Tag Archives: Freedom

Breaking All Confinement

The initial blast of the Spirit’s anointing power shatters the heavy yoke of Satan’s confinement—sickness, lack, oppression, bent-over vision—and lets you feel the weights fly off your shoulders. That relative freedom is real and glorious. But the hundredfold absolute freedom—the kind where every remaining strap snaps and you run unhindered into the full good dream God has written over your life—only comes when you get so fat on the daily, visible fulfillment of His promises that the old hindrances can’t hold you anymore. You are the righteousness of God in Christ. You are already seated with the enthroned King. Speak it, receive it, grow fat on it. Watch every scheme of the enemy shatter—then run like Elijah outpacing the horses.

Isaiah 10:27 is the classic line: the burden lifts from the shoulder, the yoke from the neck, and the yoke is destroyed because of the anointing—or, as the Hebrew also carries it, “the yoke will be broken because of fatness.” (LSB). The popular charismatic reading of the “anointing oil” as the Holy Spirit’s power is not wrong; it simply needs the rest of the picture.

So let’s talk about the anointing of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit comes in power to break bondages and give freedom. Jesus Himself launched His ministry by reading Isaiah 61 and declaring the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him to proclaim good news to the poor, freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and to set the oppressed free (Luke 4:18-19). Acts 10:38 says God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and He went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. That same Spirit is poured out on you. The baptism of power is not optional decoration. It is the explosive force that breaks yokes and bondages.

When that power hits, something breaks. It is unstoppable. A healing lands. A financial door flies open. A demonic oppression lifts. A relationship that felt dead suddenly has oxygen. Relative to the crushing weight you were under, it feels like total liberty. You start moving. You start breathing. You start smiling like a man who just had the wagon unhitched from his neck. That emotional and spiritual high from a miracle that just saved you is legitimate. Do not despise it. It feels good and it should. However, here’s the trap. Do not stop there and call it the finish line. The miracle is real and powerful, but it was the starting gun, not the trophy. The ox is free enough to walk, yet some straps and gear still cling. Thirtyfold. Sixtyfold. Not yet the hundredfold where the animal is so fat, so healthy, so bulked up with the very goodness of God that the remaining wood and leather simply explode off its neck and it is free to run.

Look at the woman Jesus healed in Luke 13. This story gives us a clean picture of what happens when the initial miracle hits—when the Spirit lands His first blow against the demonic oppression in your life. A common result of that first spiritual salvo is that your head is free to lift up and see a good future. In the story, the woman—bound by Satan for eighteen years, bent over—could only see her own feet. That is the posture of demonic confinement: eyes locked on the dirt, the symptoms, the lack, the failed reports, the small horizon. Stress, worry, and negative images rule your thoughts and vision. When Jesus called her free and laid hands on her, she straightened up by divine healing. Now she could finally lift her head. Suddenly the world opened. She could see distance. She could see possibility. That is what the initial anointing miracle does—it lifts the head. Now you can see the dream. You begin to visualize a good future. God wants to grant you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:4). Not some truncated, “spiritualized only” version. The real desires. The ones that, when fulfilled, enlarge His kingdom by enlarging you. A mansion to spit in the face of the faithless, then a hundred houses for a hundred missionaries. Preaching with power that heals the sick on the spot. Family so whole the next generation inherits blessing instead of bondage. Old besetting sins loosen and fall off. A body so thoroughly healed that even the little things—bad eyesight, lingering fatigue, that one joint that always complained—are gone. Financial surplus that is not just debt-free but overflowing, so you can give and build your big dreams without the old god of lack whispering that you don’t have enough. And in your fatness, you realize you now have the strength to grab your family and friends and help them the way God helped you.

That full freedom is the fatness. You become fat with the promises of God already fulfilled in your experience. You are not waiting for some future day when you finally “arrive.” You are the promises of God. The gospel defines you that way. Jesus became sin so that you might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). He became poor so that by His poverty you might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9). By His stripes you were healed (Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24). The blessing of Abraham—Spirit, miracles, fame, military victories, favor, increase—is already yours by faith (Galatians 3:13-14). These are not distant hopes. They are your present ontology because you are fused to the enthroned Christ. You are seated with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). Seated means the work is finished, so you sit—and you sit in a place of authority. Scripture does not say only Jesus was seated in the heavenly places; it says God made us sit there with Him. That’s right: you are already seated. Your work is already done, because He already did it, and the Father already transferred His righteousness, grace, and blessings to your account. They are yours. You are a royal priesthood in a seated place of authority—not later. Now. Sickness, lack, and demonic schemes are under His feet, therefore under yours. They are under the throne of Jesus, and because you are already seated with Him there, they are under your authority.

So how do you get fat? You stop speaking the evil report of observations and start speaking the promise. Daily. Relentlessly. You cultivate a mind of righteousness. Get rid of the old sin-consciousness that only makes you more sinful. You are the righteousness of God now, and your inner thoughts should be non-stop righteous consciousness. You look at the doctor’s chart and say, “By His stripes I was healed—therefore I am healed.” You look at the bank account and say, “Jesus became poor so I am rich—therefore supply is mine.” You look at the mountain of impossibility and speak to it the way a man speaks who already owns the title deed: “Be removed and cast into the sea” (Mark 11:23). Faith is not a feeling you wait for. Faith is mental assent to what God has already declared. When you consistently agree with God’s definition of you, your vision and the imaginations of your heart clarify into a big, bright future. The promises start landing in the open. Healing multiplies. Answers to prayer become more regular. Relationships heal. The surplus appears. Every little lingering strap that the enemy still hoped to use snaps under the sheer bulk of fulfilled goodness.

Picture it. The ox that once strained under the yoke now stands thick-necked and powerful, muscle packed on from the rich pasture of faith in God’s promise. The old wood and leather creak, then crack, then explode off in pieces. No more tug. No more residual weight. Nothing left clinging. That is the hundredfold. You run. You fulfill the desires of your heart. And in the running, His kingdom expands through every desire of your heart that materializes. Best deal in the universe: He gets the glory of a son who actually lives free, and you get the life of God granting the dreams of your heart. You get to live with God as your exceedingly great reward, the way He was with Abraham His friend.

Do not settle for the initial high and call it enough. That is limiting God. The Spirit’s power is not a one-time blast followed by a lifetime of managing leftover chains. That’s the lie the faithless will try to sell you. They are the voice of Satan, and they populate many churches and pews. The true fatness of God’s power and blessing is designed for the hundredfold. It is the power that keeps making you fat with every promise you dare to believe and speak. Storm the throne. Confess who you are. Command the mountain. Grow so fat with the goodness of God that every remaining piece of the old yoke explodes off your neck.

Head up. Eyes on the horizon. Growing fat with the promises. That is the hundredfold. That is breaking all confinement. Let nothing stand in your way—not Satan, not your family and not even the church. Break all confinement.

Tell It What You Want

“What I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”
(Acts 3:6)

 “Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and roll up your mat.”
(Acts 9:34)

“Stand up on your feet!”
(Acts 14:10)


Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
(Matt. 21:21)

The fig tree was a real fig tree, and it dried up when Jesus spoke to it. Jesus didn’t ask God; He spoke to the tree, and it died. It wasn’t a spiritual fig tree. Thus, the category is material or physical. When facing mountains in the material world, Jesus didn’t ask God for help but spoke directly to the problem. He then instructs the disciples to do the same: to speak to the mountain or problem and command it in faith, knowing God’s power will back their words. Jesus didn’t tell the disciples to inform God of their problem or mountain or to present a sad sob story about how bad it is. Rather, He said to speak to the problem and tell it what you want it to do.

After the baptism of the Spirit in the opening salvo of the Book of Acts, the disciples did just that. In Acts 3, Peter didn’t tell God how awful it must be for the cripple to suffer so long and beg God to find it in His will to heal the man. No. Peter spoke to the mountain or problem—sickness. He said, “What I have, I give.” It’s not what God has or what God gives. Peter declared the power to heal is what he has and what he gives. He then said, “In Jesus’ Name, walk.” He spoke to the mountain and told it what he wanted: “Walk.” This is exactly what Jesus instructed.

In Acts 9, Peter says, “Jesus heals you, get up.” Peter doesn’t tell God about the mountain of sickness; rather, he tells the sickness what he wants: “Get up.” Peter obeys Jesus’ instructions for interacting with material mountains and problems. In faith, tell them what you want them to do, whether it’s killing a tree, casting it into the sea, healing the sick, or telling a fish to bring you money.

In Acts 14, Paul looks at the mountain of sickness and speaks to it like Peter, saying, “Stand up on your feet!”

These commands are both spoken to the mountain and serve as instructions for the person to act on faith. Because they believe they are healed, then they need  to do something they couldn’t do before. This is integrated into speaking to the mountain of sickness. It’s a powerful way to administer healing.

God gave Moses the Staff of God. When they were backed against the sea, God told Moses to stop monologuing about His help and use the Staff of God to divide the sea. Thus, it was not God who divided the sea in the most direct sense, but Moses divided the sea, using God’s power. However, what we have is greater than the Staff of God. We have the name of Jesus Christ engraved on our tongues. We are part of Jesus and so we use His Name as our own.


Jesus didn’t whine to God about fig trees or mountains—He told them what to do, and they obeyed. In Acts, Peter and Paul channel that vibe, bossing sickness around like pros: “Walk!” “Get up!” “Stand!” No sob stories, just faith-fueled commands backed by Jesus’ name. Speak to your problem, not about it—whether it’s a tree, a mountain, or a coinless fish, tell it who’s boss and watch God’s power roll.

aaron-burden-y02jEX_B0O0-unsplash

GOD IS THE METAPHYSICAL AUTHOR OF ALL THINGS, EVEN SIN

I got the term “metaphysical author of sin and evil” from Vincent Cheung. See his Systematic Theology, Commentary on Ephesians, and Author of Sin for the original source. I developed my own doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty—yes, even occasionalism—on my own as a teenager from reading the Bible. It was the Word and the Spirit that taught me these things, not Calvin or Luther. Vincent helped me expand the understanding, make necessary adjustments, and make it concise. His materials also helped with the explanation of accountability below. My later Systematic Theology 2026 (Faith Edition) simply puts the same doctrine in fuller systematic form: God is the direct, absolute, metaphysical cause of all things, including sin and evil. No dualism. No independent secondary causes relative to Him.

“Metaphysical” here means reality and especially causality (ontology points even more directly at causality). We are focusing on causality. Simple illustration: I pick up my pen and cause it to write “trees are blue.” Who is the author of that sentence? The pen (the object) or me (the cause moving the object)? You separate the categories of cause and object. The pen is not the author. I am.

God directly and immediately causes a demon to tempt a person. The demon is the object. God is the cause. The tempter is still the object doing the tempting. That is precisely why God cannot tempt anyone (James 1:13). If God Himself directly told you to kill person X, it would not be a temptation—it would be a command. There is no such thing as a “secondary cause” in relation to God Himself. He directly causes all things. Creation has relative descriptions between objects (a demon tempts, a man sins, a river flows), but those are never ultimate. God is the sole metaphysical author.

Someone will inevitably object: “If God authors sin, then sinners can hurl it back at Him and say, ‘You are the real sinner!’”

What does “real” sinner even mean? If it means the object that is sinning, it is impossible for God to be a “real sinner.” God defines sin as a man breaking a command given to man (1 John 3:4—lawlessness). God did not command Himself. He commanded man. Those laws do not logically apply to Him. There is also no authority over God. Responsibility is defined by not having freedom from being under an authority who holds you to a definition. God is not under any authority. Therefore the terms “sinning” and “God” are logically impossible together. To accuse God of being a “real sinner” is to accuse Him of being a “real law-breaker under a real authority.” Fallacy. Dumb. Blasphemy.

Oddly, the same people will say God is Ex-lex (above the law) and in the next breath claim God would be sinning if He authored or directly caused someone to sin. I often feel like I am talking to brick walls when dealing with tradition. “God is above the law… but if He causes me to sin, then God is under a law, because then God would be guilty of sinning, which presupposes a law over God.” Brilliant. Mystery. Insane.

God did not command Himself, “Thou shalt not murder” or “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Those commands were given to man—not to God, not to trees, not to monkeys. It is a categorical fallacy to say God sinned. It is impossible for God to break a law that was never applied to Him. Do trees commit sin when they fail to confess Jesus the Son of God? Or is it simply irrational to smash those two categories together? It is exactly like asking, “Can God create an infinitely heavy rock that He cannot lift?” God is not physical; the category of “heavy” does not apply. The question is nonsense. The same is true of God and sin. The laws do not apply to Him.

God is not what He authors. If God creates a river, God is not a river. To call God a river because He created it is another logical category fallacy. It also smuggles in pantheism. There is no formal validity to the claim that what you create, you yourself are. Creating something else and your own being are two different categories. If I form a clay pot, I am not a clay pot. Why do I even need to say this to adults?

Likewise, God is not what He causes. If God causes a lion to go south into a valley, God Himself is not a south-bound lion. If “author” means the one who causes something to happen in a story, it is still a category mistake to say the author is what he authors. If Johnny writes in a novel that a lion walked south into a valley, Johnny is not a lion moving south. The same holds with God. If God authors or causes a river to flow north, God is not Himself a north-flowing river. This is logic at the most basic level—the law of identity.

Therefore no one can accuse God of being a sinner even though God causes them to sin or authors their sin. It would be a logical fallacy—like saying “wet dryness” or “square circle.”

The fact that a person thinks God is somehow accusable because He is the author of all things exposes how little they think of God. It shows how small God is in their minds. It exposes that they are mixing categories as if reality were their personal playdough. It exposes that they are presupposing pantheism. They play lip service to total sovereignty, but they love God’s sovereignty no more than demons love God’s power.

Some have told me, “If what you say is true, then ultimately there will be no human accountability and thus no judgment.”

That is like saying, “Because God directly controls all things, it means God does not control the weather.” Insane. Brick walls are not known for their intelligence.

It is because God is sovereign over man, and man is not free from God sovereignly holding him accountable, that man is accountable. Man’s lack of freedom relative to God, and God’s absolute and direct sovereign control over man, is the very thing that makes man accountable. Romans 9 deals with this directly—not indirectly. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then punished Pharaoh for it. Paul gives the typical objection: “How is man accountable to God if God is the one controlling man?” Paul’s answer is: God is the Potter and man is the clay. God molds the man however He wants. God takes from the same neutral lump (not already sinful or already good) and molds one vessel for righteousness and mercy and another for sin and destruction. Paul’s answer for why man is accountable in light of God’s sovereign control is simply that God is sovereign and man is not free from that control. The one thing that is not part of the answer is “freedom.” That is the Bible’s answer. Your theology needs to include it.

Human accountability is based on God holding something accountable. The fact that a human is not free from God holding him accountable is precisely what makes him accountable. Freedom is not the presupposition of accountability; the lack of freedom from being under a sovereign God is. Men are not free relative to God’s control over them, and that is what makes them accountable. Accountability presupposes a sovereign over you, not freedom.

Tradition teaches that “the author is accountable.” Scripture says the opposite. The Potter molds the clay from the same neutral lump and shapes it how He wants. It is the sovereign freedom of the Potter and the lack of freedom of the clay that makes the clay accountable.

Such comments expose a person’s view of God. This is not a word game. People imply they have the right to hold God accountable because He is the author of all things. Defining terms is the least of their problems. Their view of God is so man-centered, pathetic, and distorted that they would hold God accountable “because He is the author of your sin.” They are so stupid that in the very context of “God is so sovereign that He causes me to sin,” they think they can still “hold God accountable for committing sin.” But if God is already that sovereign, you obviously have no justification to hold God accountable to anything. Not only are there the category errors already pointed out, but the opponent does not even have enough intelligence to apply a consistent critique to the statement. Their own critique answers their own question.

Where does the Bible say that God being the Author makes Him accountable? Accountable to whom? A man? Accountability only works if there is a sovereign over you. The only way God “as Author” could be “accountable” is if they are an author over God. The blasphemy they utter is so bad I feel polluted just repeating it. It is very telling that in order to critique the doctrine they had to put God under their feet and author Him into accountability. That is exactly what God will do to all who rebel against Him.

The clay does not get to put the Potter on trial.

[1] The last two quotes from Romans 9 was paraphrased by me.

When are my Prayers Meaningful?

“The way “sovereignty” is taught today can be a real faith killer. If God controls everything, then our actions are irrelevant, and our efforts are meaningless.”
Andrew Wommack

This has to be one of the dumbest and meaningless objections to God’s absolute sovereignty I come across. The objection is answered in the very statement the critic uses.

For example. “All men have sinned.” If it is true that all men have sinned then to say, “Oshea has sinned” is a logical deduction and thus is true. But if I say, cats have sinned, then we know we have a category fallacy, and thus the conclusion is irrational. Deduction is application of knowledge. “Oshea has sinned,” is knowledge contained in the original statement, “all men have sinned.” All I did was point out this specific knowledge and bring it to your attention.

Unfortunately, basic deduction is lost with most pastors and theologians so that if you say “All men have sinned,” they can say “therefore black cats have sinned.” They are then called intelligent and given a book deal.  Strangely, if I put forward an argument that mixes up categories like the able, that says, “All apples are eatable,” therefore, “because the sun is round like an apple the sun is eatable,” people would mock me? Maybe I should give it a religious terminology and I could get a book deal myself. Maybe something like this, “if God is sovereign over all things, then God does not control squires and human thoughts.” I see millions of copies already being sold.

As for the objection above the major premise is saying “God is sovereign over all things.” Wommack is saying this as the Reformed tradition would mean it. Martin Luther in Bondage of The Will says God is as directly sovereign in causing faith as He is unbelief or sin, as in the Elect or Satan. Thus, we will mean God is sovereign over all things as truly an “all” statement. A category statement is “all,” “some,” or “none.” Here we mean God directly and absolutely controls all things.  When the bible says the category statement “all have sinned and fallen short,” it does not mean only “some,” but “all” have.

And so “if God is sovereign over all things,” then according to Wommack the conclusion is that “our actions are meaningless.” His conclusion has new information in it that is not contained in the premise(s), thus it is irrational and stupid. He makes a category error with the term “meaningless.” It is a fourth term that is thrown in the conclusion with a slight of hand.

I will add an additional premise here that I believe the Bible easily teaches and is presupposed by the statement “God is sovereign over all things.” This premise is that “if God does something, it is meaningful by definition that God is the one who does it.” If not, am I to presuppose that God doing something is not meaningful because He is the one doing it? But I digress.

If God is sovereign over all things and whatever God does has infinite meaning and value, then God controlling my choice is by definition infinitely meaningful and valuable.

God is the only one with intrinsic worth and whose value is without measure. God’s Will, Word and Power are one in the same. As Vincent Cheung says in Only  Believe, “God can never lie, not because there are things that omnipotence cannot perform, as some would put it, but because lying is inapplicable to God, since the will, the power, the word, and the truth are one in him. If God says something, then even if it was not true before, it would become the truth.” Thus God who alone has value creates and controls all things by His thoughts.

Whatever God does by definition is “just” “good” and “meaningful or valuable.”

This should not be a surprise. Even with humans we are similar. When I played in the sand, or played with my Legos and made things and new people and new made up stories, it was meaningful to me, precisely because I was the one doing it.

Wommack is so arrogant that he thinks God’s sovereign control over him is the very thing that makes his choices meaningless, when it is the only thing making them meaningful. He supposes his choices apart from God’s sovereignty control have intrinsic value. I will ignore the issue of ontology on this, for it is impossible for any created thing to move without God’s doing it. God is the only real cause for everything; there is no such thing as secondary causes in the ultimate sense. God is the only real cause. God’s thought and power are the same thing in essence, or there is no dividing them. If God does not think of something, then it does not happen. If God thinks of something and wills it, then it happens. There is no other real causality other than this.

We are responsible and accountable because we are not free relative to God’s command and His sovereignty over us. Romans 9 answers the question why we are responsible even though God can harden or soften our hearts. The answer is that He is the Potter and we are the clay. He does this from a neutral lump of clay, that is neither good or bad. Thus, the Scripture’s answer for why we are accountable is because God sovereignly controls us.

As Vincent says in “More than A Potter,” if you say man is more than a pot, then God is infinitely more than a Potter.  And so the sovereign control aspect is therefore made infinitely stronger. The fact that we are accountable to God is therefore a limitation of our freedom, in the sense it makes it nonexistent. God controls us like a Potter over a pot. Does God form a good pot from a good lump? No. Does God take a nasty lump of clay and form a nasty toilet with it? No. God takes from the same lump of unformed (before they were born) clay and molds it to His own design (good or bad). Thus, there is no paradox, because Divine sovereignty negates human freedom and is the very thing that makes accountability work. The fig tree did not have any freedom, but Jesus held it accountable. Even without freedom, the everything that made it accountable was Jesus being sovereign over it and holding it to a standard. Freedom had no relevance to accountability. Romans 9 refers to our accountability in the same way. This is the opposite of how most understand it; thus, many are in direct public rebellion against God.

God is not accountable because of the very reason He is free.

In summary, God is the ultimate cause of everything. There are no other real causes. We are accountable to God because He has complete control over us. We are like clay in the hands of a potter. God’s sovereignty is what makes us responsible.

The criticism is essentially this, “if I am not the one who ultimately determines my reality then it is not meaningful.” Arrogance. That is, “if God does not give me His divinity then I will hate Him.” They don’t like that fact God has such exhaustive control and they don’t. What fool told you that meaningfulness is by your ultimate determination? The bible? The bible that says God hated Esau and love Jacob before they had made any choices and before they were born. The bible teaches what God does is meaningful, because God does it.

So prayer in the ultimate sense does not change anything. But this is true for all created things. However, on the relative level my prayers moves the heart of God, uproots mountains and makes the waves obey me.

Even though the Scripture informs me of God’s sovereignty over me, God mostly addresses me on the human or relative level. That is, God moving the chess pieces is the very thing that makes such things meaningful. However, God mostly addresses me on the relative level of “(Oshea) went to space b4,” rather than saying, God moves “White Knight to space b4.” Because God is mostly addressing me on this level, it is therefore good, just and meaningful by definition of God doing it. Because God wants me to mainly have relationship and fellowship with Him on this level, then it is good, just and meaningful.

What God has done is atone for all our sins by His only Son Jesus and gave us His Son’s righteousness. What He has done is commanded us to be forgiven and blessed by receiving His Son and all the glorious benefits contained therein. Therefore when I use faith and receive forgiveness, healing and miracles, then it is good and has immeasurable value.

God’s Authority & Not Man’s Freedom Makes Man Accountable

Before going over a more positive stating of God’s sovereignty, we will deal with this idea of man’s responsibility and accountability to God, since the wrong doctrine of this is used to negate what the Bible says about God’s sovereignty and man.

This is both an ultimate question about God’s sovereignty and Christian ethics, and so, this will be dealt with more in that section.

Man is responsible and accountable to God, not because man is free from God’s direct control; rather it is the complete opposite. Man is accountable, because man is not free to God’s sovereign authority to hold man accountable.[1] Accountability does not presuppose freedom; rather, it presupposes a sovereign authority that you cannot escape from. Without a parent, how is child (if you can still call them that) responsible? Without teachers, students (if you can still call them that) are not accountable. Without a government of some sort, citizens (if you can still call them that) are not responsible.  

The point is, if you take the authority away, accountability is not merely partially removed, it is completely removed. On the other hand, I can hold my clay vase accountable for not talking to me, by slamming against the wall, and then throwing it into the fire. Whether or not you like this, is not the question. The issue is painfully obvious, even without freedom, my sovereign authority over the clay vase, is all that is needed to make it accountable. 

And in fact, this is exactly what Paul says in Romans 9 when the issue of how is man being accountable to God, when man is not free from God controlling man (like how God controlled Pharaoh, by hardening his heart).

Also, if you recall earlier comments about God’s transcendence, God is not merely above being accountable; God is categorically not even related to such a category. There is nothing above God. There is no other power. There is no other causality. There is no possibility for God not to be absolutely sovereign, and so it is impossible for there to even be a possibility or another power or metaphysical dualism. Because the possibility is not even possible, it means God is categorically separate from such a term. Is color above the concept of numbers, or do they have no necessary relation to even be considered in such a way? Because God is transcendent to man in this regard, we therefore know, when a person tries to apply accountability to God, by relating how it works with man, just made a metaphysical, intellectual and ethical no, no (to say it nicely).

First, Paul brings in the example of the twins who were, one chosen for mercy and the other damnation—before they were born or had done good or bad choices—to show God’s choices and His resulting causation from these choices includes both good and bad; both light and dark; both mercy and damnation. Paul then brings in additional examples of the old testament regarding a positive choosing and then also a negative choosing. Moses is the example for mercy and the Pharaoh is the example of damnation.

This is classic systematic theology. Paul is bringing in different passages ranging over the Scripture that address the same theological category. From this Paul then gives a summary of a doctrinal statement that is to be believed and obeyed. “God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others, so they refuse to believe.” And this doctrinal comprehension includes what Paul stated before in the formation of it: “before they are born or had done good or evil.”

If some say that the twins were a representation of nations, then Paul’s point is made even more so, for then it would mean, before millions were born or had made choices of good or evil that God chose some would obtain mercy and some damnation.[2] This point, logically therefore, is a point of non-relevance. However, this objection shows that such a person not only is defective in their objection but demonstrates they miss the entirety of what Paul is doing here. Paul is doing systematic theology. He brings many individuals and then asserts with logic and divine inspiration, that these are not an exception of God’s power and active; rather, Paul shows this is how God uses this power of causality over all humans for all time. That is, categorical premises of “all,” not some. 

Back to Paul’s doctrinal statement. He does not wish for people to miss the point. One can see how Paul bracketed the part about the twins (before they had made choices of good or evil) in the verse. Paul wanted to head off the misinterpretation that despite being born, God looked ahead and considered the twins choices of good or evil, to then decide who to show mercy and who to dam to hell. And so, Paul stops the flow of the statement to clarify that God did not consider their choices in determining their future of heaven or hell. 

God punishes the Pharaoh after saying He first hardened (first mention in Exodus) the Pharaoh’s heart. To this Paul’s opponent says,

“if Pharaoh went along with God’s causality(ontology)

—that is, to be hard hearted and resist God’s command(ethic)

—then why is Pharaoh punished?”

This objection is bottom of the barrel stupid and displays a mind that is spiritually broken and mentally faulty.  Again, this is like saying trees and cats are the same, therefore, why don’t’ trees walk? It is a category fallacy.  All Christian ethics are God’s commandments. The Pharaoh was a lawbreaker by disobeying God’s command to let His people go. He is guilty, not because He did or did not resist God’s causality, but because He resisted obeying God’s command.

Some say that man is “more than a clay pot.” This is true, but only if whole analogy is taken up together.[3] Thus, if man is more than clay, then God is infinitely much more than a mere potter. Therefore, as much as man is more than clay, it is not a true infinite. God however is truly infinitely more than a mere man. Thus, if the analogy is taken up then the point of God’s sovereign control over man’s destinies apart from man’s choice is literally made “infinity” stronger.

This clay analogy reminds of how teachers and preachers today directly contradict the Scriptures teaching. They are blasphemers who would rather suffer the Scripture to nonsense, than let their cowardly souls suffer from confessing their unbelief. It appears popular in many Christian traditions to say God takes a wicked clay lump and God chooses to let some remain in this wicked lump state and make them into wicked pots. In addition, God chooses to take some of this wicked clay lump save them and make them into a good clay pot.  How obvious that this is not what the verse says. The lump is not already wicked or good. It is unformed, without choices of good or evil. It is a neutral unformed lump. It is like what is said about Jacob and Esau, “before they had done good or evil,” God decided to love one and hate the other.

This lines up with the objection Paul’s opponent brings up.

“If the Creator takes me from a neutral clay lump(that is not already bad) and makes me into a wicked pot, and I obviously go along with God’s causality, then why does God find fault with me, even if He commanded me to do good?”

This question of “responsibility” is precisely what Paul’s opponent asks in Romans 9:19.

…Therefore you will say to me, “Why then does he still find fault? For who has resisted[o] his will? (LEB)

…Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?” (NLT)

We will now put into the verse the clear terms for command(responsibility) and God’s absolute causality: or Christian ethics and Christian ontology.

“Why does God [hold people responsible] for not responding [to His command]?

Haven’t they simply done what [He absolutely directly causes them to do]?

or

“Why then does he still find fault? [Ethics]

For who has resisted[o] his will? [Ontology]

Thus, Paul’s opponent is dealing with the issue of man’s responsibility when man is considered relative to God controlling and causing man to do. Paul’s opponent correctly restates Paul’s position about God’s absolute sovereignty saying “who has resisted God’s will (causality/sovereign control). Paul’s opponent understands that Paul position is that God is actively and absolute controlling man. The opponent says that “no person has resisted God’s will.” God’s will here is defined in context to me God’s causality not command, because it is painfully obvious people resist obeying God’s commands.

Thus, the opponent is saying,

“Paul, your position is that no person has never resisted God’s causality, in causing them to make good or evil choices; but, if that is true, then why does God still hold us responsibly for things He sovereignly caused us to do?”

On the contrary, O man, who are you who answers back to God? Will what is molded say to the one who molded it, “Why did you make me like this”? Or does the potter not have authority over the clay, to make from the same lump a vessel that is for honorable use and one that is for ordinary use?
(Romans 9:20-21 LEB)

Paul’s reply is interesting because it ignores the fallacy of the opponent, and simply gives a positive answer about God’s authority and power. The fallacy of the opponent lies in what we disused earlier about God’s transcendence over commands given to man.  God is not merely above the laws; rather, laws do not categorically apply to Him. The Bible defines sin and evil as lawlessness. Thus, you cannot accuse God of sin or a wrong, without a law being transgressed by God. But laws do not categorically apply to God. Thus, it is categorically impossible for God to do sin or evil. It is not that God can do evil but chooses not to. No. The possibility does not even exist.

“Who are you who answers back to God?” Paul ignores this, in that He does not address it directly; rather, Paul rebukes the opponent in this way: “as a man you are acting like God and as a man are trying to put God under a law.” The opponent has the role of God and man flipped. That is, the opponent’s position is not merely a little bit wrong, it is upside-down wrong.

“The potter [has] AUTHORITY over the clay, to make from the same lump…” Remember the context is about why is man responsible. If ever there was a time for the Bible to say man’s accountability is based on freedom or freewill, now is the time. Now is the foundational issue or linchpin about man’s responsibility. Paul gives his positive answer to why man is responsible to God. God is an AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN. The answer given is NOT “God gave man freedom.” NO. The contradiction of this is given. Man is NOT free from God’s AUTHORITY to make man however He wants.

The way Paul does answer this presupposes what we just went over; that responsibility presupposes a higher authority and not freedom. If you are responsible, then it means you are not free, but under an authority. Paul’s answer to why people are responsible—even like Pharaoh, by performing the works God causes them to perform—is that God is an authority over them. That is, Paul appeals to that fact that God is a sovereign authority over us. We are responsible precisely because we are not free, but under God’s authority.

It can be said that God makes it—as an additive—that having more knowledge makes us guiltier. This can be said about metaphysics on a relative level when said about us. That is, we are led away by “OUR” own desires. However, both additives only work as adding to our responsibility because God as an “authority” over us commands it so! That is, without us being free from God’s sovereign authority and control over us, He adds additional rewards and condemnation if we have more knowledge (knowledge that He chose to give or not give us).

For the God’s elect children, the point is that though Jesus Christ’s imputed righteous (ethics) they have completed the requirement of obeying God. They have been credited with a perfect Christian ethic that is fulfilled and the receipt printed off. After new birth they are given the Holy Spirit that causes(ontology) them to behave in accordance with the perfect obedience already credited to their accounts. That is, as Pharaoh could not resist God causing him to reject His command, the Elect cannot resist the Holy Spirit causing them to be sanctified

—-Endnotes——

[1] I learned to say this doctrine in this way from Vincent Cheung (and some from Gordon Clark). See Vincent’s many mentions of this in his books. (www.vincentcheung.com)

[2] I learned this argument from Vincent Cheung. See, “More than a Potter.”

[3] This basic idea of taking the analogy up with both parts was brought to my attention by an essay of Vincent Cheung, “More Than A Potter.” Found in “Author of Evil.” 2014. Ch.18.