Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland 
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

DAVID CLOUD AND ROMANS 9:13-33

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.  14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.  15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.  17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.  18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.  19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?  20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?  21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:  23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?  24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?  25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.  26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:  28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.  29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.  30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.  31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.  32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;  33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

This is doubtless the Calvinist’s favorite proof text for sovereign election. Does Romans 9 teach that God arbitrarily or sovereignly chooses some sinners to be saved and the rest to be lost? Let’s consider eight important facts about this passage:

As noted on the analysed page, Mr Cloud has not yet grasped that Calvinists believe that men are ultimately lost because of sin. Again and again, he keeps on  at suggesting that men are lost because God has arbitrarily chosen to damn them in hell. So, the question above is slightly loaded. In fact, I could just answer his question "No!" and walk away from it, content that I had spoken the truth. However, we both know that this would be unsatisfactory. It would leave the unwary thinking (as Mr Cloud wants them to think) that Calvinists do believe that men are damned for the sole reason that God says so. Again, I repeat, this is NOT THE CASE. Mr Cloud keeps repeating this below. Since one broken record is enough, I need not draw attention to its inaccuracy at each and every reciting of it, having stated in clearly here. Calvinists believe that damnation is the wage of personal, individual sin. It is a strictly judicial matter. 

Also, it would be unsatisfactory to merely answer the question "No!" and walk away, because it might give the impression that Mr Cloud and I both believe the same thing in Romans 9 The fact is (as will be obvious below), we do not. Here is my chance to put the record straight. 

(2) As for Pharaoh, it is important to understand that he first hardened his own heart. “But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said” (Ex. 8:15). This is not a case of “sovereign reprobation.” The Scripture teaches that it is always God’s will for men to serve Him, but when they reject Him He rejects them and judges them and makes examples of them. Compare 2 Thess. 2:10-12 -- “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: THAT THEY ALL MIGHT BE DAMNED WHO BELIEVED NOT THE TRUTH, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” These sinners will be damned but not because they are not sovereignly elected and not because they are sovereignly reprobate but because of their personal decision in regard to the truth. Words could not be plainer. God did make an example of Pharaoh, but to go beyond what the Bible says and to claim that God chose to create Pharaoh for the purpose of reprobating him is a great error and is to malign the name of the loving God.

Calvinists agree 100% which must make us wonder why Mr Cloud raises this issue. As observed elsewhere and above, I would just love to know who Mr Cloud imagines he is refuting with some of these points he is making. Where we might disagree with Mr Cloud is that when God lets men harden their own heart and He responds in kind, it is more than bare permission. To apply Mr Cloud's own phrase, God has an "overall plan" and every last action on the part of men fit within it. I don't know if Mr Cloud is happy with this view, because he doesn't define what he means and  whether or not it applies to salvation. I suspect he isn't.

(3) Rom. 9:22-23 does not say that God sovereignly fits some sinners to destruction and some to glory. The phrase “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” allows for a variant voice; according to the PC Study Bible, it can be both the passive and middle voice in Greek; middle means to fit oneself. In the middle voice the subject acts in relation to him/herself. Consider this note from Vincent Word Studies: “NOT FITTED BY GOD FOR DESTRUCTION, but in an adjectival sense, ready, ripe for destruction, the participle denoting a present state previously formed, BUT GIVING NO HINT OF HOW IT HAD BEEN FORMED. That the objects of final wrath had themselves a hand in the matter may be seen from 1 Thess. 2:15-16.” By allowing the Bible to speak for itself through the plain meaning of the words and by comparing Scripture with Scripture we see that the sinner fits himself for destruction by his rejection of the truth. Even those who have never heard the gospel, have the light of creation and conscience and are responsible to respond to the light that they have that they might be given more light (Acts 17:26-27).

Again, Calvinists basically agree again. But here! Don't just take my word for it. Any one investigating these matters, deserves better than that.

CH Spurgeon: "Are there not some of you here present, who are being fitted for destruction? God is not fitting you, you are fitting yourselves, by daily developing and indulging the depravity of your heart. ...Are you not making yourselves ready to be as stubble fully dried, cast into the oven of his wrath? This is not to be laid to the charge of God, but at your own door the guilt must he. If you perish any one of you, on your own head shall be your blood. The eternal God is not guilty of the murder of men’s souls, they that die and sink in hell are suicides; they have rejected mercy, they have despised the Savior, they have chosen sin and hated holiness." (Sermon on Romans 9:22)

 John Gill "...these are said to be "fitted for destruction", that is, eternal damnation; not by God, for this does not respect God's act of ordination to punishment; but by Satan, the god of this world, that blinds them, who works effectually in them, and leads them captive at his will; and by themselves, by their own wickedness, hardness of heart, and impenitence, do they treasure up to themselves wrath, against the day of wrath, so that their destruction is of themselves.." (Comments on Romans 9:22) 

Matthew Henry: "The eternal damnation of sinners will be an abundant demonstration of the power of God; for he will act in it himself immediately, his wrath preying as it were upon guilty consciences, and his arm stretched out totally to destroy their well-being, and yet at the same instant wonderfully to preserve the being of the creature. In order to this, God endured them with much long-suffering--exercised a great deal of patience towards them, let them alone to fill up the measure of sin, to grow till they were ripe for ruin, and so they became fitted for destruction, fitted by their own sin and self-hardening. The reigning corruptions and wickedness of the soul are its preparedness and disposedness for hell: a soul is hereby made combustible matter, fit for the flames of hell. When Christ said to the Jews (Matt. 27:32), Fill you up then the measure of your father, that upon you may come all the righteous blood (v35), he did, as it were, endure them with much long-suffering, that they might, by their own obstinacy and wilfulness in sin, fit themselves for destruction." (Commentary on Romans 9:22) 

William Hendriksen: "Paul does not state who it was that prepared these people or made them ripe for destruction. From 9:18 some have drawn the conclusion that it was God. But here in v22 we are not told that it was God. And even if it was God, then must we not assume that his action of hardening their hearts, and thus preparing them for destruction, followed, and was a punishment for their own action of hardening themselves? But it is not at all impossible that the apostles wishes to present a contrast between the present passage and verse 23, where the active agent is mentioned, in order to show that here, in verse 22, the people themsleves - in co-operation with Satan! - were the active agents..." 
(Commentary on Romans 9:22) 

Matthew Poole: "They are vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction; partly by themselves, and their own sensual courses, partly by God's righteous judgement, who gives them up thereunto...Concorning the latter [vessels of wrath] he speaks passively, that they are fitted to destruction. See v22. Concerning the former [vessels of mercy] he speaks actively, that God has prepared them unto glory." (Romans 9:22-23) 

It is true that some Calvinists do not automatically emphasise this thought when they get to Romans 9:22-23. Calvin and Pink do not, but if you look at their writings overall, it is plainly seen that they do not believe that men are damned for anything less than their sins. Mr Cloud is pathetically slow in reminding the reader about this. Arthur Pink in his treatise on Reprobation says: "First, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God purposed to take innocent creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them. Scripture says, "God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions" (Eccl. 7:29). God has not created sinful creatures in order to destroy them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of His creatures. The responsibility and criminality is man’s." He also quotes Toplady: "God, from all eternity decreed to leave some of Adam’s fallen posterity in their sins, and to exclude them from the participation of Christ and His benefits". And again; "We, with the Scriptures, assert: That there is a predestination of some particular persons to life, for the praise of the glory of Divine grace; and also a predestination of other particular persons to death for the glory of Divine justice—which death of punishment they shall inevitably undergo, and that justly, on account of their sins." and George Whitefield: ""Without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall together. . . . I frankly acknowledge I believe the doctrine of Reprobation, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number; and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages." The truth is a long way from the picture that Mr Cloud (and others of like mind such as Hunt and Vance) are laying before the people of God. 

(4) Rom. 9:23-24 does not mean that God calls only a certain pre-chosen elect group to salvation. “And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” One has to read that into the language of the verses. The Calvinist claims that verse 24 refers to “effectual calling,” which is a term that describes the “irresistible calling of the elect,” but this is adding to God’s Word, which is a great error. The Bible plainly states that God has called all who will come to Christ. God calls through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14) and the gospel is to be preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15). God calls “whosoever will” (Rom. 10:13; Rev. 22:17). God calls every one that believes on Christ. “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn. 6:40).

It is true that the gospel is to be preached to every creature as Calvin and other Calvinists faithfully believe and practice and that "whoseover will may come" etc., If Mr Cloud thinks he is refuting Calvinism by saying these things, then he is fighting imaginary wars in the battle field of his own mind. The Calvinist is right to take the calling in v24 as effectual since it  refers to the "even us" of the people of God who are identified as the vessels of mercy (in contradistinction to the vessels of wrath) Since it obviously was an effectual call, Calvinists, naturally enough, refer to it as the effectual call. If it refers to the general call, which can be accepted or rejected, then we have God aforetime preparing for glory people who never made it there. Maybe it is time for those of  Mr Cloud's school of thought to consider why they should contend so much for the idea that God can list frustration and disappointment among His attributes. Is this to His glory? Does it improve His image as it is revealed in the word of God? 

(5) God’s salvation even of the Jews was not a matter of “sovereign” election but was based on an individual’s faith in His Word. “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 9:31-33).

We reject Mr Cloud's either/or scenario here because we go for both. Or at least, we believe that salvation is ultimately based on God's mercy (which must be sovereign and without an yobligation or it ceases to be mercy) and is brought to the soul by the means of an individual's faith in God's word. The difference is this. Calvinists make faith a channel or means. Mr Cloud makes it a contributing cause. In his scheme of things, the sinner reaching out his hand is rewarded for his faith. Mr Cloud may not use those actual words, but this is what he is effectively teaching. It is he who uses the word "based" above. He turns what should be solely the channel or means into a contributing factor.

(6) Romans 10 leaves no doubt about this; the promise of salvation proves that it is not God’s arbitrary or “sovereign” choice (Rom. 10:8-13). Note the words “whosoever” and “all.” Would God mock sinners by promising them salvation if they believe in Christ and then only enable those who were sovereignly elected to actually exercise such faith?

This question "Would God mock sinners...?" is obviously loaded and might allow me to simply say "No" and walk away. God does not mock sinners when he offers salvation to the "whosoever" etc., it would only be a mockery if He Himself disabled them from believing in Christ. This He does not do because man's inability to believe (in and of himself) is sin induced. The sinner, (in and of himself) does not want to believe in the gospel because the sinner loves darkness rather than light etc., (John 3:19-21) He cannot complain if God offers him salvation and he willingly and without any compulsion refuses it. If Mr Cloud is scandalised by such an answer, then he should consider his own position and ask this question: "Would God mock sinners by promising them salvation if they beleive in Christ when he knows fine well that they will not believe because they love their sins rather than His Son?" Many of the supposed Calvinistic problems are not unique to that school of thought and do not evaporate by taking the lesser position.

(7) God’s sovereignty does not mean that His will is always accomplished in man. “But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” (Rom. 10:21). See also Matt. 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” God has made man in His image. Man is not a robot. He can exercise his will in saying no to God, and man has said no to God and has resisted God from Genesis to Revelation. If God’s sovereignty means that His will is always done, this world would make no sense! It is God’s will, for example, for every believer to “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16), but we know all too well that this is not always the case and is never the case perfectly.

Calvinists agree 100% with this statement as it stands, because Mr Cloud is almost generalising here and this allows us to do so. Although Mr Cloud dismisses this distinction  elsewhere (as "mumbo jumbo") yet it is true that God's will (decretive) is always done and yet (preceptive) it is often resisted.  The interesting thing though in this so called mumbo-jumbo by Mr Cloud, is that he reproduces an article by Pastor George Zellar where he makes the same distinctions (although refers to them as  efficacious decrees and permissive decrees) This leaves us wondering why he should go to the bother of reproducing this mumbo -jumbo on his own site.)