A Personal Pilgrimage
I can still vaguely recall my virgin experience with the Book of Romans, and it is the closest thing to a systematic theology that Paul ever came up with. You may have your own fond recollections of the epistle, many do find it most influential in shaping their thinking and devotion.
The epistle started with a tour de force of how humanity knows God via nature yet suppress that knowledge; and the universal indictment of the human race as having come “short of the glory of God” is discomforting.
And we are left either breathless or baffled by Paul’s exposition on the relation of faith and the law, Christ’s obedience and Adam’s fall and the struggle with the sinful nature that we can easily identify with. Personally it reached a climax when he exuberantly declared that “If God is for us, who can be against us?” and “we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us”.
With that, we reached Chapter 9. Here, we will have to take a plunge into the valley with Paul after scaling the giddy heights. For we cannot bask in the blessings of the saved and forget the condition of the damned. As Sproul commented, it is not enough to talk about Jacob- we must also talk about Esau. If you permit, I will share with you this valley experience.
The context
The issue is not purely academic for the apostle. He was thinking through with “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” in his heart for the sake of his “brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel”. One of my earliest concern after conversion is over the salvation of my own family and of my kinsmen, the Chinese. God seems to have left the Middle Kingdom in the dark for centuries before the first Jesuits arrived. For Paul, it is especially painful because Israel is, after all, the chosen nation with a long history of divine revelation and ultimately, the coming of Christ Himself. Despite all these privileges, they were the ones who rejected and crucified the Christ. The majority of them did not bow to His Lordship. Ironically the Gentiles were the ones enjoying the new covenant. Paul is not talking about earthly blessings, but salvation.
We may attribute all these to human free will (and this is partly true) but it would have seemed “as though God’s word had failed”. Can’t the Almighty God make His creatures freely obey? The answer would have to be affirmative since in heaven the glorified saints and angels cannot sin and yet are not robots. Instead, Paul made the point that not all Israelites by birth are true, chosen Israelites. Ishmael may be a child of Abraham by blood but he is not a child of the promise. It is Isaac the miracle boy who is Abraham’s true offspring. And his birth had nothing to do with old Abe’s strength or efforts. But maybe God chose Isaac because his mother, Sarah is the legitimate wife?
Paul blockaded that escape route with another example from Genesis. Rebecca’s twins- Jacob and Esau- have the same pedigree and birthdays but God chose Jacob over Esau. And His choice was “before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad”. Paul was eager to maintain that God’s purpose in election is “not by works but by Him who calls”. Any thought, deed or decision that a sinner makes by his carnal will would have been “works”. The assertion is that God’s basis in predestination (a biblical term) is not on the sinner’s deed - be it good or bad, actual or foreknown. God in His sovereignty chose “according to the purpose of Him who works out all things according to the counsel of His will”. (Ephesians 1) God’s purposes did not fail due to the weakness/disobedience of human agents (natural Israel). The elect Gentiles, the true Israelites, were in fact taking the kingdom by force as was divinely planned. (Isaiah 49:6)
At this point, we cry, “Is God unjust?” Isn’t it unfair for God to choose one (Jacob) over the other (Esau) without any reference to our actions? The apostle gave an emphatic,” Certainly not!” It is unthinkable because the Creator’s character defines ethics/morality. Will not the Judge of all mankind do right? If God were to predestine based on our actions, not even one soul will be saved! The confusion about fairness and justice makes theodicy even more problematic than it really is. If fairness is defined as “treating everybody the same” then biblical history will testify that God does not deal with people equally. To Moses God says, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy”. Concerning Pharaoh He says, “I have raised you up to show My power in you and that My name may be declared in all the earth”.
Incidentally, the best part about playing chess is the moment of exhiliration when you have anticipated your opponent’s move and spring out from ambush with guns all blazing. In verse 19, I was on the receiving end of this treatment as Paul said: “One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?” I was utterly shocked and amazed that with deadly accuracy he anticipated the question that pops up in this modern reader’s mind.
Before we consider his rebuttal, let’s pause for a while and do some soul-searching. If you believe that God’s grace is necessary but not sufficient; and ultimately it boils down to your decision/desire to choose God – would you ever encounter this question? The answer is: Never. In fact, by pointing it all to “Free will” you have eliminated the question altogether. I asked this question twice in a theological class and not a single person was able to answer it straight on.
In contrast, it is the common experience of those who believe that salvation rests from first to last upon the grace, mercy and sovereign will of God who have been assailed by accusations that we cast a shadow on God’s justice. To those who believe unconditional predestination, “Why does God blame us? For who resists His will?” are burning questions often asked by cynics, critics and inquirers alike. Since the experienced apostle expected this objection, I strongly suspect that Paul was indeed teaching this glorious truth. In fact, I take comfort that he takes the same blows I am getting. We are on the same side.
His answer to that question is even “worse”. Strangely, the key word I begged Paul to use at this critical point never materialised. To our disappointment, his answer did not give any hint of “free will” at all. Didn’t he know that just two words would solve his dilemma? Instead, Paul gave a shocking reply: “Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” Some theologians are embarassed with this answer and I, for one, struggled with every word. Paul is not so concerned about the question as he is with the questioner. He is on the offensive: “Reflect on who you are- can a sinner with his fallen sense of justice sit in judgement of God?” Without compromising like many of us do, Paul stressed on the divine Potter’s sovereignty. “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?”
Since the Fall at Eden, humanity is a mass of rebellious sinners incapable of any good that merits salvation. If left alone, we would all create God in our own image. Contrary to popular belief, “all have turned away, NO ONE seeks God”. (Romans 3:11) What if God intervenes and saves some out of this worthless “lump of clay”? We call it, “Mercy”. What if God allows them to continue in their rebellion and punishes them in judgement? We call it, “Justice”. Either way you look at it, there is no injustice in the picture. Does the fact that God saves some means that God must save all? The question assumes that there is some obligation that God should save humanity. Well, the only obligation God has for sinners is to carry out His justice. When He offers grace, it is never obligated. If God is obliged to save you, that is reward not undeserved mercy.
One respected author argued: “There is a man walking by the river and he sees two kids drowning. If he saves one and leaves the other for dead, are we to praise him for saving that one kid even though he could have saved both?” The answer I concede is: No, we should actually send him to prison for failing to save both even though it is in his power to do so. According to law scholar, Kia Meng, there is a Social Contract which obligates him to save his fellow men and his negligence is a crime. It is precisely at this point that the analogy breaks down in pieces. There is no obligation on God to save any at all. A better analogy is this: “Both Mutu and Ah Kow are found guilty by the judge and face impending death row. Justice demands their execution. In desperation, they seek the pardon of Yang Di Pertuan Agong. In his wisdom and discretion, he can exercise the right to absolve them both or none at all. If indeed he chose to pardon Ah Kow, does that in anyway obligates him to exercise that right on Mutu? If he is, every criminal in Malaysia will go free! Is unjustice in view?” The answer is a resounding No even by human standards. Especially in the case of God’s choosing, it is never arbitrary but according to His “pleasure and will” (Ephesians 1:5) There is no capricious pleasure or evil will in God.
I shall leave you with the unambiguous words of the apostle in Romans 9:22-24 as he stresses God’s sovereignty over both objects of His wrath and objects of His mercy. The main problem is not that we do not understand his teaching. No, it is what we do understand that troubles us most. No prizes for you if by now you suspect that I believe that our decision for Christ is a result rather than a condition of predestination. Well, it was not a pilgrimage that is natural to me. Initially, I hated Romans 9 and tried to rationalise that Paul is mistaken or not infallible. Reluctantly, I learnt that I am required to believe what the Bible says and not what I would love it to say. In desperation, I sought out explanations that are so comfortable that they do not even come face to face with Paul’s dilemma. I call it the problem of eliminating the question, not encountering it. I must have the honesty to meet these difficult questions head-on like Paul did and not hide behind some artificial defense. When I shared my experience with a friend, she warily asked: “Does God have the right to do as He pleases with His creation?” Somehow I knew the answer. The valley brought me to the place where I said: “This is hard teaching. Who can accept it? But where can I go? You have the words of eternal life.” It forced me to take God’s word as it is and not gloss over difficult parts in the Bible as irrelevant/not practical.
Jesus summed it up concisely when He says: “You did not choose me but I chose you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last!”
I can still vaguely recall my virgin experience with the Book of Romans, and it is the closest thing to a systematic theology that Paul ever came up with. You may have your own fond recollections of the epistle, many do find it most influential in shaping their thinking and devotion.
The epistle started with a tour de force of how humanity knows God via nature yet suppress that knowledge; and the universal indictment of the human race as having come “short of the glory of God” is discomforting.
And we are left either breathless or baffled by Paul’s exposition on the relation of faith and the law, Christ’s obedience and Adam’s fall and the struggle with the sinful nature that we can easily identify with. Personally it reached a climax when he exuberantly declared that “If God is for us, who can be against us?” and “we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us”.
With that, we reached Chapter 9. Here, we will have to take a plunge into the valley with Paul after scaling the giddy heights. For we cannot bask in the blessings of the saved and forget the condition of the damned. As Sproul commented, it is not enough to talk about Jacob- we must also talk about Esau. If you permit, I will share with you this valley experience.
The context
The issue is not purely academic for the apostle. He was thinking through with “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” in his heart for the sake of his “brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel”. One of my earliest concern after conversion is over the salvation of my own family and of my kinsmen, the Chinese. God seems to have left the Middle Kingdom in the dark for centuries before the first Jesuits arrived. For Paul, it is especially painful because Israel is, after all, the chosen nation with a long history of divine revelation and ultimately, the coming of Christ Himself. Despite all these privileges, they were the ones who rejected and crucified the Christ. The majority of them did not bow to His Lordship. Ironically the Gentiles were the ones enjoying the new covenant. Paul is not talking about earthly blessings, but salvation.
We may attribute all these to human free will (and this is partly true) but it would have seemed “as though God’s word had failed”. Can’t the Almighty God make His creatures freely obey? The answer would have to be affirmative since in heaven the glorified saints and angels cannot sin and yet are not robots. Instead, Paul made the point that not all Israelites by birth are true, chosen Israelites. Ishmael may be a child of Abraham by blood but he is not a child of the promise. It is Isaac the miracle boy who is Abraham’s true offspring. And his birth had nothing to do with old Abe’s strength or efforts. But maybe God chose Isaac because his mother, Sarah is the legitimate wife?
Paul blockaded that escape route with another example from Genesis. Rebecca’s twins- Jacob and Esau- have the same pedigree and birthdays but God chose Jacob over Esau. And His choice was “before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad”. Paul was eager to maintain that God’s purpose in election is “not by works but by Him who calls”. Any thought, deed or decision that a sinner makes by his carnal will would have been “works”. The assertion is that God’s basis in predestination (a biblical term) is not on the sinner’s deed - be it good or bad, actual or foreknown. God in His sovereignty chose “according to the purpose of Him who works out all things according to the counsel of His will”. (Ephesians 1) God’s purposes did not fail due to the weakness/disobedience of human agents (natural Israel). The elect Gentiles, the true Israelites, were in fact taking the kingdom by force as was divinely planned. (Isaiah 49:6)
At this point, we cry, “Is God unjust?” Isn’t it unfair for God to choose one (Jacob) over the other (Esau) without any reference to our actions? The apostle gave an emphatic,” Certainly not!” It is unthinkable because the Creator’s character defines ethics/morality. Will not the Judge of all mankind do right? If God were to predestine based on our actions, not even one soul will be saved! The confusion about fairness and justice makes theodicy even more problematic than it really is. If fairness is defined as “treating everybody the same” then biblical history will testify that God does not deal with people equally. To Moses God says, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy”. Concerning Pharaoh He says, “I have raised you up to show My power in you and that My name may be declared in all the earth”.
Incidentally, the best part about playing chess is the moment of exhiliration when you have anticipated your opponent’s move and spring out from ambush with guns all blazing. In verse 19, I was on the receiving end of this treatment as Paul said: “One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?” I was utterly shocked and amazed that with deadly accuracy he anticipated the question that pops up in this modern reader’s mind.
Before we consider his rebuttal, let’s pause for a while and do some soul-searching. If you believe that God’s grace is necessary but not sufficient; and ultimately it boils down to your decision/desire to choose God – would you ever encounter this question? The answer is: Never. In fact, by pointing it all to “Free will” you have eliminated the question altogether. I asked this question twice in a theological class and not a single person was able to answer it straight on.
In contrast, it is the common experience of those who believe that salvation rests from first to last upon the grace, mercy and sovereign will of God who have been assailed by accusations that we cast a shadow on God’s justice. To those who believe unconditional predestination, “Why does God blame us? For who resists His will?” are burning questions often asked by cynics, critics and inquirers alike. Since the experienced apostle expected this objection, I strongly suspect that Paul was indeed teaching this glorious truth. In fact, I take comfort that he takes the same blows I am getting. We are on the same side.
His answer to that question is even “worse”. Strangely, the key word I begged Paul to use at this critical point never materialised. To our disappointment, his answer did not give any hint of “free will” at all. Didn’t he know that just two words would solve his dilemma? Instead, Paul gave a shocking reply: “Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” Some theologians are embarassed with this answer and I, for one, struggled with every word. Paul is not so concerned about the question as he is with the questioner. He is on the offensive: “Reflect on who you are- can a sinner with his fallen sense of justice sit in judgement of God?” Without compromising like many of us do, Paul stressed on the divine Potter’s sovereignty. “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?”
Since the Fall at Eden, humanity is a mass of rebellious sinners incapable of any good that merits salvation. If left alone, we would all create God in our own image. Contrary to popular belief, “all have turned away, NO ONE seeks God”. (Romans 3:11) What if God intervenes and saves some out of this worthless “lump of clay”? We call it, “Mercy”. What if God allows them to continue in their rebellion and punishes them in judgement? We call it, “Justice”. Either way you look at it, there is no injustice in the picture. Does the fact that God saves some means that God must save all? The question assumes that there is some obligation that God should save humanity. Well, the only obligation God has for sinners is to carry out His justice. When He offers grace, it is never obligated. If God is obliged to save you, that is reward not undeserved mercy.
One respected author argued: “There is a man walking by the river and he sees two kids drowning. If he saves one and leaves the other for dead, are we to praise him for saving that one kid even though he could have saved both?” The answer I concede is: No, we should actually send him to prison for failing to save both even though it is in his power to do so. According to law scholar, Kia Meng, there is a Social Contract which obligates him to save his fellow men and his negligence is a crime. It is precisely at this point that the analogy breaks down in pieces. There is no obligation on God to save any at all. A better analogy is this: “Both Mutu and Ah Kow are found guilty by the judge and face impending death row. Justice demands their execution. In desperation, they seek the pardon of Yang Di Pertuan Agong. In his wisdom and discretion, he can exercise the right to absolve them both or none at all. If indeed he chose to pardon Ah Kow, does that in anyway obligates him to exercise that right on Mutu? If he is, every criminal in Malaysia will go free! Is unjustice in view?” The answer is a resounding No even by human standards. Especially in the case of God’s choosing, it is never arbitrary but according to His “pleasure and will” (Ephesians 1:5) There is no capricious pleasure or evil will in God.
I shall leave you with the unambiguous words of the apostle in Romans 9:22-24 as he stresses God’s sovereignty over both objects of His wrath and objects of His mercy. The main problem is not that we do not understand his teaching. No, it is what we do understand that troubles us most. No prizes for you if by now you suspect that I believe that our decision for Christ is a result rather than a condition of predestination. Well, it was not a pilgrimage that is natural to me. Initially, I hated Romans 9 and tried to rationalise that Paul is mistaken or not infallible. Reluctantly, I learnt that I am required to believe what the Bible says and not what I would love it to say. In desperation, I sought out explanations that are so comfortable that they do not even come face to face with Paul’s dilemma. I call it the problem of eliminating the question, not encountering it. I must have the honesty to meet these difficult questions head-on like Paul did and not hide behind some artificial defense. When I shared my experience with a friend, she warily asked: “Does God have the right to do as He pleases with His creation?” Somehow I knew the answer. The valley brought me to the place where I said: “This is hard teaching. Who can accept it? But where can I go? You have the words of eternal life.” It forced me to take God’s word as it is and not gloss over difficult parts in the Bible as irrelevant/not practical.
Jesus summed it up concisely when He says: “You did not choose me but I chose you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last!”
Comments