Enabled by God

(This is the conclusion of a four part blog series on Romans 9. Feel free to view Part I, Part II, and Part III for proper context)

Before we get lost in the theological high weeds, I would like to thank all of you for walking this treacherous road with me. Now let’s carry on!

In Romans 9:19 Paul answers another objection that arises from this revelation of God’s election of some and not others for salvation.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”(Romans 9:19)

In other words, if God is in control of who is hardened and who is not, then how can He condemn the hardened? Paul does not resort to “free will” language to resolve this problem. Instead he gives this:

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
(Romans 9:20-24)

In Romans 9:20-21 we run into the much maligned potter/clay analogy of Paul. Paul makes an argument from lesser to greater. If a human potter has the right to form his clay as he pleases how much more does the King of the Universe have the right to form the destiny of His creatures as He pleases? We have no right to dispute with our Maker. The fact that God chooses to save anyone is amazing and a testimony to His great grace. Just as Jacob and Esau came from the same womb, God draws mankind from the same “lump”, or the same mass of fallen unredeemed humanity. No man has any merit over another, whether it be by pedigree or righteous choice. All are in the same sinking boat (Romans 3:23).

An objection is made by the Arminian in Romans 9:21 because OT passages like Jeremiah 18:1-6 have similar language and are referring to the corporate nation of Israel. This doesn’t necessarily help their case because we also have an OT passage like Isaiah 29:16, which has language that more closely parallels the potter/clay analogy in Romans 9:21 than other OT passages. Isaiah 29:16 is talking about individual wicked men, so if this is the OT text Paul is drawing from it would confirm his flow of thought and the problem he raised from Romans 9:1-5 (unlike the OT passages with corporate meanings)

There is an additional objection made by the Arminian in Romans 9:22 that goes something like this: “No potter makes a vessel for destruction, that would be ridiculous!”

It would possibly be ridiculous if “destruction” could only be referring to a shattering or annihilation of a vessel. But there is no need to restrict it to that meaning here. “Destruction” has a much deeper meaning, especially when eternal destinies are at stake. Hell is a place of eternal conscious “destruction” of the soul, not annihilation or a ceasing to exist. “Destruction” in Romans 9:22 is the same Greek word used to intimate hell in Matthew 7:13.

Our understanding of “destruction” should also be linked to “dishonor” in it’s parallel verse (Romans 9:21). Potters do indeed make vessels for dishonor. Consider first century waste bins, where unwanted trash, rotten food and maybe even human waste were disposed of. In the end, even a vessel of dishonor shows the skill and prerogative of the Potter.

There are also some pertinent grammatical nuances taking place in Romans 9:22-23. The word “fitted” in Romans 9:22, as in “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,” is in the passive voice. The wording “He prepared” in Romans 9:23, as in “the vessels of mercy He prepared beforehand for glory,” is in the active voice. This has led many Reformed thinkers to propose that God is necessarily the divine action that brings men to glory, while God is passive in His treatment of the vessels of wrath. In a way, the vessels of wrath prepare themselves for hell by their own depraved heart, while the vessels of mercy must be born again by God to prepare them for glory (Titus 3:5-6). This is what becomes a stumbling point for many regarding the doctrine of “double predestination.”

“God doesn’t create babies just to send them to hell!” is usually the emotional argument used against the Reformed view.

But again, there is not an equal divine action that separates the elect from the non-elect, though in God’s sovereignty there is at least an equal divine ultimacy, as Romans 9 teaches. Man’s own willful sinful rebellion in this life is what sends him to hell, God’s active casting happens after man’s life at judgment (Matthew 10:28-30)

Here the Arminian has not carried out their own theology to it’s logical end. The free willer is not saving God from any supposed injustice by denying His electing grace or predestination. Let’s flip the table on their own argument and take up the Arminian view: If God has perfect foreknowledge (which all orthodox free willers hold to), then He at least knows who will accept or reject Christ out of there free will. Yet God the Creator has still chosen to create people He knows will reject Christ and will be sent to hell.

My Arminian brethren, why would God choose to create people (or “babies” as you say) He knows He must send to hell for an eternity?

If you believe the biblical purpose God created all things was to display the “free will” of man, then you are a staunch Arminian indeed and no scriptural reasoning will do for you. But if the biblical purpose God created all things was to display His glory, then we are beginning to grasp the argument of Paul and, I believe, the Reformed view.

As was the case with part III covering Romans 9:14-18, God did not “work” evil in Pharaoh’s heart but did use Pharaoh’s evil for His glory. When mankind fell through the willful sin of Adam, the willful sin of all justly condemned all. God does not need to “work” new evil in any man, but evil man absolutely must have God “work” new righteousness in him for salvation (John 3:3).

Remember the discussion of part III, God’s glory is directly linked to His merciful election of us. Romans 9:23 refers to God’s glory twice, the first “glory” is the riches He gives to elect, the second “glory” is His purpose for saving the elect. Whether it’s His “power” He’s displaying through the vessels of wrath, or His “glory” He’s displaying through the vessels of mercy, God has His own esteem in mind. God’s mercy is the way His glory shines brightest. But for the star of God’s mercy to radiate in it’s full force it must be placed up against the dark backdrop of His wrath:

Daniel Fuller communicates this truth better than I could ever attempt to:

“It is surely right for God to prepare vessels of wrath, for it is only by so doing that He is able to show the exceeding riches of His glory, the capstone of which is His mercy. For God not to prepare vessels of wrath would mean that He could not fully reveal Himself as the merciful God. Then creation could not honor Him for what He really is, and God would have been unrighteous, for in the act of creation He would have done something inconsistent with the full delight He has in His own glory.”

If God failed to act with wrath against the prepared vessels of wrath He would be disregarding His own glory. If He disregarded His own glory not only would He fail to act with wrath, He would also fail to act with mercy, and He would cease altogether of being God.

If it wasn’t this way no one would be saved, neither Jew or Gentile. Romans 9:24 confirms the flow of the entire chapter up to this point and displays again that individual souls are the focus of Paul’s discussion, not a nation. Paul makes this election reality intensely personal to “even us, whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.” (Romans 9:24) This calling given to us is the effectual calling of God that brings us to faith in Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14)

In conclusion…

Romans 9 is not written as an obscure and solitary island in Pauline thought. The preceding chapters of Romans 1-8 have systematically brought the reader to this essential chapter:

Romans 1-3 deals with the utter sinfulness of man and His dire spiritual condition apart from God’s righteousness. It is made abundantly clear in Romans that God is righteous in pouring out His wrath on mankind (Romans 1:18). All men are without excuse and all men are condemned under the law (Romans 3:19-20). None are righteous, none seek God, and none do good (Romans 3:10, 11, 12).. Man is neither able nor willing to lift a finger towards his own salvation, he cannot seek God so God must seek Him. Man is totally depraved as the Reformed doctrine confirms. If we don’t rightly grasp the depravity of man posited in chapters 1-3, the gracious election of God in chapters 8-9 will never reach it’s full beautiful force in our hearts.

All men are justly condemned to hell, yet in Romans 3:21-4:25 Paul introduces the saving righteousness of God in Christ through faith. Though God is righteous in judging sinners condemned under the law, He is also righteous in saving sinners through the perfect person and work of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:23-26). Jesus Christ, the perfect Son of God, has been put forth as the wrath bearing sacrifice for our sins so that we get the glory and righteousness He deserves. Paul makes it clear that Gentiles and Jews have both been offered this gift of free grace through faith.

In Romans chapters 5-8 Paul displays the living hope believers now have since acquiring the righteousness of God in Christ. Believers (both Jew and Gentile) are given an assurance of life eternal and future glory. Romans 8 has some of the most precious promises in the entire Bible, with it all culminating with the grand and beautiful conclusion of Romans 8:31-39.

In chapter Romans 9, Paul answers a question (he really answers it fully in chapters 9-11). If God’s promises to ethnic Israel were unfulfilled in Old Covenant, how can we be sure his promises to us will be fulfilled in the New Covenant? How can we be assured Romans 8 is for us?

The answer to that question has been the primary focus of this series: We have found that we can be sure of God’s faithfulness because of His electing grace He has given us in eternity past.

In Romans 10 we find the sovereign means by which God plans to draw people to Himself: By the sending of messengers who will preach the message of the gospel (Romans 10:14-16). How does one come to faith in Christ? Through hearing someone preaching the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). (If you would like to see our brief article on the main distinction between hyper-Calvinism and historic Calvinism go here)

Far from discouraging evangelism, the election of God ensures our success as evangelists! If we go and share Christ God has promised He will bring people to Himself (Malachi 1:11). He will be faithful to bear fruit with the proclamation of His Son. What an indescribable privilege God has given to those of us in Christ (Acts 1:8). All of our evangelism efforts are invincible through God’s sovereign grace. Reformed theology affirms evangelism as the only sure thing going these days!

Romans 11 deals with God’s future faithful treatment to a remnant in Israel. It’s a chapter almost as hotly debated as Romans 9.

Romans 12-16 deals with the practical implications of the Christian walk in everyday life. It displays how the staggering change saving grace made within us should look as outward living. Paul ends the book of Romans with some final instructions as the apostle to the Gentiles.

I am under no pretension that this brief series answers every reservation inquiring minds could bring up regarding election. But remember, the pressing matter is not whether it all makes sense to our finite and fallen minds, the real matter is whether this is what Scripture plainly teaches. While we rack our little brains trying to reconcile man’s responsibility with God’s sovereignty, these massive truths are easy for the mind of God. We can take heart and know His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are infinitely higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9).

We can’t conveniently dismiss Romans 9 as too controversial or ambiguous for serious discussion. Accusations of “intellectual grandstanding” or “schism” against those who would take up a sincere study of Romans 9 are unwarranted. I am sure both sides can improve on discussing the issue in a greater spirit of Christian charity. But God has intentionally spoken every word of Scripture for us to discover and delight in. If we are to know God we must know His word. So the meaning and mystery of every verse should be claimed and proclaimed whether we like the implications it brings or not. Romans 9 is no different.

If all Scripture is “God-breathed” and all Scripture is “profitable” then studying Romans 9 can be just as beneficial for the soul (even the lost one!) as studying John 3:16 (2 Timothy 3:16). I hope that through the illumination of the Holy Spirit this brief study has benefited you in some way.

I’ll end on a note I believe we all can agree on:

God bless and go share. To Him be the glory. (Matthew 28:18-20).

Bryan

Welcome miscreants to our much maligned study of Romans 9! : )

Just in case you are a Johnny-come-lately to the discussion I suggest you check out part I (Romans 9:1-5) and part II (Romans 9:6-13) for proper background. In part III we are going to pick up where we left off and follow Paul’s reasoning through verse 18:

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:14-18)

Considering what Paul just explained about the election of individuals in Romans 9:6-13, he knows a natural question will arise out of his readers. If God freely chose Jacob over Esau regardless of how good or bad they would be, then is God “just” or “righteous” in choosing the eternal destiny of one over another? (Romans 9:14)
Ask yourself: Would this controversial question over God’s justice arise out of God’s choice of a nation, or out of God’s choice over individuals? Paul knows he is introducing a truth that will be scandalous to the natural mind of men, so he anticipates the heated objection that will come up.

In Romans 9:15, Paul answers the objection in a very peculiar way. He quotes God’s words to Moses in Exodus 33:19: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Theologians call this a “verbal theophany” which God concludes in similar language in Exodus 34:6, 7.

But how does this verse satisfactorily handle the objection brought up in Romans 9:14? It seems Paul is reasoning in an almost circular way, saying, “God can save whomever he pleases, because God can save whomever he pleases.” Paul may be saying that, for what it means to be God is that He is a Sovereign King who can decree what He wills when He wills according to His good pleasure. But Paul may be saying a little more than that when we look at Exodus 33:18-19 in context.

Moses is interceding on behalf of transgressing Israel when he asks God:

“Please, show me your glory.” And God said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” (Exodus 33:18-19)

Moses asks for God’s glory, and as a result what God proclaims to be a manifestation of His glory is His free sovereign prerogative to “show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” In other words God seems to respond: “Moses, if you want to see my glory, goodness, and name manifested, then observe my sovereignty in election.” We alluded to this in part II where we saw our election is clearly tied to God’s glory in the church. God’s glory is most clearly seen by us when we behold the mystery that He sovereignly bestows grace on sinful wretches who have no deserving of it.

Romans 3:23 directly ties “unrighteousness” with the “falling short of the glory of God”, not just law breaking (Romans 3:22-23). By deduction we can conclude that to be righteous would be to attain or display the glory of God. This confirms the great function of the law to display God’s glorious character, rather than a rulebook for legalists.

This is the heart of God in election: His glory.

God must act in defense of His own glory. He would cease to be God if He did not. In the election of persons, God has His highest glory in view and it would be unrighteous of Him to pursue anything less (Isaiah 48:11). As John Piper is fond of saying, “God is not an idolator. He puts no one above Himself.” So if God is acting in election for the full esteem of His name and glory then He is acting rightly, or righteously, according to His character. This reasoning is how Paul puts the charge of “unrighteousness with God” in Romans 9:14 to rest.

Along with this God centered revelation, comes a shocking bolt to any remnants of pride we may have for acquiring our gift of salvation in Christ.

Romans 9:16 is the death blow for any argument that would posit that a free will choice is the basis of one’s election in Christ. It was a devastating blow to my long held presuppositions when I began to study it. Romans 9:16 remained there, as an irritating thorn in my long held Arminian perspective until I began to grapple with it’s ordinary meaning.

The implications are clear. A person’s election for salvation is not based on any choice originating within their hidden will or any action of outward physical exertion. Saving faith does not naturally arise in the mind, heart, or affection of mere men any more than a diamond would naturally arise out of a sewage dump (Jeremiah 13:23).

Our election is God’s only prescribed medicine for the fallen Adam nature we all inherited (Romans 5:12).

We can’t get frustrated here and just throw our hands up and say, “In the end, what we believe about Romans 9 doesn’t really amount to a hill of beans!” No,the very eternal throne of God’s sovereignty and glory is what is at stake here with our intepretation of passages like Romans 9:16.

The prince of preachers, Baptist minister CH Spurgeon, said of this passage:

If it be as God wills, then Jehovah sits as sovereign upon his throne of glory, and all hosts obey him, and the world is safe; if not God, then you put man there, to say. “I will” or “I will not; if I will it I will enter heaven; if I will it I will despise the grace of God; if I will it I will conquer the Holy Sprit, for I am stronger than God, and stronger than omnipotence; if I will it I will make the blood of Christ of no effect, for I am mightier than that blood, mightier than the blood of the Son of God himself; though God make his purpose, yet will I laugh at his purpose; it shall be my purpose that shall make his purpose stand, or make it fall.” Why, sirs, if this be not Atheism, it is idolatry; it is putting man where God should be, and I shrink with solemn awe and horror from that doctrine which makes the grandest of God’s works—the salvation man—to be dependent upon the will of his creature whether it shall be accomplished or not. Glory I can and must in my text in its fullest sense. “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

Dead men cannot muster up one inch of obedience and faith to warrant God’s grace, so it must be accomplished through God’s mercy and grace (Eph 2:3, 2:5, 2:8-10). We bring nothing to the table except a deep abiding need for mercy. Regarding our salvation, God’s perfect merciful will has the final say. This is a consistent thread in Scripture and is not confined to Romans 9 by any means (see John 1:12-13, Philippians 2:12-13).

Most importantly, consider the words of our own Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in John 6:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes I will never cast out (John 6:37)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sends me draws him (John 6:44)

No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (John 6:65)

No human being in the world has the natural spiritual or moral ability to come to Christ on his own unless God Himself gives him an inclination to do so. If we think Romans 9:16 is still strange it is because we mistakenly think God owes us anything, and we forget we deserve a sinner’s hell even on our best days (Romans 3:11-18).

John Newton used to tell a humorous story of a good woman in his church who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, “Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards.”

So it is with us. Unless God chose us, we would have never chosen Him.

In Romans 9:17, Paul brings up the OT arch enemy of God, Pharaoh, to display and preserve the free election of God on individuals.

Even in the midst of Pharaoh’s hardened heart God carried forth his purposes to make his name great. Paul’s quotation of Exodus 9:16 in Romans 9:17 brilliantly displays this. In mercy (Exodus 33:19) and in hardening (Exodus 9:16), God’s sovereign freedom is the means by which He declares the glory of His name. Pharaoh’s repeated insults of God inevitably set the stage for awesome displays of God’s power throughout the Exodus narrative.

Whether the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was a passive or active hardening by God is of little effect. The Reformed view holds that all men will ultimately harden their heart towards God’s purposes apart from the restraining grace of God. God didn’t work “fresh evil” in the heart of Pharaoh, for Pharaoh’s fallen heart was already manifestly evil. God did choose to not work grace or regeneration in the heart of Pharaoh though.

Here the Arminian usually constructs a straw man of the Reformed view in order to publically tear it down. They would opine that the Calvinist view would make God guilty of evil. What our precious free will friends fail to understand is that though God works all things according to His will (Ephesians 1:11), He does not work all things in the same exact way. He can work in man or around man to accomplish making His name great. Still, we can’t escape the fact that God promised Moses He would harden Pharaoh’s heart long before the evil ruler actually ever hardened his own heart in the narrative (Exodus 4:21). God’s own mysterious hand is indeed in the first act of resistance by Pharaoh in some way .

Men are not “merely pawns” as the Arminian intepretation of Calvinism would assert. They are really evil people who make really evil choices according to their nature (Romans 5:12-21).

To us, God’s election is a peculiar way to show there is no unrighteousness or injustice in God (Romans 9:14). But Paul’s view of God’s righteousness is this: God’s own commitment to preserve the honor of His name and display His glory (Ezekiel 36:22-27). God’s election of some and not others is righteous and just, for when God chooses unconditionally those who He will have mercy on He is acting out of full allegiance to His own name.

To keep the reader from assuming that such treatment by God was only relevant to Pharaoh’s day and age Paul draws the universal principle from his argument and applies it to all men: “(God) hardens whomever he wills, and he has mercy on whomever He wills.” (Romans 9:18)

We don’t deserve any better treatment than Pharaoh, but praise God for His mercy!

God’s election of individuals is indeed righteous because it is the way He intends to get the most glory for His name. If there were a better way to exalt Himself He would have done it.

Paul knows there is still some serious tension between man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty in all this election talk. In part IV, our final installment of the series covering Romans 9:19-24, Paul will attempt to answer a final objection. Namely, if God is in control of man’s destiny in such an absolute way why does He still find fault with man?

Keep it classy. Grace and peace!

Bryan

This little three part series has quickly morphed into a four part series. I encourage you to tough it out and delve into the Scriptures brought up here on your own, for there is no way I can do justice to all of the material that is warranted for this study.

Our focus for part II will be on Romans 9:6-13. Romans 9:6 puts a distinguishing mark between Israelites to answer the question of whether God has been unfaithful to them. So Paul’s argument goes:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Paul brings up God’s sovereign choice of Isaac over Ishmael. Consider Galatians 4:22-30 in the thought of Paul to help interpret Romans 9:7-9 for us. When reading the Galatians passage we find Paul is making a distinction between those born of the Spirit or the elect (Isaac), and those born under flesh and the law (Ishmael). This is not a general distinction between physical and national identities but rather a distinction between those who are lost and those who are saved.

Ishmael’s mother was an Egyptian. So in the mind of the typical Jew that may have automatically excluded him from the covenant. So to fortify his argument and close a potential loophole Paul brings up Isaac’s twin sons born of the same Jewish womb (Genesis 25:23). In verses 10-13, God’s choice of one individual (Jacob) over another (Esau) cannot be due to any distinguishing marks between the two (Jewishness or righteousness). Before the two were ever born God had made His sovereign free elective choice.

A common statement the Arminian makes about God’s election is that God simply foreknows what we will do or believe, and He has chosen us because we have chosen Him. The Arminian polemicist should be applauded for effectively turning the plain meaning of “chosen” or “elect” on it’s head. But in Romans 9:11 Paul outrightly rejects the possibility of God’s foreknowledge of good works as being any basis of His election of a person for salvation. God did not make His choice based on what the boys would do (“not because of works”), but because of His own sovereign purpose.

Remember, we are finding a solution to the problem raised in 1-5. It’s found overtly in Romans 9:11, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue not because of works but because of Him who calls…” Contrary to what the Arminian interpretation would claim, this is clear salvation language, similar to the language in Romans 9:24, 2 Timothy 1:9 and Romans 8:28-30. When God “calls” us in election, we can’t debate whether we would choose to answer it. There are two very different calls in Scripture, Romans 9 references the inward call that applies to the believer’s responsive heart (as does Romans 8:28), not the general public gospel call which should be proclaimed to all men (Matthew 22:14 shows this general call which actually confirms the Reformed view). This is the effectual calling of God that takes place in the heart of the called/elect that always reaches it’s desired end: their salvation and God’s glory. Look also at the goal of election according to Ephesians 1:3-6

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

He predestined us by His will to the praise of His glorious grace. Later in Ephesians 1:11-12 it is shown we are predestined by His will so that we “who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory.” Our election is the sovereign means by which God intends to get glory and honor for Himself. He would not leave such an awe-inspiring overarching purpose alone in the hands of wicked men, rather He has an invested and active interest in acquiring His glory (Isaiah 48:9-10).

God’s allegiance to His own glory in His free election of men will become more crystallized in Part III, as we observe Romans 9:14-18.

In Romans 9:11, Paul is hammering home his point to any doubter of God’s covenant faithfulness to the Jew. This is his explanation for why “it is not as though the word of God has failed (for the Jews).” In effect, he’s saying with verses 6-13: “God is doing exactly what he has purposed to do. His word has not failed! He is a KING who has accomplished and fulfilled his promises to His sovereignly chosen people. His election stands for many individuals in Israel, though not for all of ethnic Israel.”

Romans 9:13 is a citation from Malachi 1:2-3 “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” “Love” is probably likened to “choice” here and “hate” to “rejection”, rather than referring to affection and animosity. But that debate has little bearing on the passage for us. Because Malachi 1 references the descendants of Jacob and Esau, the Arminian interpretation holds that “Jacob” and “Esau” are only used as the representative heads of two nations: Israel and Edom. But Paul mentions neither Israel or Edom in verses 6-13, rather his focus is on the election of Jacob over Esau as individuals not representative heads (as the statement in Romans 9:6 indicates). God’s election of Jacob did have far reaching national implications that resulted in historic privileges, but it began with God’s grace towards an individual that had eternal implications. Jacob experienced God’s sovereign favor in his life, Esau experienced God’s rejection. Both deserved rejection. But praise God, one received grace and the messianic promise of Christ was preserved by God.

Consider the common Arminian interpretation. Ask yourself: why would Paul try to answer the problem of the unbelief of so many in Israel (v.1-5) by appealing to their national identity(6-13)? Is Paul really that random and absurd in his reasoning? The Arminian interpretation interrupts the flow and unity of Romans 9 as a coherent chapter. It says Paul begins with a concern about the salvation of his kinsmen (v.1-5), jumps to a tangential tirade about Israel’s elect “nationhood” (6-13), then randomly hops back to the salvation of men, both Jew and Gentile (Romans 9:24).

The Reformed view holds that Paul’s concern with the electing purpose of God in the salvation of men is the unifying thread throughout the whole ninth chapter of Romans.

As we have progressed it has become increasingly untenable to continue to try to hold the corporate view of Israel in Romans 9. Let’s try to apply another nail in that coffin.

When we interpret scripture with scripture we find that when Paul refers to people as “children of the promise”, “children of God” or “offspring” as he has in Romans 9:7-8, he is speaking of those individual Jews or Gentiles in Christ, not the nation of Israel in theocratic terms. For example, Galatians 3:29:

in Christ, you are Abraham’s offspring (or seed), heirs according to the promise

and later in Galatians 4:28:

Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise

In the New Covenant, Christians have become the “elect” people of God, and such language is no longer restricted to an ethnic nation of Israel. Paul is applying the general OT principle of election specifically to individual believers now.
.
In part III, Paul is going to answer the inevitable objection he knows is arising in the hearts of his readers: If God freely determines man’s eternal destiny before man can have any input on the matter, is God unrighteous or unjust? The reason Paul uses for postulating He is not is shocking to the senses of natural man.

Stay tuned and stay classy. Grace be with you.

Bryan

I guess we’ll just go ahead and jump headlong into the theological fray. No matter, our impact won’t even be a lonely raindrop in the ocean of far more superior scholarly works. In the coming days I’ll try (imperative word) to tackle Romans 9:1-24. It will be a three part “series” for the sake of blog brevity. It won’t be nearly a final word on the matter, but I do want to encourage everyone to observe that there are at least good reasons to take the Reformed view seriously regarding Romans 9. Of course the invitation is open to all for any comments, encouragements or critiques throughout.

There are billions of resources out there if you would like to do a much more thorough and technical study of Romans 9. I recommend thoughtfully perusing what you may find here. If you are a Greek geek you may want to try John Piper’s excellent book on the matter, “The Justification of God.” As far as this blog is concerned, what follows are just some cursory observations about a highly controversial set of passages from a guy with no formal theological training. So read and proceed with caution.

Let’s begin with Romans 9:1-5:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Paul is rending his heart wide open here. He is heartbroken over his nation’s rejection of Christ. Even with all the national benefits of being God’s choice ethnic people, for some reason many of them have remained in their unbelief.

In Romans 9:1-5 there is a provocative question raised by Paul. Namely, why are so many in the elect nation of Israel cut off from Christ? Paul is clearly concerned about the salvation of his Israel brethren, specific individual Israeli brethren. Paul does not desire to be accursed because Israel has forfeited it’s national (or theocratic) privileges by it’s rejection of Christ, rather Paul is anguished because so many people in the Jewish nation are forfeiting salvation and eternal life by their rejection of Christ.

If we forget the backdrop of verses 1-5, then the rest of chapter 9 will hold no coherence for us whatsoever.

Remember, context is king when interpreting Scripture. The whole reasoning behind verses 6-13 are that they are the answers to the concern Paul raised in verses 1-5. What’s the concern? Namely this: Why has overwhelming majority of Israel with all it’s historic privileges (covenant, prophets, law, patriarchs, etc.) rejected Christ and now has fallen short of the covenant promises? Has the word of God failed? Paul gives a succinct answer in the next verse, Romans 9:6:

“Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”

Paul makes a very important distinction here between the merely ethnic Israel (circumcised in the flesh) and the true spiritual Israel (circumcised in the heart).

Verse six is an important key to unlocking the meaning of chapter 9. Those of Arminian (free will) persuasion usually apply verses 6-13 to the collective national election of Israel, not the salvation of individual Jews. This is done in order to restrict election or predestination to nations rather than individuals. While listening to sermons on Romans 9 I’ve heard many Arminian preachers assert with vehemence, “These verses (6-13) have absolutely nothing to do with salvation!” Of course, this doesn’t make the predestination of individuals any easier to swallow for them in verses like Romans 8:28-30 or Ephesians 1:4-10, but it is doubtful those verses will be brought up in their handling of Romans 9 anyways.

Consider again the problem posed in verses 1-5 (why are so many in Israel in unbelief and going to hell?), and the response Paul gives to that problem in verse 6: Many Israelites of the flesh are not the true spiritual elect of Israel. Paul introduces similar language about the elect in Israel in Romans 2:28-29 and later in Romans 11:7:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened…

Given the fact that Paul’s deepest concern in verses 1-5 is about individual Jews condemned in their unbelief, verses 6-13 cannot be talking about Israel in collective or vague general terms. Verses 6-13 are not talking about a distinction of elect Israel with the rest of the world, but rather distinctions within Israel, between those are individually elect and those who are not Romans 9:6.

In part I, I have been purposefully repetitious regarding my main argument. If we can grasp these two major points here the rest of Romans 9 will begin to fall into place for us:
1. The nature and significance of Paul’s problem in Romans 9:1-5-why are so many who are of Israel accursed and apart from Christ?
2. Paul’s introductory answer to that problem in Romans 9:6. There is a distinction between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel. There is distinction between those of the flesh and those who are truly saved.

With those two points established it becomes clear Romans 9 is speaking not about corporate identities, but eternal destinies. To inject a corporate understanding of verses 6-13 makes Paul’s entire argument disjointed and incoherent.

In Romans 9:6-13, Paul tries to answer the next important question that comes by implication, “What then is the distinguishing mark of those who are saved/true Israel?” In part II, we will find the answer he gives has everything to do with God’s free electing mercy and nothing to do with man’s free will.

Grace be with you all.

Bryan

A few months ago, I wrote about an elephant dwelling in the back of our church sanctuaries. That post was about the prevalence of “porn” in the American church, and it included a short lament regarding our tendency to keep it a dirty little secret rather than shedding the gospel light on it. I called porn an elephant because when an elephant is in any room it must be at least be acknowledged, even with a passing comment or glance. Yet so many church leaders have taken the ridiculous stance of acting like the “porn elephant” is not seated among their own congregations, when statistics clearly show it is.

The porn elephant is not the only unwelcome beast in our midst that no one is talking about. Apparently, we have given a second elephant residence in our congregations while applying a similar silent treatment towards it. This elephant’s name is “Depression.” While no one is really talking about it almost all are struggling with it. Many take prescription drugs to numb the mood or escape from self for a short drug induced vacation. Many try to tough it out while wallowing in guilt because they know they shouldn’t be feeling this way.

Despondent saints are not a new trend in the church or bible history. Depression and doubt runs a thread through the life of almost every hero of our faith. Contrary to conventional wisdom, fruitfulness in ministry and the power of the Holy Spirit does not make one immune to deep bouts with the disease.

Nearly every publicly powerful leader on our spiritual pedestals has dealt with privately pitiful periods of despair (say that five times fast):

Job was the most righteous man on earth. Yet when all hell broke loose on his life he had some probing questions regarding the purposes of God. In cursing the moment of his birth instead of the birth itself, Job barely skirts what would have been blasphemous and suicidal language (Job 3:1-4).

The prophet Elijah just called down fire from heaven and saw the slaughter of every false prophet of Baal in a mighty display of God’s power and glory. The very next chapter of his life he is in a cave of despair doubting God’s providence and regretting his very existence (1 Kings 19:4, 10).

The prophet Jeremiah was made certain of his calling and election by God Himself (Jeremiah 1:5). After preaching God’s given message, Jeremiah saw no fruit in his ministry and only unrelenting torrents of judgment are poured out on the nation he loves. Jeremiah, broken and depressed, likewise curses the day he was born (Jeremiah 20:14).

Have you ever despaired over your life, even questioning the purpose of your existence? So it was with Job, Elijah, and Jeremiah for a time.

David killed lions, bears, and giants as a scrawny youth through God’s power. He was divinely chosen as Israel’s anointed king, lauded by his countrymen, and slaughtered every pagan army he faced through God’s might. Yet read the Psalms and you will see a man marked by dark bouts of depression during significant spans of his reign (Psalm 42:3, 9, 69:1-3).

Do you feel your tears are your only food and consolation? So it was with David for a time.

CH Spurgeon, the prince of preachers and hero of little reformers everywhere, was susceptible to this grim grip of despondency. In his sermon on the subject, he shares his personal struggles and reminds us to see the hand of God’s sovereignty in the midst of the dark episodes:

This depression comes over me whenever the Lord is preparing a larger blessing for my ministry. The cloud is black before it breaks and overshadows before it yields its deluge of mercy.

Depression has now become to me as a prophet in rough clothing, a John the Baptist heralding the nearer coming of my Lord’s richer benison. So have far better men found it. The scouring of the vessel has fitted it for the Master’s use.

Immersion in suffering has preceded the filling of the Holy Ghost. Fasting gives an appetite for the banquet. The Lord is revealed in the backside of the desert, while His servant keeps the sheep and waits in solitary awe.

The wilderness is the way to Canaan. The low valley leads to the towering mountain. Defeat prepares for victory.

You’re not alone. Most people in the church just don’t have the cajones to admit their weak estate. But with admitting should not come a wallowing, but rather a warring against such strongholds in us (2 Corinthians 10:5).

We should never use our fallenness as a convenient crutch or consolation.

Self pity and self-despair are just symptoms of self worship. We are not depressed because we hate ourselves so much; we are depressed because we love ourselves so much. It is natural to be fixated on self, that is why we need to ask God to supernaturally aid us in fixing our eyes on Christ (Eph 1:18). Christ is the end of self-worship for everyone who takes up their cross and follows Him (Matthew 16:24-25).

Depression, doubt and despair are not the unforgivable sins. Our current mental/emotional/spiritual state is not beyond the scope of God’s eternal grace. Chemical imbalances, genetic dispositions, difficult circumstances, and scarred childhoods are no match against the love of Christ and His Comforter being shed abroad in our hearts (Romans 5:5).

All of our bouts with depression this side of eternity are temporal bouts. We can take heart, for no current state of depression is ultimate. Surely, there is a despair that is ultimate. Eternally ultimate. But those who are in Christ will never taste it. The Son of God bore the eternal despair we deserved on the cross. In Him, we will never ever have to utter these words: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

We may lament, mourn, and be depressed this very moment. But we can say with David, our fellow despondent doubter, in the very next breath:

“Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me?
Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God.”
(Psalm 42:11)

Bryan

“Where do you go to church?” is a common question within the conversations of cultural Christianity.

An answer that includes a physical address, a large immaculate facility, and a denominational distinctive is usually what is expected (and is usually what is given).

If you are a Christian, the biblical answer is: “I am the church.”

The greek word for church in the New Testament is “Ekklesia.” Far from representing brick and mortar, “ekklesia” primarily means, “called out or called forth.” In the context of the gospel, the church is people who have been “called out” of darkness by God and into His light and new life (1 Peter 2:9). The key is not a building or a geographical location, but believers “called out” by God from eternity past for his glory (2 Timothy 1:9).

In the Old Covenant, the Temple was the center of life and worship for the nation of Israel. It signified the very presence of God and His promise to make Israel a great nation (Exodus 25:8). One of the overarching concerns for King David and his son Solomon during their respective reigns was the building and establishing of a Temple for God’s glory to dwell (1 Kings 8:12-13).

The Temple was such a staple in the religious and cultural life of the Jew that during Jesus’ day there was even a law protecting it against blasphemy. Blasphemy against the temple had just as serious repercussions as blasphemy against God; these were the very charges the Jews made against Stephen, Christianity’s first martyr (Acts 6:13). God and the temple in Jerusalem were inextricably linked in the mind of the Jew.

At Passover, and both Jewish and non-Jewish pilgrims alike from all over the world would come to Jerusalem to seek after God at the Temple. On a yearly basis, millions of pilgrims (according to Josephus) would flock to Jerusalem to appease the God of Israel and offer a sacrifice that would perhaps please Him at His temple. The temple was a crucial national treasure to the Jew that displayed God’s faithfulness to the physical nation of Israel. This makes the radical New Covenant words of Jesus in John 2:18-21 all the more shocking:

Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

The reason your jaw isn’t dropped open right now is because you are not a first century Jew. A Middle Eastern Carpenter’s son just said in effect, “Kill me and I will raise myself up to become the new global meeting place for God.” It’s not incredibly surprising that these words went right over the heads and hearts of the listeners. A common Palestinian under Roman subjection could not be equating himself with the holy Temple of God. Right? In hindsight, the implications of this astonishing statement are clear: Jesus is the meeting place of God for all peoples of all times. Man must flock to Him now in order to appease God. The flawless life, obedience, blood, and resurrection of Christ are now the only way for sinful man to access the holy One of Israel.

Jesus also makes it perfectly apparent to the woman at the well. Location is moot regarding worship of God (John 4:21-24). Not in Jerusalem, not on a mountain, not towards Mecca, and not in a brick building. The over-riding factor in worship is no longer a physical location, but whether it is in Spirit and Truth. “There is coming a time,” says Christ, “when you will not be able to confine God’s glory and presence to a hollow edifice. That time is now with the New Covenant.” Not a pretty building, but a perfect body. Not the paltry sacrifice of goats and doves man may bring, but the perfect sacrifice God brought in the person and work of His Son. That is the only sufficient place for mankind to encounter the King.

But this is not the only awe-inspiring reality of the New Covenant temple. The church is not merely “called out” of death and darkness, but also called into something greater. Now the redeemed have a position of being “in Christ” and apart of His body (Eph 1:22-23). What Christ is and has purchased with His blood He has in return freely given to us. He’s The Temple. But that’s not all. He has also made us temples (1 Cor 3:16-17). Through the Holy Spirit He has made our body/temple the New Covenant dwelling place of God’s presence. Through the redemption of Christ God has given us the indescribable, undeserved privilege of being the holy temple.

Those who meet at the true Temple of God (Jesus Christ) are transformed into mobile representative temples on His behalf.

This is a profound mystery. As with all gospel truths it is a mystery worth claiming and proclaiming whether we feel it or see it or know it as we think we should.

This divine truth exposes how absurd it is when we reduce the church to the geographical stained glass structure we happen to convene at every Sunday. This truth does not negate the reality of the local assembly as part of the ekklesia (1 Thessalonians 1:1), but it does illuminate to us that the ekklesia is gloriously more than just the local assembly (though not less!). We are now the dwelling place of God’s holy presence. We are now the blessed carrier of God’s glory into the world. We are the ones “called out” of a sure deserving death and called into a glorious life in Christ.

We don’t just go to church. We are the church.

Bryan

Human nature has a tendency to error towards extremes when labeling others. We do not have a natural bent towards biblical charity or generosity when differing worldviews collide with ours. In the past ten years or so I have learned that:
1. Not all Democrats are necessarily panty waisted tree huggers.
2. Not all conservative minded politicians are Christian.
3. Not all different denominations are heretical by default.
4. Not all UF football fans were born without souls.
5. Not all five point Calvinists with a high view of God’s sovereignty are hyper-Calvinists.

I’d like to expand our discussion on the last point. It has been the focus of much contentious debate and confusion among evangelicals. Depending on the Christian circle you identify with, you may have heard the label of “hyper-Calvinism” hastily plastered on anyone with a propensity for Puritan literature and Reformed Confessions. Typically, the label is used by those of Arminian (free will) persuasion to categorize anyone who casually affirms the five points in “TULIP.”

A complete lack of evangelism fervor is usually the defining characteristic of the hyper-Calvinist adherent. The most notorious example of this kind of hyper-Calvinism was when John Ryland heard William Carey talking about becoming a missionary to India, and told him, “Sit down, young man. When God decides to save the heathen, He will do it without your help.”

It’s true that adherents to hyper-Calvinism usually descend into a lazy unbiblical stance of non-evangelism. But that (non)action is just a symptom of a faulty theology. The error of hyper-Calvinism needs to be defined in a much more specific way than just lazy evangelism (most everyone in Christianity could be labeled with that!)

David Engelsma aptly defines it in this way:

Hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher’s addressing the call of the gospel, “repent and believe on Christ crucified,” only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation.

This is not a mischaracterization of hyper-Calvinism. In fact, it affirms what the hyper-Calvinist openly confesses already. For example, article 26 in the confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches:

We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms suggesting that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God.

Hyper-Calvinism and Historic Calvinism both deny the capability of the natural man to prepare himself for grace. That is where total depravity comes in (Romans 3:11-18). Where Hyper-Calvinism creates the rift with true Calvinism (and Scripture) is whether that natural man should be exhorted to repent and believe without any sign of requisite grace in his life.
In short, hyper-Calvinism contradicts the plain ordinary meaning of passages such as:

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30).

“Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47)

In contrast, historic Calvinism affirms that the gospel be preached indiscriminately to all men. In effect, we don’t know who will be saved, but we do know how God will save them (Romans 10:14-17). We don’t know the secret will of God so we obey the open and plain preceptive will of God revealed in Scripture: To make disciples of all nations and call men everywhere to repent (Acts 1:8)

Men of old like Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Whitefield and Spurgeon all affirmed God’s sovereignty and the open gospel offer. Revivals of biblical proportions followed many of the men who upheld the Reformed doctrine. Almost every modern Calvinist affirms the same. In fact, I can’t think of one major leader in the recent Reformed resurgence who would ever side with a hyper-Calvinist on this. Church history testifies that an overwhelming majority of the Christian movements steeped in historic Calvinism have also been voracious advocates of evangelism (The Great Awakening anyone?!?!?).

The fear some pastors have of their flock being infiltrated by the prototypical hyper-Calvinist trickster is illogical and probably uninformed. Most contemporary strains of hyper-Calvinism are incredibly small and virtually inconsequential as coherent movements.

In the end, we need more of the biblically robust and evangelically fervent historic Calvinism in the church, not less. Let us not be lazy with our labels. And let us watch hyper-Calvinism die the slow certain death it was predestined to from the outset.

Bryan

Last fathers day was the first fathers day that was celebrated at my house where I was the celebrated one. But this year, things got even better. It was a good Great day in the Lord’s house today. We praised God, listened to some great preaching and had the satisfaction of witnessing God save multiple souls. I always experience great satisfaction in seeing a soul saved, but I must say, it was an awesome sight to see my wife Danielle and my sister Ashley be saved by the grace of God this fathers day. I will never forget this day and I now have a new relationship with my wife and my sister. We are now all the brides of Christ. All praise be to Jesus Christ who is about the business of saving his fathers sheep.

The thing I hope to take from this fathers day is that… I think I need to hold up on this and try to fully grasp all that God has done today and give a little thought to things.

As many of you know following the birth of our daughter things were difficult for us. I know what you are thinking, for what young parents are things easy? Well, we had a rough go of things and I can now say that God has been so patient with us. He continues to deliver us and watch us be disobedient, and then deliver us again and again.  I think after a short pause, the thing that I want to try and never forget from this fathers day is that God has been a DELIVERER for my family without fail.

May God bless you all and may you all have a wonderful Fathers Day!

It seems to be the default response of some churches. Whenever a young man displays some passion, knowledge of the Scriptures, and a heart for ministry his fate is sealed for the next few years of his life. According to the elders of the church, the only logical next step for the child is straight into the lecture halls of higher education. We are convinced God’s calling on the young man will somehow be moot without formal Greek and Hebrew training, church growth theories, and an Old Testament history survey all under the tutelage of Professor Unibrow.

I have some serious reservations with the merits of this mindset. Acts 4:13 has a way of hitting me like a dagger everytime I pride myself on what I know instead of Who I know.

On the other hand, I also have some reservations concerning those who scoff at and reject outright the benefits of any formal ministry training (usually a charismaniac leader dabbling in heresy). I guess I might need you guys to help me sort things out (enter “Question of the Week!”).

The most pressing question is this:

Is the knee-jerk seminary path for aspiring young ministers biblical?

I mean thoroughly and overtly biblical. Not some vague principle.

Is there a biblical command regarding the necessity of seminary training for young men who feel called to ministry?

If not, then:

What is the biblical model for training budding pastors and leaders in the church?

Bryan

It seems there has been another fallen angel sighting according to some in the cultural Christian music scene and a few message board “insiders.” This most recent scandal has come through the thriving ministry of a shining star in the rock/worship genre of contemporary Christian music. His work has consisted in leading passionate droves of young people in worship conferences across the globe; his singles have topped the CCM charts the past couple years; maybe most impressively, in just a short time, his music has entered the very fabric of the life of worship in many local church bodies.

If all allegations are true regarding the rumormongering, I trust his local church body is leading the process of church discipline. I don’t want to use this as an opportunity to break a potentially already bruised reed. The best we can do is pray that God will grant repentance, restoration and healing for all those in involved.

But God in His mercy can also use this incident as a profitable exhortation and rebuke. Not to the scandal ridden, but to us.

As counterintuitive as it should be, for those in cultural Christianity, mega-conference speakers and worship leaders hold highly coveted positions. For many, to reach the life of a touring headliner is the penultimate regarding success in “Christian terms.” Dare I say, it’s even a bit sexy to be that guy or girl (for the Beth Moore fans) on the marquee…for the glory of God of course.

It’s natural to want a ministry like a Chris Tomlin or a John Piper (I do!), but we must realize that with a spotlight comes a bull’s eye. Temptations and pitfalls of all sort increase exponentially as Christian leaders step into more prominent roles in ministry. Why don’t we have the platform they do? Why don’t we have a record contract or a book deal like them? God’s grace is why. We may not be able to handle such public success without letting worldly pride and the lusts of the flesh seep in and destroy our very souls. Would we sell out and defame the name of the eternal King in exchange for the addictive and temporary praise of man? God in His infinite mercy is protecting you from yourself.

We vex our mind praying for a future ministry like this high profile speaker/worship leader/theologian etc., while we should be praying to be more like Jesus right now to the person right next to us.

The guilty party in this situation is just a man. Flesh and bones and a fallen nature like ours. This speaks to our unhealthy propensity to put mere men on pedestals they can never live up to. We act like the anointing and movement of God somehow depends on their songs and their sermons. Scandals like this can sometimes be lucid reminders Who the only Grace giver is in our lives. There are no mighty men of God. Just broken vessels in need of His daily grace through Christ (Romans 7:24-25).

In the end, all men will fall prostrate at the mercy of Him who sits on the throne and dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). It reminds me what the Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther, wrote on his deathbed. Luther’s very last written words were this:

“Wir sind bettler. Hoc est verum.”
We are beggars. This is true.

Bryan