a grand and sweeping conclusion,

In both of these excerpts, the Bible teaches that God will judge men according to their works and not according to some arbitrary standard of his own that merely meets his 'good pleasure' as prots have misrepresented it.

   It is indeed hard to imagine a less accurate reading of Holy Scripture than this summary offered by Art Sippo. Unfortunately, Sippo's conclusion is so brief, so shallow, it is next to impossible to know what he means by it. Is he saying there is some lower standard than God's own perfect holiness? Is he denying that no unclean thing shall enter into God's presence? Or is he saying that men can somehow get themselves cleaned up by some process sufficiently to slip into glory? I can't think of a single Protestant who would see even the faintest glimmer of their own faith in this kind of rhetorical straw-man. It would be fascinating to see Sippo attempt an exegetical demonstration of his claims, but this is a detour from the subject at hand anyway, which is Romans 9. Of course, he makes no attempt to connect this meandering commentary to Romans 9, but just moves back to the subject directly:

Notice that in the above section of Romans 9 St. Paul does NOT say that Esau was damned but rather he emphasizes that "the older will serve the younger." This seems to be dealing with something other than 'salvation' in the strict sense.

   Paul does not, indeed, say Esau was damned. Indeed, that is a rather rare statement in all of Scripture at all, and if one must have such a direct statement, there will be very few who are damned to be sure. In any case, the text does tell us that Paul is addressing God's freedom in choosing Jacob over Esau; that whatever this choice is about it has something to do with a fact Sippo utterly ignores and that is directly contradictory to his own position: "for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls...." Why would Paul refer to actions "good or bad" and make reference to "not because of works but because of Him who calls"? How is a non-salvific choice relevant to "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"? And why would any of this result in the accusation of injustice in v. 14, that is answered with reference to mercy in v. 15? Serious exegesis takes these things into consideration, while those simply seeking to vindicate a human tradition do not need to be bothered with such details. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part II)

07/20/2005 - James White

I continue with my response to Art Sippo regarding Romans 9. Sippo wrote,

This is based on a philosophy of Voluntarism stemming form Ockham's theory 'absolute divine power.' According to Voluntarism, if God is bound to act by a moral standard, that standard sits in judgement on Him and He is not truly sovereign. 'Good and evil' in this system are defined purely by the will of God, not by the actions that God requires of men. Since there is no essential goodness, God can dispose of any person without regard to what they have done. The Bible real [sic] knows nothing of this demonic idea. Instead, it preaches the existence of essential goodness and evil and promises rewards and punishments accordingly.

   Actually, it is based upon the clear testimony of Scripture, not a theory of Ockham. It is hard to know exactly what Sippo means here. Is he postulating that good and evil exist outside of God as abstract principles to which God is subject? What is their origin, if this is the case? Is God actually bound by the same laws He has for men, or does His law reflect His essential nature while He is not bound to the same context as the creature? Obviously, Sippo is not accurately representing the real situation when he writes that from the Reformed perspective God "can dispose of any person without regard to what they have done." If by this he means God is free to do with His creation as He wishes, I would gladly affirm this; however, the context is not a theoretical one, but a soteriological one, and hence Sippo is presenting an egregious caricature, for while God's mercy and grace in granting life to the elect is surely ground solely in His sovereign pleasure, His disposition of the wicked is ground in His holiness and their sinfulness. This is such a basic element of Reformed teaching that one is forced to wonder what Sippo thinks he gains by such misrepresentation. But at this point I remember that he is not seeking to convince me, or anyone who believes as I do. He is speaking only to his constituency, no one else.
   Far from being demonic, the truth of the absolute sovereignty of God to act as king over His own creation is present throughout Scripture, and the Bible makes sure to assert that this freedom extends to that area where God is most glorified, that of the salvation of His people in Christ. I note some of the primary passages below.

Genesis 20:6: Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her.
Exodus 34:24: I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 2:30: But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the LORD your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.Joshua 11:20: For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Ezra 11:1, 7:27: In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing...Praise be to the LORD, the God of our fathers, who has put it into the king's heart to bring honor to the house of the LORD in Jerusalem...
Job 14:5: Man's days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9

07/19/2005 - James White

   Art Sippo, a Catholic layman and medical doctor, is well known for his virulent attacks upon "prots" and defenders of the "Deformation," etc. He has posted an attempt to interpret and explain Paul's presentation concerning the freedom of God in Romans 9, and though Dr. Sippo will not debate these issues live in public (he seemingly will only debate a single topic, that being justification), we can still interact with his attempted exegesis as it appears in his own writings, and we shall do so here.

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." (v.10-12)

   Before we can even begin Dr. Sippo's comments, we note that he begins long after the key exegetical question has already been asked and answered, as demonstrated by Dr. John Piper in his classic work, The Justification of God. Specifically, Paul is going to be dealing with the answer he himself has offered to the question, "Why do so many of your fellow Jews, Paul, reject Christ?" You see this in 9:1-7:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, ² that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. ³ For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, ⁴ who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, ⁵ whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. ⁶ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; ⁷nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

Paul's answer is found in vs. 6, "For they are not all Israel who are descendedfrom Israel." That is, God has been free in this matter of election from the very beginning. He is not limited by genetics and nationality, and never has been. The history of His dealings with Israel completely undercuts the objection of his Jewish opponents: their own history is a constant witness to God's freedom to act as He chooses. Paul will pile up illustration after illustration of this in what follows. Though Sippo does not begin where he needs to, he will eventually, after some meandering, recognize this over-arching theme, even if he does not make the proper application of it due to his very strong prejudice against the beliefs of "prots."

To what was Jacob elected? Was it to salvation? Or was it to the promise of Abraham? The two are not necessarily synonymous. In the Protestant religions where 'salvation' is equated with an arbitrary act of a capricious God who acts hedonistically solely for "his own good pleasure" salvation is an irrational and unmotivated act that has no logical connection to the qualities of the person being saved.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

11:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Brief Note Regarding an Earlier Series

07/12/2005 - James White

   I had noted that Mr. Latar had begun replying as soon as I posted my review of his position against sola scriptura and that this would result in a rejoinder from me. Upon reading his attempt, I see no reason to do so. There is no meaningful exegetical position put forward, no refutation of what I have said, with which to interact. Mr. Latar simply repeats his assertions, ignores the challenges presented by the exegesis of the text, and argues in a very tight circle that he is warranted to reject sola scriptura even if he can't provide you with the first bit of historical or biblical evidence of the existence of the kind of "oral tradition" he would have to have to "defeat" sola scriptura. No reason to invest space and time repeating what was already posted.

15:22:49 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Apolonio Latar and Sola Scriptura II of II

07/07/2005 - James White

   In our first installment we came to the point in Mr. Latar's presentation where he made the rather amazing claim that 2 Thes. 2:15 presents us with two infallible rules of faith, one written, and one oral, and that this disproves sola scriptura. As I have pointed out, Rome does not tell us a single word Paul ever said to the Thessalonians that is not found in Scripture. Not a syllable. And one could never cobble together any meaningful discussion of his oral preaching to the Thessalonians from any source not dependent upon Scripture. Hence, this is a completely theoretical argument that cannot even begin the task of demonstrating itself historically, and, of course, it flies in the face of the exegesis offered (and not rebutted by Mr. Latar). But he does at least make an effort to do so in the rest of his comments.

Again, Protestant commentators will say that this passage is not talking about any other infallible rule of faith. They may try to say that the "oral traditions" spoken in this verse is the same message as that of the written word (more specifically to 1 Thess.). But to say that oral traditions are the "same message" is ambigious.

   Ambiguous? How is the recognition of the singularity of the body of tradition, its relationship to the gospel, and the fact that there is no basis whatsoever for the assumption that what is referred to in Paul's preaching would differ at all in substance from what he wrote in his letters, at all "ambiguous"? Let us remember that Mr. Latar is here laying the foundation for the ultimate claims of infallible, supreme religious authority in the magisterium of Rome. Surely such a tremendous claim can find much more significantly compelling argumentation than this? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

13:33:13 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Crimson Catholic on Soteriological and Trinitarian Issues II of II

07/03/2005 - James White

   I had written:

And I cannot help but contrast such a statement with Jesus' own words, which again so strongly illustrate the contrast between the anthropocentric mind-set of Roman Catholicism (God wants to save, tries to save, but fails to save so often because He is dependent upon the cooperation of man's will--and yes, I know, that's Arminianism as well) and the theocentric mindset of inspired Scripture taken as a whole.

Prejean replies:

I can't believe that you haven't managed to grasp the distinction between Arminians and Catholics in fifteen years of debating.

   And I can't believe someone can think that the identification of a parallel regarding the views of Arminians and Roman Catholics on the nature of grace and the will of man means I conflate the two views or do not recognize their differences. This kind of rhetoric works great on the Envoy boards where no meaningful interaction can ever take place, but in a debate, that kind of statement would collapse in the blink of an eye. No one who seriously reads my works on either subject would ever, ever even suggest that I say the two are identical or that I do not recognize the differences between them. But at the same time, on the key issues of the grace of God and the will of man, Rome and modern Arminians do, in fact, share wide swaths of agreement in direct and shared opposition to Reformed theology. This is not even a debatable proposition, which is why Prejean has to create a straw man before knocking it down, another tactic designed only to impress the home court audience, but one that would evaporate in real debate.

God is not dependent on the cooperation of man's will in Catholic soteriology; we believe in election and predestination, unlike Arminians, who believe that God responds to foreseen actions. The entire discrepancy between Calvinists and Catholics is over the philosophical problem of how to reconcile God's providence with free will, and Calvinism is simply a singularly poor attempt to do so based on a fatalistic Greek notion of cause and effect that isn't even logically necessary. You're the one saying that God is so feeble that he can't ordain the outcome of systems with voluntary causes, not us.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Incredible Example of Eloquent Double Standards

07/02/2005 - James White

   What is the best way to hide the fact that you have been guilty of engaging in consistent ad hominem argumentation and are not, in fact, capable of a meaningful defense of your position? Of course! Accuse the other guy of everything you have done! If he says someone who is in error is "confused," don't look at that as a nice way of pointing out error, instead, make it a glowing example of how mean and nasty and stupid he is! Jonathan Prejean's utter melt-down in the use of double-standards, and his obvious emotionalism in the face of calm refutation of his false accusations, is a thing to behold. It does not even require response for any semi-reasonable person who is not ready to jump on their horse and head off to the Crusades. Read it here, if you need another example of how Roman Catholic apologists can face the reality of history and the Scriptures and still affirm their dogmatic beliefs. When you can twist anything someone says the way Prejean does, you can do the same to the Scriptures, the early Christian writers---anything. And one last "application note": realize that it makes no difference the level of education or erudition; the very same emotionalism that produces the wild-eyed flames of john6jmj produces this far more eloquently stated, but no less hypocritical and emotionally-driven rhetoric of Prejean.

12:09:01 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Crimson Catholic on Soteriological and Trinitarian Issues I of II

07/01/2005 - James White

   Part of the reason I even responded to the assertions of Patty Bonds last evening was because I knew, in light of the current spate of "Hate White" posts following the Great Debate X, one of those, probably on Envoy, who are so highly impressed with themselves, would seek to jump all over it. That would give me the opportunity to 1) at least address a meaningful topic (the gospel, not how "lifeless" and heartless and mean-spirited I am), 2) within a meaningful context (Scripture), and 3) illustrate the massive explosion of pure hypocrisy in the RC apologetics community (at least as it is represented by Envoy and a large portion of posters on the CA forums) that has (whether they know it or not) shocked many who have observed it. I will not even honor those who have provided some of the most glaring examples of "hatred in the service of my own ego" of late--they don't deserve it. But one thing is for sure: there is nothing I can say, no matter how clearly, no matter how obvious the context, that cannot be twisted into an insult in service of Mother Church. And the double-standards embraced by entire communities (Envoy esp.) have simply been beyond belief.
   "Crimson Catholic" is Jonathan Prejean, who called the Dividing Line a while back and apologized for his own part in the use of ad hominem argumentation. He has engaged Eric Svendsen in discussions, and is currently going back and forth with Steve Hays as well. Unfortunately, the repentance in reference to me did not last long, as the recent week has demonstrated. In any case, he has commented on my brief response to the assertion that one of the greatest truths of God's self-glorification in salvation, that being the perfection of the work of the Son in the salvation of the elect, is "the single most dangerous teaching being spread in the name of Christianity." Now, in light of all of the heresies that exist today--inclusivism, open theism, the denial of the deity of Christ or the resurrection, etc.,--the statement is highly suspect on its face, of course. But I did not even address that aspect. I wanted to provide a brief comparison, a fair comparison, knowing that folks like Mr. Prejean, if they followed the line of non-reasoning that has swept over the Envoy web forum of late, would leap upon it with glee, and I was not disappointed. Prejean begins: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives