click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
“Why Does He Still Find Fault”: Predestination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9
by C Michael PattonJanuary 11th, 2010
273 Comments
That the Bible teaches the doctrine of election/predestination (henceforth, election) is not at issue for the Christian. All Christians believe in election. After all, it is in the Bible! The question is not, Does the Bible teach election? but, What does election mean?
There are two primary positions with regard to the doctrine of election:
Conditional Election: God’s election is based on the foreseen faith of the individual. God “elects” people because they first choose him. (There are other variations, but the essence is the same.)
Unconditional Election: God’s election is not based on anything in the individual, but on God’s mysterious sovereign choice. This choice is not without reason but is unconditioned with regard to any foreseen goodness in the elect.
Although I understand the sting that unconditional election brings, I am a very strong advocate of unconditional election. This is not necessarily because I believe it is the understanding that I am most comfortable with or because I think it creates that least amount of problems, but because I believe it is what the Scripture teaches. I try to follow my own dictum, the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.
Of all the passages that teach unconditional election, there are a few that take priority. And there is one that stands out more than any. While I can see and understand how people might interpret other “election” passages differently, this one is one that I simply cannot explain outside of a Calvinist worldview–Romans 9. I believe that the plain reading of this passage tells us that Paul believed in what is to most a radical doctrine that seems both bizarre and unfair.
Here is the passage:
Romans 9:6-24: It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Background/Context
We must understand some contextual background here. In Romans 9, Paul is defending the security of a believer in God’s love that was put forth in Romans 8. Remember, he ended that chapter by saying that there was nothing that could separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:38-39: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That is an incredible statement that Paul seeks to defend. Most certainly he had been in this situation before. Try to imagine. In Ephesus, teaching on the security of the believer, Paul makes the same proposition: “Nothing can separate you from God’s electing love in Christ Jesus.” Someone in the audience raises their hand and says, “Paul, this is great and all, but I have a problem.” “What is it?” Paul responds. “Well you say that the elect are secure in God, right?” “That is right” Paul says. “Well, what about Israel? Weren’t they God’s elect? Weren’t they promised security as well? What happened to them? They don’t seem to be following God right now? If their election is the same as my election, my election does not seem too secure.”
It was a good objection and needed to be responded to. Paul does so in Romans 9-11. This is what this section is all about: defending the righteousness and integrity of God. Notice, Paul begins 9 by saying, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” (Rom. 9:6). Why would he need to say this unless there are those who might be tempted to question the integrity of God’s word? He wants to show that the word of God has not failed with Israel and it will not fail with the Church. Notice as well that Paul ends this section by reinforcing the security claims of Romans 8, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). So the entire section is about security. It is in defense of God. It is in defense of His claim that we cannot be separated from His love in the face of what seems to be evidence to the contrary—the current state of the nation of Israel.
Paul’s Defense of God’s Integrity with Regard to Israel
Paul’s explanation for the apparent failure of God’s electing love with Israel is right to the point. He explains that God’s election of Israel, with regards to ultimate salvation as he has been explaining it, was not of the entire nation without exception. In fact, it was always only a select few—a remnant—that were the true elect of God. It was an elect within an elect that were really elect. He illustrates this historically by referring to Jacob and Esau (Rom. 9:10-13). Even though they were both from Israel, only one was chosen. Therefore, not all of Israel is elect. He later illustrates this by referring to the elect within Israel at the time of Elijah (Rom. 11:2-4). The argument again is the same. Not all of Israel could be considered among the true Israel. He also illustrates this in a contemporary way by saying that he himself is an Israelite and he has not been abandoned (Rom. 11:1, 5). This is enough to show that the security of God’s love and saving purpose is for those that are truly elect. Key point: God has not broken His word in the past with Israel, and will not do so in the future with the church. The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
Some Further Objections
Once again, this brings up another objection that Paul has most certainly heard through the years of teaching. Imagine this Ephesian once again hesitantly raising his hand saying, “Okay Paul. Forgive me, but now I have another question. If this is true, that God elects some individuals and not others as was the case with Jacob and Esau, this seems very unfair. Why does God still find fault? Who resists His will?”
Now at this point we must realize the significance of this question with regards to the Calvinism/Arminianism (unconditional election/conditional election) debate. Remember, this is the same question that we have when we first read this. When Paul says, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom. 9:18), we are taken aback. We think to ourselves the same as Paul’s imaginary objector. How can God hold someone accountable for making this choice when it is only God’s election that can cause them to do otherwise? It is a good question. One that I often ask myself. But we must realize this: the question itself helps us to understand that we are following Paul correctly. If you don’t empathize with the objection, then you have misunderstood Paul. But if we do understand how such a question could arise out of Paul’s seemingly radical comments, it means that we are interpreting Paul correctly.
Now, when the objector says, “How can God still find fault, for who resists His will?”, if the Arminian position of conditional election were correct (that God simply looks ahead into the future and has decided to elect all who trust in Christ), there is really no problem at all. Paul just needs to calm the objector down by explaining how he has misunderstood the argument. If the Arminian position were correct, this is how we would expect the diatribe to proceed:
Objector: ”If this is true, why does God still find fault in people. Who can resist His will?”
Paul: “Oh, you have misunderstood me. You think that I am saying that God’s will is the ultimate cause of our salvation, not ours. Let me clarify. God’s election is not based upon His sovereign unconditional decree, but upon your will to choose Him. Therefore, He finds fault in people who do not choose Him by their own natural freedom. Doesn’t this make perfect sense?”
Objector: “Oh, yes, it does. I feel much better. But you need to teach more clearly in the future. I thought you were saying something radically different.”
But of course this is not the direction the conversation goes. In fact, it gets stronger and more shocking. Notice, Paul did not have a definite answer to the objector’s question. He confirms that the question assumes the right presupposition (unconditional election) by His response. ”On the contrary, who are you to answer back to God oh man. Will the thing molded say to the molder why have you made me in such a way? . . . ” There is no need for such a response if conditional election is in view! It is only under the supposition of unconditional election that this makes sense. I could see the objector cowering in the fierceness of the response. He is simply doing the same thing that I would do and have done upon reading this passage. The response let’s us know that while we don’t have the answer we were looking for, the presupposition, unconditional election, is indeed what Paul is teaching. There is no other way to take it in my opinion.
What a fearful thing. What an awesome thing. What a confusing thing. What a terrible thing. What a wonderful thing.
In sum, I believe that Romans is inspired. I believe that Romans should be included in the canon. I cannot approach this passage from any other hermeneutic than an authorial intent. It seems to be the case that the intent of Paul was to say that God unconditionally elects some people to salvation and not others. This is the Calvinist’s doctrine of Predestination.
As difficult as this doctrine may be for some, we simply don’t have the option of flying in the face of the argument simply because we don’t like it. I, personally, have come to a place where I understand and respect this doctrine. I do have a lot of questions for God (like why didn’t you elect everyone?), but I recognize that if God did not elect anyone, no one would ever come to him. I also recognize the many questions that arise from this such as If unconditional election is true, why evangelize? But the mere presence of questions or difficulties does not alleviate the truth from its burden to be. Our best posture before God upon learning of such truths is to stand with our hand over our mouth and the gavel at a distance.
While there are others whom I respect very much who do not follow me in a belief in unconditional election (such as fellow blogger Paul Copan), I have never been able to see much validity in any other interpretation of this passage. It is, to me, too clear.
Similar Posts:
- Twelve Reasons Why Romans 9 is About Individual Election, Not Corporate Election
- Bucer, Evangelism and Unconditional Election
- Theological Word of the Day: Perseverance of the Saints
- Corporate Election (Dan Wallace)
- Tension in Calvinism – tension in the Christian faith
273 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
BTW: Keep all comments civil. This post will be heavily moderated.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Well said, sir – and graciously, too, I might add. I think we often ask the wrong question. We ask, “Why does God elect some and not others?” Perhaps it would be better to ask, “Why does God elect any?” Then we might gain deeper insight into the richness of His grace and mercy, and better understand His nature and character.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m with you, Michael. I just haven’t heard an argument to the contrary that is convincing. I just don’t know what else to do with the Romans 9 passage. When I was struggling with this doctrine 20 yrs ago I wanted desparately to find another answer but could not.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I was just thinking about the passage for the past two days. Thanks for your insights!
Like or Dislike:
0
I was talking to a couple of JW’s and explaining to them that God was the one who brought calamity on Job. They said, “Oh No, it was the devil who did that. God just allowed it.” Of course, I pointed out that God could have simply said to Job, when he had identified God as the ultimate source of his suffering, “Oh No, Job, you’ve got it all wrong. The devil did all of this. I just let it happen.” Instead, God basically gives him the same answer Paul gives us: “I’m God. I know what I’m doing. You’re not God, and you don’t have a clue. So shut it!”
Whereas most people see this response as a cop out I think instead that it’s probably the smartest reply that can be given to a fallen, finite individual who questions the integrity of a being who is infinite in wisdom, love and goodness.
Like or Dislike:
0
Once again Michael, great post and argument. You’ve got me convinced. Oh wait, I already believed it. Well, you validated my belief!
Also, I love your statement, “the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.” So true, so true!!
Like or Dislike:
0
I loved the post. I like how you harmonized the promise of security in Rom. 8 with Pauls defense of it in 9-11. I never really saw that before as many times as I have read it. I have much more clarity of understanding the section now! Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I agree that the palatability of a doctrine should not determine its veracity. However when a interpretation of scripture (even one that I will agree is the most obvious) leads to the logical conclusion (at least in my opinion) that God is an evil megalomaniac then I think this should give us pause.
1. All that happens happens because it is the will of God. Nothing that does happen is outside the will of God
2. Human sin occurs.
3. Human sin is the will of God and thus it is impossible for humans not to sin.
4. God is the ultimate cause of and source of human sin
4. God has ordained that all who unrepentantly sin will suffer eternal punishment and torture in hell.
5. Humans have no ability to repent from the day they are born and thus are all unrepentant sinners destined for hell.
5. God having the full ability to give all humans the ability to repent thus saving them from hell has instead chosen to give this ability only a very few. He tortures those he has not chosen to save for his own glory.
6. Any individual who tortures another for a condition over which they have no control (being a Jew, handicapped etc.) or worse yet tortures another for a condition they are the ultimate cause of (sin is God’s will after all) for their own pleasure is a evil, sadistic, megalomaniac.
7. God tortures humans for sin which is ultimately a condition caused by His own will for his own pleasure and glory.
8. God is a evil, sadistic, megalomaniac.
I have no problem with the Calvinistic system as long as Calvinists are willing to admit that according to most conceptions of good and evil God is evil and we must redefine the meaning of the word “good” to make God “good”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Night, a lot there that could and needs to be discussed.
If we can stay focused on this particular passage and the validity of my interpretation presented, I think that would be best. I don’t want this to touch on those other things and the many others that I could bring up (that I myself have trouble with!)
You can most certianly, however, offer an alterate interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
0
BTW: Your #3 looks just like the objector in Romans 9. Paul does not allow it to go beyond this.
I do think that we can all rest assured that God’s justice is real, his love is true, and his desire for all people to be saved remains. Thus the tension if we are going to let Scripture (not our own theology) set the stage. My solution: believe the Scripture and let the tension remain. Don’t sacrafice God’s love for everyone, don’t reinterpret “world” in John 3:16 (which I do believe refers to all people) as “the elect”, and don’t sacrafice God’s unconditional election.
I think that you will find that theology does not always have the nice perfect red systematic bows that we like to put on it. We just trust God with our turning into the objector with the gavel.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
My problem is not your great exposition of that passage, but how it fits with the rest of the Bible. I’m sure we could go on ad nauseum back and forth offering alternate explanations and other Biblical passages which seem to go against this. I could bring up 2 Peter 3:9 which you would respond only refers to people who are elect or worse yet ascribe a mental disorder to God with the whole two wills thing. I could bring up John 1 2:2 and you would respond that this is talking about the division between Jews and Gentiles when it talks about “the whole world”. You can bring up Romans 9 and Arminians will respond with corporate rather than individual election.
The back and forth on Bible verses can go on for days on end. Someone can always come up with another (maybe less likely) explanation for a verse. Yet this doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter because the heart of the matter is the nature of God. What does it mean to say God is sovereign? What is the nature of God – good or evil? Can a evil God properly be called God? Can a God who is omni-controlling be good? These are what really need to be asked and answered. When it comes to the issue of God being good most Calvinists I know will affirm his goodness but then simply dodge questions on the origins and God’s responsibility for sin (with the exception of the article you posted on RC Sproul Jr. – he at least had the cajones to admit the logical implications of Calvinism).
If you don’t want such an open discussion here that’s fine – but I think without laying it all out on the table you are really hamstringing the ability for anyone to oppose your view on this because it is the system that stems from this and the logical conclusions one must come to that are the problem and make this interpretation suspect, not the exegesis itself.
Like or Dislike:
0
Night, that is right, I don’t want to get into the broader theological issues. When we do, it simply because an exercise in proof texting and making the Scripture fit one’s theology. I do understand the theological spiral that our interpretation must entertain, but it is best to simply do solid exegesis so that our theology is formed from Scripture, not from presuppositions.
Concerning the passages you brought up, I would not suppose such “traditional” Calvinistic interpretations are in my court. I do believe that John 2 refers to his love for all people. In fact, most Calvinists who are “Evangelical Calvinists” believe that God loves everyone, as I do. We just allow for tension. But I explained this in the post above.
To be as clear as I can:
I believe in unconditional election.
I believe God desires that all people to be saved.
I believe God love all people.
I believe that we must hold these in tension and not prioritize our desire to have a systematic theology above exegesis.
It is only when we attempt to solve all tensions that I think we fall into interpretive error. Yes, there are Calvinists who do this (hyper-Calvinists—lol), but not all do. However, I do think that all Arminians (those who believe in conditional election) must sacrafice their interpretive integrity in order to sustain a systematic harmony between election, responsibility, and God’s love. I say this with great respect to many Arminians.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
“I believe that we must hold these in tension and not prioritize our desire to have a systematic theology above exegesis.”
I’m not sure I agree with you here. If two things are completely contradictory surely we can’t hold both? I mean you say it a matter of holding things in “tension”, but where you see tension I see flat out contradiction which must be resolved one way or the other.
As to interpreting Romans 9 in other ways we could also bring in the “New Perspectives” opinions in addition to the traditional Arminians opinions. I would openly admit that individually and in isolation I find these less convincing then your exegesis. Yet when viewed in light of the whole Bible, Theology Proper, philosophy and what we know about the culture of the time I find them much more convincing.
There was a new perspectives opinion posted here
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/286
William Lane Craig (I believe he’s actually a molinist) commented on Romans 9 here with almost a New Perspectives reading of it
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6675
And finally here is one understanding in terms of corporate election
http://evangelicalarminians.org/A-Concise-Summary-of-the-Corporate-View-of-Election-and-Predestination
Ultimately I believe that if an interpretation of a passage logically necessitates that God is evil (in my mind at least) then I cannot hold to that interpretation no matter how much more likely it seems then the alternatives (almost a Sherlock Holmes type approach – when all the possibilities have been eliminated whatever is left no matter how unlikely must be the truth). In this case however I agree with what one of the authors in one of the above links when he says that the reason we read unconditional election into Romans 9 so easily is more because of our conditioning then the text itself.
Like or Dislike:
0
Are links not allowed or something – I tried to post some links to alternate explanations of Romans 9 and it didn’t go through?
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
It seems to me that to do what you have said in #12 above means that we have to say, in effect, “This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever by any stretch of human logic. But we simply have to accept that all of these contradictions are true and not try to figure out how it is possible that God is God in this scenario, etc. We will just completely accept it since this is what exegesis tells us”.
It seems to me that makes being a Christian one of the most illogical and anti intellectual beings in the world!
Like or Dislike:
0
Night,
Here is the problem with the assumptions in your syllogisms and ultimately your conclusion:
1. Man is not warped in his thinking about good and evil.
2. Man is omniscient and understands everything from what he sees
3. God does something that man thinks is evil
4. Man does not misapprehend what is being done.
5. Ergo, God must be doing something evil
6. If God does evil, God is evil
7. God is evil
So you then have to bend the text to fit what you think you see in the rest of Scripture, so that God is no longer evil in your mind; but as the passage says, God can do whatever He wants.
So there are really only two possibilities here:
1. God, who is good, can do whatever He wants and doesn’t because he doesn’t want to interfere with man’s free will (and this is true in both Arminian and most of Neo-theistic thought).
OR
2. God, who is good, can do whatever He wants and does.
I don’t see your system getting away from the idea that God can do whatever He wants and therefore save everyone, which we know from this passage, among others, He doesn’t.
So here’s what I would suggest instead.
1. Man is warped and does not understand good and evil as he should
2. Man is finite and does not understand good and evil, as it relates to God’s sovereignty and His good nature, as he should
3. God appears to be doing something that we don’t like
4. We tend to call things that we don’t like “evil,” even though we are limited by points 1 and 2 as to the nature of what good and evil real is.
5. Man is incapable of judging God’s actions
6. Man should probably worry more about exegesis of what is revealed than rely on our own gut feelings and dislikes, since these are bound to have us reject Christ and His gospel as well as evil
At least, that’s my 2 cents.
Like or Dislike:
0
Night, good stuff. I do perfectly understand where you are and have often been tempted to go there myself.
However, I don’t see that this is a contradiction any more than issues with the trinity and creation ex nihilo are a contradition. I see them as a mystery. I don’t think that God has told us everything and that there could be (probably is) certian elements that God intentionally leaves out.
While it might seem to be a contradition, none of the present doctrines presents us with a formal contradiction, just a possible one depending on how one looks at it.
However, I will have to leave it at that as, as you know, this can quickly turn into a full blown discussion about the merits of Calvinism and Arminianism in general.
I am glad to hear that you see this interpretation of Romans 9 as the most likely, even though other demands may take priority in your system causing you to be unable to accept it.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Thanks for the post on a subject that I usually try to avoid. I appreciate your acceptance of the inherent tension in the doctrine.
I think we could call this a paradox created by God’s sovereignty and love on the one hand, and our free will and personal responsibility on the other. All these issues are affirmed by the Bible, yet logically (humanly speaking) they cannot be reconciled. In this passage we view the doctrine from one perspective. Other passages see it from others, including the need to go out and evangelize the lost.
Yes indeed this is a wonderful and fearful doctrine, which we can only believe by faith.
Question: How is election related to salvation? Are they the same thing from two different perspectives, or are they two different events?
Like or Dislike:
0
For some reason, I can not cut and paste from my last comment. When I said, “figure out how it is possible that God is God in this scenario,” I was trying to say, “figure out how it is possible that God is GOOD in this scenario.
Hope that makes more sense!
Like or Dislike:
0
Kent,
I think it’s important to understand that these passages usually surround the question, From whence does our salvation come, from ourselves or from God? If you look at all of these passages, they are usually trying to counter the idea that we produce salvation (i.e., we believe because of something we willed or did). Most of the Bible is concerned with our decisions in time until we want to boast. At that point God brings these passages up to say, No way, Jose!
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
For Calvinists I find it funny that it’s always “this passage.” Always; Always; Always. There are so many “clear” passages that argue for the opposite as well, as you probably know. In the end, what matters is what proof-texts you prioritize in your system, so don’t give me anything about letting “Scripture” dictate your theology even when it’s not palatable. For me personally, this means I look at the entirety of the canon and observe the character of God, then I interpret the individual proof-texts and (in this case) proof-chapters in light of the totality of evidence. If this were such a “clear” & “foundational” doctrine, there would be much, much, much more evidence. Sorry bro, you just can’t find it apart from one or two texts. To build a doctrine on a couple of proof-texts is just downright dangerous. On top of that, “election” & “predestination” are completely different things, so from the first sentence I read I was suspicious. Calvinists often use them with the same sense, but there is a growing number of scholars that are not doing such (e.g. Newbigin, Christopher Wright, etc.). You’re gonna need to familiarize yourself with these arguments before you make blanket statements like that and if you’re going to continue to have these discussions. There are so many loopholes and fallacies I can’t even begin to count.
Question for you: Do you think Romans 9-11 is an excursus in Paul’s letter to the Romans?
Like or Dislike:
0
Folks, I really don’t want this to go in this direction! lol
Cheryl, illogic is not the best word. The best to say is like with the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, and Creation ex nihilo…all of these transcend logic, not because they are contra-logic, but because we don’t have sufficient information to understand or explain these things, only to know. It is the same with the relationship between divine sovereignty, love, and human responsibility (freedom is not the issue as that is a problem no matter what position you take).
What I would ask you is can you explain or understand the Trinity? How do you handle that if everything must be understood and not have any paradoxical elements to it. Creation out of nothing? What do you do there?
The history of the church has labeled such things: apophatic. This, like the others belongs in the apophatic realm of theology. There is an analogy of language and analogy of being by which we can begin to understand these things accurately, but we cannot understand them fully.
The very argument that you made is the argument that JWs make concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. If you don’t allow for tension in your doctrine, dare I say you are not going to have fellowship with the historic Christian faith in most things.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kent, salvation is the bringing into fruition God’s electing purpose. They are not the same but related as the cause (election) is related to the effect (our salvation). Therefore, God’s election is the ultimate cause in our salvation while our faith is the mediate effect. Hope that makes sense.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP:
You said
“It was an elect within an elect that were really elect. He illustrates this historically by referring to Jacob and Esau (Rom. 9:10-13). Even though they were both from Israel, only one was chosen.”
How are Jacob and Esau from Israel if Jacob is Israel?
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke:
“So don’t give me anything about letting “Scripture” dictate your theology even when it’s not palatable.”
OK. But that is quite a bit of an emotional conversation stopper between you and I?
It is not about proof texting. It is about understanding what the passages mean and letting tension remain if demanded by proper exegesis (or, alternatively, as many do, denying the internal consistency of Scripture).
I believe that Calvinists (of the compatiblistic variety) are the only ones who allow the Scriptures to speak without demanding a modernistic view of systematic harmony. As hard as it is for me to say, so people need to quit being so systematic with their systematic theology. We do all we can to reconcile, but if that comes at the expense of the proper reading of Scripture, then leave it alone. We don’t have all the data to make conclusions and we need to be careful about making God more systematic than he has revealed.
1. God loves all people
2. All people are commanded to believe
3. All people are fully responsible for their choices
4. God desires all people to be saved
5. God has unconditionally elected some people and not others (hence, this blog post)
None are, in a formal sense, a contradictions. However, we don’t know how to fit them together. Let’s believe it and let the mystery remain. Maybe God will tell us one day how it fits.
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke,
Yes, Romans 9 is a rather significant one, but I’d say John 6 is a close second.
I think the reason Romans 9 gets such prominence is the way Paul seems to be anticipating non-Calvinist objections to Calvinism. i.e., the imaginary objector reacts against Paul precisely how most people react against Calvinism–and he doesn’t correct them as though they had misunderstood him.
So we present it for two reasons. First, to show that Paul sure seems to teach Calvinistic election. Second, to show Paul actually responding himself to the common objection to Calvinism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke,
“For Calvinists I find it funny that it’s always “this passage.” Always; Always; Always.”
I don’t understand the force of this rhetoric. Its like saying (as a non-Christian), “For you Christians, its always 1 Cor 15 when you claim that the resurrection is central to Christianity!”
Well of course it is. Maybe not only that passage, but if it is very clear, why not?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jug,
Kudos.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
In my mind, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc. are things we do not fully understand of course. However, and here is a huge difference to me– I do not see them as intrinsically contradictory as I see this issue being. The way God is portrayed in this Romans 9 text and in Calvinistic thinking as I understand it on this issue seems to be almost a 180 degree oppposite of the way He is portrayed in much of the rest of the Bible. That is the problem I have with it. And to just say, “Accept the tensions” just doesn’t work well for me beccause of it.
Like or Dislike:
0
El, they were both children of Abraham, but not both children of the promise to Abraham (elect). He is illustrating that just because you are of Abraham, this does not mean that God has chosen them. The further illustrations show the same. It is not children of Abraham that are elect, but a subset of the same that God chose based on his sovereign will.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, I certainly understand where you are coming from. It frustrates me to no end when Calvinists don’t see this tension but interpret everything in light of this doctrine as if it rules over all others.
However, I must reiterate that like with the Trinity and especially creation ex nihilo (certainly, to me, more difficult philosophically than any of the others!), there are no formal contradictions at all. They are all only seeming contradictions.
I don’t say that humans have freedom and have no freedom.
Neither do I say that God loves us but he does not love us.
Neither do I say that God unconditionally elects but God’s election is conditioned on us.
Those would all be contradictions.
I do say:
Humans have freedom that is limited to their ability. They only have theoretical ability to choose God, not actual due to the fall (BTW: Even Arminians believe this).
God loves all people, but for some reason he only chooses certain people and I don’t know why (But no contradiction here).
God desires all people to be saved and is powerful enough to save all people, but does not use his power to save everyone (similar to the problem of evil)
God unconditionally elects people yet he uses the faith and will of the individual to bring about his electing purpose.
Again, no formal contradictions present.
I know it might be confusion, but I would caution against the charge of formal contradictions as it is very misleading to the nature of the beliefs and arguments being made.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
What about, “He isn’t willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance and life”? II Peter 3:9 (My paraphrase) Or II Cor 5:19-20 where God pleas or appeals to people to be reconciled to Him?
Is that not a total contradiction to the idea that some He will pass over and give no chance at all to be reconciled?
To me that is total contradiction–I can’t see it any other way. It seems to me there must be some way to get around these tensions.
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke,
How is this passage an aside to what Paul is arguing? He’s giving reason why many of the Jews don’t believe. This is the same reason for the main sovereignty passage in John 6 is employed.
BTW, Isn’t Rom 9 a part of the canon? Don’t you really mean that you take the rest of the canon separately from these passages and then interpret these passages in light of your interpretation of the rest of the Bible?
Cherylu,
Is it the opposite of the rest of the Bible, or the opposite of the popular evangelicalism’s interpretation of God? I don’t see the God of the OT in conflict here. In fact, that’s Paul’s point. It was the God of the OT who chose some and shunned others. This isn’t inconsistent with the God of the Bible at all. (Remember that we are all criminals, so what God does is in consideration of that.)
Like or Dislike:
0
There is a lot of criticism about how CMP is interpreting this passage by those who dont agree. So lets see how you interpret it exegetically and contextually. Present your interpretation and let’s test it to the text. I think thats fair ey’?
Like or Dislike:
0
cherlu,
I think the difficulty comes from how one understands that term “willing”. The middle voice verb there means desiring, wanting, not determining.
Like or Dislike:
0
middle voice “verb”
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
This is from the OT too: Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.” Is. 45:22 That sounds much more like His universal plea to all men to be saved.
And to me it seems that the choosing and shunning in the OT had much more to do with nations and God’s purposes for nations then it did with individual salvation.
May not have time for any more interaction here tonight. Am cooking dinner and then we will be gone for awhile.
Like or Dislike:
0
Very quickly to Craig,
I am not disagreeing with CMP’s exegesis. What I have a problem with is the lack of harmony that I see with the rest of Scripture and the idea that we are just to live with the tension. It is hard to live with two totally conflicting pictures of who God is and not try to harmonize the tensions!
Like or Dislike:
0
Warren,
I have never read “willing” as determining. That would become universalism, would it not in that verse?
However, I can’t see God desiring no one to perish, pleading with all to come to Him and be saved or to be reconciled to Him, and then deliberately denying them the opportunity to do so to be anything but a very large contradiction.
Now I really do have to go!
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Sir, thank you for this exposition of Romans 9. I encourage those who have issues with this reading to check out John 6:35-45 as well – Jesus Himself believed in pretty much in the inability of man in himself to repent and believe, the electing love of God, a particular atonement, the effectual call of God and the final preservation and perseverance of the saints.
I also believe that seemingly general passages, such as 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 3:9 can be explained exegetically within the context of a “Calvinistic” hermeneutic.
In passing, Luke, the rhetoric is what makes these conversations turn from eager discussions of the truth into theological World War 3. The idea of the two wills of God – even though I personally am not 100% convinced on it and am still looking into it – is not God with a mental disorder. And actually, as I’m sure CMP is aware, Calvinism has a long history of distinguishing between election and predestination.
Case in point: in my preparation to teach through Romans, Matthew Henry points out that very distinction between election and predestination – and he was writing in 1706. To make out as though only recently theologians have noticed that distinction is again empty rhetoric.
Now back to my Journalism homework LOL…
Like or Dislike:
0
cherlu,
So what about the Fall? Was that a result of or in spite of God’s “willing”?
Douglas,
Well said and very irenic in tone – thank you!
Like or Dislike:
0
I would agree that Ro 9 says that God has the moral right to engage in unconditional election, but I would disagree that Paul ever says that this is God’s normal means of election.
The problem is the Jews not coming to faith, and is therefore God keeping his promises to them? The argument from Paul is that God can do anything he wants.
BUT
The conclusion in 9:30 is that the Gentiles have attained it by faith. The conclusion is not that Gentiles were elected by secret action of God’s will.
The examples given by Paul in Ch 9 are a hodge podge of scenarios. Some of them are about salvation, some of them are not. Some of them are about older serving younger, etc. They are a hodge podge of arguments about God’s limitless moral rights, but not a cohesive argument about the normative means of election in this age, which we find in v30.
Like or Dislike:
0
“He confirms that the question assumes the right presupposition (unconditional election) by His response.”
I think he confirms the presupposition that God can choose whatever criteria he wants including unconditional election, but that doesn’t mean he actually chooses unconditional election, given v30 which describes the condition as faith.
The Jewish objection is God changing his criteria. Paul’s claiming that unconditional election would be moral is taking an argument to its extreme – i.e. that unconditional election would be moral for God, however he doesn’t conclude by saying that is God’s normal election mechanism, he concludes by saying it is now faith.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cherylu,
Sounds like dinner is going to be good. Save me some.
Let me be more clear. I don’t think this interpretation is in conflict because I don’t think any of the interpretations are in conflict with God’s character. All of those passages can be seen in light of His character and His decretive and moral wills. If God says that He is morally opposed to the King of Assyria wiping out Israel, but then says that He sent the King of Assyria to wipe out Israel, then both are consistent with His good nature, and understood when the facts are known (e.g. He is morally opposed to Israel’s deeds, so He sends the king of Assyria, working good and just judgments through his evil intentions, to wipe out Israel; but then He also must do good and be just and wipe out the king of Assyria for his evil intentions and deeds).
To me, the objection is a “why” question, not a “what” question, and many “why” questions are notoriously unanswerable to the satisfaction of most humans when it comes to God’s eternal will. So, as a believer, I believe that what is revealed is consistent with His good character, because that is what I have observed in other divine actions when the facts are finally understood, and that is what I believe will be the case with those things where the facts are not currently all understood.
Now, having said that, I view the decree of repentance you quoted me as a moral decree (i.e., a decree God wants obeyed); but that does not mean that all will obey it. For some, the decree will be the catalyst for further hardening, as with Pharaoh; and that hardening is not a surprise to God. It may in fact be His intent. For others, however, the decree is meant to be the catalyst of their repentance and redemption. My point simply is this: Just because God gives a decree that all should repent, does not mean that He gives to all the moral love of Himself to do so. We rejected that relationship with Him long ago, so if He only gives it back to some, while commanding all to return, I just don’t see that as inconsistent with the rest of Scripture in any way.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I agree that we would not be able to decide if this was God’s normative means from this passage alone; but I have a few questions for you.
Paul’s is answering why the bulk of the Jews did not believe if all Israel was to be saved. What, in your view, is Paul saying? Are you arguing that Paul is not saying that God did not choose them, but instead chose many Gentiles to become Israel in their place? Or are you saying that this has nothing to do with God choosing to pass over many of the Jews for His purposes at this time?
Like or Dislike:
0
John, so in essence you are saying that the whole passage is a subjunctive possibility? I would have to strongly disagree as, 1) there is simply no positive evidence for such and quite a bit to the contrary as the entire section leave the church in doubt as to whether God has really chosen them or just possibly, therefore their troubles are worse than the Israelite as a whole! and 2) anyone could claim this about any passage in the Bible. For example, I could say that the context of Christ’s upper room discourse is particular to the apostles and subjunctive to the rest of the church without any warrent, contextual or otherwise. Therefore, Christ is the way, truth, and the life, in that particular context to that group with no universal application (although he could be if God wanted it to be).
This renders the Scriptures somewhat meaningless (at least when such door is opened.
Interesting though. Never heard the “possibily, but not actually” approach. Do know of any significant exegetes who take such an interpretation?
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] the rest here: Parchment and Pen » “Why Does He Still Find Fault”: The Argument … Share and [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Just out of curiosity, what are the best interpretations of this passage from an Arminian perspective?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, you said:
“I am not disagreeing with CMP’s exegesis. What I have a problem with is the lack of harmony that I see with the rest of Scripture and the idea that we are just to live with the tension. It is hard to live with two totally conflicting pictures of who God is and not try to harmonize the tensions!”
Is it really inconsistent? Wasn’t Israel herself unconditionally elected and isn’t that what Paul is getting at? The very vessel that God chose as a covenant people rejected him, but by doing so made way for the Gentiles. It is demonstrated throughout Scripture, that God chooses whom he will.
Hodge, great point.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Sorry, dinner was eaten before I knew you wanted me to save you some!
You said, “My point simply is this: Just because God gives a decree that all should repent, does not mean that He gives to all the moral love of Himself to do so. We rejected that relationship with Him long ago, so if He only gives it back to some, while commanding all to return, I just don’t see that as inconsistent with the rest of Scripture in any way.”
You are, I think, missing the rest of my point, that this verse and the one I quoted from II Cor. 5:20 “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God,” speak of God begging or pleading with people to be reconciled to Him. How is that not contradictory to His totally denying people any ability to do that? If He knows there is no way they can come to Him unless He gives them the ability to do so and He can give them that ability if He chooses, why does He stand and plead with them to come and then completely deny them the ability or opportunity to do so? Surely that is contradictory and/or illogical.
Wouldn’t that be rather like a parent with a bunch of kids playing in the front and the back yards? That parent urges and begs all of them to come in now and eat the wonderful dinner they have made, but the doors are locked so none can get in. And they were locked because of the children’s own mis deeds. Then the parent opens the door and lets the 3 that were out front come in and eat while firmly and deliberately keeping the back door locked so the 7 out there can’t get in. But all the time she is keeping the door locked, she is still pleading with them to come in and eat.
Don’t know if any of this makes sense to any one else, but to me it seems rather absurd to beg and plead with anyone to do something that is absolutely impossible for them to do. Specially if we have already stated we don’t want them to suffer the consequences of not doing it. And if we can give them the ability to do it but absolutely refuse to.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa,
You said, “Is it really inconsistent? Wasn’t Israel herself unconditionally elected and isn’t that what Paul is getting at? The very vessel that God chose as a covenant people rejected him, but by doing so made way for the Gentiles. It is demonstrated throughout Scripture, that God chooses whom he will.”
By the way, that is another problem I see with this whole Calvinist understanding. Israel was unconditionally elected–but she rejected Him. How could she do that? According to Calvinism, doesn’t being elected mean that you can’t reject Him? And not only did they reject Him, they did it because of unbelief. And they can be grafted back in again if they don’t stay in unbelief. (Romans 11)
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, that would be comparing apples and oranges. Regardless, of Israel’s disobedience, they were still elect as Romans 9-11 affirms. That is not the same as an unregenerate individual receiving prevenient grace and rejecting election. Two separate things.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl,
“By the way, that is another problem I see with this whole Calvinist understanding. Israel was unconditionally elected–but she rejected Him. How could she do that?”
That is EXACTLY the point of Romans 9-11. That is what I outlined above, especially in the background. It is the question of the objector and the very reason why I find any other interpretation of Rom 9 feasible.
If God’s elect are so secure, what about Israel? Paul’s resonse: there is a true Israel within Israel, a true elect within an elect. That is why we can be secure as God’s elect. The truly elect are always secure.
Like or Dislike:
0
I guess I never thought about and “elect within the elect” concept concerning Romans 11.
However, that doesn’t change my belief that there is contradiction in the way I have talked about above.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
You can’t say some of the things you say and leave it at “tension” or mystery, you have to say contradiction. You’re just playing a semantic game. The last point of your syllogism is a non-sequitur plain and simple and it ends up in hopeless contradiction and incoherence. What you’re doing is reading Romans 9 through a reformed grid, claiming it to be clear and normative for everything, and then rereading the entire Bible through that light. You just can’t accept your view if you hold to “proper exegesis” in my opinion. I don’t want to get in a shouting match, I just want to let it be known that nobody just “reads the Bible” and “lets their theology come from the Bible.” You are just as guilty as the open theist about presuppositions and metaphysics. For whatever reason, the reformed view of God just appeals to you (which I find common amongst middle-class white males, I have no idea why).
Do you honestly think people who don’t hold to your interpretation of these texts (e.g. Witherington, Osborne, Dunn, Klein, etc.) write what they do knowing that they are not doing “proper exegesis”? Are Calvinists the only ones who can perform “proper exegesis” of Romans 9? The only thing I’m claiming is that you can’t do exegesis in a vacuum, and you can’t read Romans 9 in its own light. I could make the opposite claims you do above and say my view is the most “honest with the evidence,” has the most historical grounding, is the most faithful exegetically, and that those who oppose me are not honest and do gymnastics around it, and you would be furious. Just think about how you frame things, brother, because it’s not as “obvious” as you think.
And the Calvinistic system is the epitome of modernism. Only when pressed on the issues will they throw up their hands & say “Mystery!” They think they have God figured out! They think they know the intricacies of sovereignty and freedom. How modern!
And I mention how it’s always this passage because we have to interpret the ambiguous passages in light of the unambiguous ones. With the resurrection we have so many references we could point people into 20 different directions. With Calvinistic election you can point them to one, maybe 2, all the while still giving verbal assent to God’s universal love for all humanity and his desire for all to come know him. It makes people confused and causes them to scratch their heads because the system makes no sense and is incoherent, and when taken to its logical conclusion leads to fatalism and God being the author of all sin and evil.
Jugulum,
There are so many anachronisms I won’t even go there. The only thing I’ll say is that you (& CMP) are losing sight of the forest for the trees.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa says :
“Cheryl, that would be comparing apples and oranges. Regardless, of Israel’s disobedience, they were still elect as Romans 9-11 affirms. That is not the same as an unregenerate individual receiving prevenient grace and rejecting election. Two separate things.”
Israel was God’s original elect, and we Gentiles are simply grafted in, at least according to scripture. So how does this coincide with being the elect in the beginning? According to that logic, we Gentiles (that’s most of us here, I’d think) would be secondary, or be the conditionally elect (because of Christ) not the unconditionally elect that was already decreed before the foundations of the world.
I do see this unconditionally elect business being contrary in some respect to Christ’s saving work on the cross. I am truly not seeing, from your point of view at least, why would that horrible death have been necessary in the first place at all if God already had decreed those who already would have been saved?
No one on any of these posts so far has ever addressed that question, despite how many times I’ve asked it.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Here are 2 shots at alternate interpretations
I have heard Romans 9-11, interpreted as an aside by paul giving a “brief history of time” and theology to his roman audience. Explaining God’s election of Israel, and ultimately defending what looks at times to be a fickle God in the old testament.
Perhaps then paul is articulating how things worked until Christ levels the field of history?
Or perhaps you could interpret paul the with the same grace you give Matthew, who genually believes in the prophecy he records as the author of scripture. Yet seems to take many things out of context. Paul truly believes in his interpretation of unconditional election, yet “may” be taking some texts out of context.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mbaker,
Ephesians 1:4 – “just as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before him”
2 Thessalonians 2:13 – “But we should always give thanks to God for you brethern beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth”
Also, consider these passages that speak to God’s choosing
1 Thessalonians 1:4
Colossians 3:12
2 Timothy 2:10
Titus 1:1
1 Peter 1:1
It is not my intent to get into a proof-text match. But honestly, what do you do with these passages and particularly in light of Romans 9 since Paul is making a case for Israel’s unconditional election?
I also don’t think the fact that this presents a tension is cause for dismissal. Consider the tension that exists between our commendation to pray and God’s sovereign will. Consider that James says that if any are sick, they are to call upon the elders of the church for prayer and the prayer of faith will save them. Yet, God does not always heal. Paul speaks of the thorn in the flesh that he recognizes God puts there, in spite of his prayers. Not getting off topic, but it does demonstrate that sometimes things are not as neatly packaged as we would like.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa,
When Pauls says, in Ephesians 1, that “he chose us in Him”, he is likely referring to Israel, not individual Christians. Notice the “us” and “we” from verses 3 through 12 (first person plural). And then notice the shift from verses 12 to 13 (to the second person person plural: “you”)
that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation;
Paul is writing this from the perspecive of a messianic Jew, how God chose the nation of Israel to be ultimately be in Christ. Later, in verse 13, Paul addresses the Ephesian believers. The oldest Christian commentary on the passage from Tertullian also supports this understanding:
“Again, what Christ do the following words announce, when the Apostle says, ‘That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ?’ Now, who could have first trusted — ie., previously trusted — in God, before His advent, besides Jews to whom Christ was previously announced from the beginning? He who was thus foretold, was also foretrusted. Hence, the Apostle refers the statement to himself, that is, to the Jews, in order that he may draw a distinction with respect to the Gentiles, (when he goes on to say:) ‘In whom you also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel (of your salvation); in whom ye believed, and were sealed with His Holy Spirit of promise’.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, xvii)
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Let me rephrase some of what you said. “God loves those he has ordained to suffer excruciating torment for eternity despite having the full ability to prevent this.” Now that is a contradiction if I have ever seen one. That He doesn’t love them at all and only loves the elect is at least a more tenable position philosophically.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
In your writing about the human corruption of the ideas of good and evil I think there is a underlying presupposition that you probably don’t want to affirm – that being that God cannot adequately reveal himself through language. In order for your views to be correct God must be able to twist language to such a degree that his usage doesn’t even remotely resemble the common usage. Thus we could call Hitler or Stalin “good”. I believe (and I think most people affirm) that when God claims to be “good” or “love” this can’t mean the opposite of the general meaning of the words. In fact since God is perfectly good and perfectly loving it must be a magnification of the general understanding of these words. To do otherwise makes interpreting the Bible a completely incomprehensible task and renders God’s revelation through human language meaningless. God can of course do what ever He wants, but he cannot do so and then claim to be good. God cannot behave like Hitler and claim to be a loving and good God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Brian said
“When Pauls says, in Ephesians 1, that “he chose us in Him”, he is likely referring to Israel, not individual Christians. Notice the “us” and “we” from verses 3 through 12 (first person plural). And then notice the shift from verses 12 to 13 (to the second person person plural: “you”)”
Sorry, I disagree. The pronouns are plural but he has already established who he is talking about in vs. 1. and is affirmed in vs 5. There is no indication, that the “us” he is referring to is Israel since the context does not allude to that. While it does make sense that vs 12 might be indicating Jews, it doesn’t render everything talked about prior to that exclusive to Israel.
Like or Dislike:
0
Again, keep it focused here. The issue is Romans 9. Don’t go too broad.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa,
i can certainly appreciate the tension in the lack of details, although I do think that is certainly an overused word in Christian circles nowadays, but what has tension to do with proper exegesis? If we can’t explain the ‘tension’ to fellow Christians, how can we explain it to unbelievers who ask? Certainly don’t think they would accept such an easy, breezy explanation.
I think we are talking context here more than anything. And in context with the rest of the Bible, the logic presented by unconditional election seems very much at odds with Christ’s saving work to ALL who would believe.
And if we are to call Israel’s disobedience the thing that got them divorced from God’s original election, then we would be not talking about the sovereign grace of God in electing us, but our own human choices.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Cherylu,
“II Cor. 5:20 “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God,” speak of God begging or pleading with people to be reconciled to Him. How is that not contradictory to His totally denying people any ability to do that?”
1. The passage doesn’t say that God begs and pleads with anyone. Paul says that. We, as God’s children, do implore people to come and be restored. The word used of God can lean that way, but I would translate it more as “to invite” or “summons.”
2. God does plead with His people. His pleading with them is the means He works to restore them to Himself.
3. God may also plead with everyone in general, even the reprobate so that they do not have the excuse that God did not argue His case before them, and that’s why they rejected Him. Instead, as I said before, the ultimate purpose of His pleading depends upon whether He is speaking to the elect or not. Remember that in the Gospels, truth and argument (even in an emotional form) is often given to blind the reprobate rather than to restore them.
I would want to change your scenario to this:
Ten criminals break into your home and violently murder your family (God forbid. I’m just giving this analogy because of the emotion it might spring forth to understanding). All of them are equally involved in the killings. They are arrested, but have no remorse because they no longer have the ability to be remorseful due to their sin, and would do it again if they had the chance.
Now, let’s say you have ten gold coins that have the ability to give remorse to one who does not have it. You decide that you are going to give only five of the criminals these coins in order to show your mercy, but leave the other five to be examples of justice and to teach everyone what that justice looks like. You then give a general message to all ten, imploring them with great emotion to have remorse that you might forgive them, and they would be spared.
Now, imagine that your God with two wills that must work out in the fallen world. You want your commands always obeyed. You want people to always without exception do the right thing; but you also have decided to work out a plan in the fallen world where justice for breaking the moral law would be punished. God seeks to display His own glory both through what remains fallen and through what is redeemed. This requires Him to cause some to be born again, and others to remain as they are. But the message is the same. The desire for everyone to obey is the same. The only difference is the decretive will of God to commit His creation to a higher plan that displays both the punishing of criminals and the forgiveness and release of criminals. The rhetoric used to call all of them is the same. So I really don’t see the tension.
I’m also not committed to the idea that God wants to save everyone, but rather calls all to obey, so this is less of a dilemma for me.
Like or Dislike:
0
I will not get too far off track.
In Ephesians 1, everything in verses 3-11 leads up to verse 12 (which explicitly refers to Jewish believers, those who “first trusted in Christ”). In Paul’s terminology, the adoption pertained to them (Romans 9:4, Galatians 4:5). Paul’s introduction (verses 1 & 2) and body starting with verse 3 do not need to correlate as he begins a different train of thought by launching into praise.
Old Testament imagery and specific terminology of God’s dealings with Israel abound in verses 3-12 (and which I could point out in graphic detail, but will not due to CMP’s request).
Like or Dislike:
0
Mbaker, that’s just it, Israel was not divorced from God’s original election but definitely the covenant blessings. Israel did not lose their election and will one day be the recipients of what was promised. That’s why I think its crucial to see Romans 9-11 as a whole block (even though I know the post is about Romans 9). Israel’s obstinence made way for the Gentiles and that obstinence will continue until the time of the Gentiles is complete (11:11-25). Look at what 11:28-32 says, that God has chosen both Israel and Gentiles in this way demonstrating mercy on all even though both were hardened against God.
Like or Dislike:
0
“And if we are to call Israel’s disobedience the thing that got them divorced from God’s original election, then we would be not talking about the sovereign grace of God in electing us, but our own human choices.”
Paul’s whole point here is that the election has not been rendered invalid because God chooses the individuals he wants to make up Israel. In other words, since God chooses what nation He will save in contrast to others, He also chooses the individuals who make up that nation. Hence, Israel includes Gentiles and Jews, which is Paul’s point. That’s why he says “all are not Israel.” The all refers to physical community. God elects the community, but Paul tells us that there is a spiritual community within the physical community, and that the physical part isn’t even necessary to be a part of that community, nor is the physical part a guarantee that one is in it. Hence, God’s election isn’t negated by those who reject Him, because those who reject Him display their lack of election.
Like or Dislike:
0
What Hodge said…
Like or Dislike:
0
Brian,
That clearly is not the contrast between the “we” and the “you.” You are attempting to take a contrast that exists only in v. 12 and v. 13 between “we who first believed” and “you also” and apply that to the entire passage preceding. Not only is that a strange interpretation that takes away every Christian blessing applied to both Jew and Gentile, which is much of what Eph is about, and limit it only to Jews; but it also ignores the fact that Paul is including himself with the Ephesians when he says “we” and “us.” This is proven by the fact that he interchanges the pronouns in vv. 13-14:
having also believed, YOU were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of OUR inheritance, with a view to the redemption of [God's own] possession, to the praise of His glory.
The Holy Spirit is given to whom as a seal and a pledge? You/Us.
8 [I pray that] the eyes of YOUR heart may be enlightened, so that YOU will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward US who believe.
This is the way Paul speaks. He interchanges pronouns. Sometimes he refers to himself as an individual, sometimes as an individual apostle, sometimes as the group with whom he is residing, and sometimes as one with those to whom he is addressing. You cannot make an argument from switch in pronouns, therefore, to limitations of theological application of what is being said. It is also rare for Paul to use a pronoun in order to refer to himself as a part of a Jewish group unless it is made plain in the context that he is referring to his ethnicity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
If Christ is making His appeal through Paul and the other apostles, and they are pleading, it seems to me that translates to God doing the pleading.
And if God is not willing that any perish, how can that not mean that He wants all to be saved? There are no other choices are there?
And if He wants all to be saved and pleads with them to come to Him, that certainly is a contradiction to causing them to stay as they are–unsaved.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Just one added thought. Jesus tells people how horrible hell is and tells them they should go to extremes to avoid going there. Isn’t it then a contradiction after making that point in very vivid ways for him to require some to go there and refuse them the only option that will truly keep them from hell? And that doesn’t at all sound like a God that says He is “love.”
Like or Dislike:
0
If Paul were to dance like a chicken as he preached the gospel, does that mean that God is dancing like a chicken? I think we have to understand that our emotion isn’t necessarily God’s emotion. Paul is talking about the message that he is delivering. He has this great emotion as he delivers it; but the emphasis is on the summons being made by God, i.e., the message being spoken. I would not confuse those two.
“And if God is not willing that any perish, how can that not mean that He wants all to be saved? There are no other choices are there?”
I don’t interpret this passage that way. I believe Peter is talking about the elect here. Do you believe that God is lengthening time in the hopes that time will somehow save people? Peter’s point is that Christ has yet to return because He is not willing that any (i.e., of you) should perish. Notice, it says that He is patient TOWARD YOU. So He is waiting for all of His elect to come to repentance, not wishing that a single one should perish. He is not infinitely holding off time for people to repent as though time might bring the non-elect any closer than they were before. Besides, we’ll all be waiting for eternity then if that were true.
“And if He wants all to be saved and pleads with them to come to Him, that certainly is a contradiction to causing them to stay as they are–unsaved.”
Two things here:
1. I don’t believe He wants all to be saved unless you’re talking about it in the moral sense, where He wants all to do what is right in being restored to Him.
2. God does not cause anyone to stay as they are. They cause themselves to stay as they are. God simply does not cause them to become what they do not wish to become in the first place. They do not love Him. He does not give them love for Him. They remain as they are.
Once again, I just don’t see the contradiction within the system. Now, if I had a non-Calvinistic system then I really would see a contradiction because if God can do all things, including persuading someone to believe in Him without infringing on his “free-will,” wants to save everyone, has no decree to the contrary, and He doesn’t, then that is far more a contradiction to me than anything that I’ve seen in a Reformed system.
In fact, God only has to have more persuasive ability than the devil and are finite reasoning. If He does, I’m not sure why He doesn’t save everyone apart from a Calvinistic understanding of Rom 9. How would you answer that?
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, I believe Christ’s appeal is to prevent His elect from entering an unrepentant lifestyle; but the problem of hell is a problem for all systems. For instance, does God know the future perfectly? If He does, and he knows who exactly will go to hell, then it would seem more merciful and loving not to create that person at all, wouldn’t it? Doesn’t Jesus say this of Judas, “It would have been better if he had never been born”? If that’s true, why did God make him? The Lord says he had been brought about to fulfill the Scripture as the traitor. What would you say of this?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, the question that you are bringing up is not unique to the Calvinistic system. All systems of classic theism have to deal with a God who knows the outcome, yet is dealing with them in a real relationship. Even if you don’t accept unconditional election, you have a God who foreknows all “free-will” decisions of all people calling them to righteousness even though he very well knows the ones who won’t respond.
This is why many Arminians adopt an “open” view of God’s knowledge, limiting it to “what can be know.” In their view, free will decisions cannot be know or they would not be truly free and God’s interaction would be a farce.
However, in classic theism, where God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is proclaimed, we must adjust our thinking, understanding that there are going to be elements of mystery that our finite minds cannot comprehend. We all believe in a God who has true interaction, true relationships, yet, nevertheless, knows the outcome.
All of this to say that your belief in this inherent contradiction (which I simply say is a mystery since no syllogistic formal absurdity can be demonstrated in any sense), does not go away in whatever system, unless you opt for open theism. But then your biblical problems are so incredible that your current state would be much worse than the former (biblically, theologically, and philosophically)
Like or Dislike:
0
that should be “our finite reasoning.” Yikes, I haven’t made that mistake since elementary school.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge: “What, in your view, is Paul saying? Are you arguing that Paul is not saying that God did not choose them, but instead chose many Gentiles to become Israel in their place? Or are you saying that this has nothing to do with God choosing to pass over many of the Jews for His purposes at this time?”
I’m saying that Paul is making a point about why the Gentiles having faith now trumps the promises made to Israel. And this excursion into God’s sovereignty is Paul’s defence of why God has the right to do what he wants in this area.
Like or Dislike:
0
M. Patton: “John, so in essence you are saying that the whole passage is a subjunctive possibility?”
No, I’m not saying that, because the passage isn’t distinctly about salvation by secret election, but rather about God’s sovereignty. Yes, some of the examples are about salvation, some possibly about secret will/election, but the issue of Pharoah is more to do with God showing his power rather than whether Pharaoah is saved (cf v17 “for this purpose I raised you”), and parts of it are simply about who is regarded as God’s people without salvation specifically in view.
For it to be a subjective possibility, Paul would have to first state that this is God’s grand universal plan. Instead, Paul gives some examples of God exercising his sovereignty. They are not subjunctive because they actually happened. But Paul’s conclusion about all this sovereignty in v30 is that God has the right to make faith the criteria, which trumps all those promises to Israel. His conclusion is not that God is universally acting to save according to secret will.
“the entire section leave the church in doubt as to whether God has really chosen them or just possibly, therefore their troubles are worse than the Israelite as a whole”
I don’t see the point. Paul’s conclusion is faith (v30). Unless you are Pharaoh or Jacob, what certainty can you get as an individual about how God dealt with them? Pharoah’s situation is pretty unique in many ways don’t you think? I mean, is your average unbeliever raised up by God so that God might be “proclaimed throughout the whole world”? (v17) If not, then you are being selective about how far you expand the meaning.
“2) anyone could claim this about any passage in the Bible.”
I’m not claiming the text says any more or any less than it says. God claims sovereignty. He exercised it in these specific ways with Pharaoah and Jacob and Esau. Righteousness is now by faith, and that is God’s chosen criteria in this age for his “having mercy on whom he has mercy”. God’s right of sovereignty as demonstrated by Paul rebuts a Jew who thinks God’s promises to Israel makes them above Gentiles. I haven’t made any text theoretical, I just haven’t expanded it beyond what Paul states.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike on 11 Jan 2010 at 9:10 pm wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what are the best interpretations of this passage from an Arminian perspective?
There are many interpretations of Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective. The main Arminian approach is to understand Romans 9 in the immediate context of Rom. 9-11 which forms a unit in which Paul fully makes his argument. The Arminian approach is also careful to incorporate all that Paul has said prior to Romans 9 in the same epistle. Arminians believe that when Romans 9 is understood in the immediate context of Rom. 9-11 and in the broader context of Rom. 1-8, the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 becomes untenable. Here is a pretty good treatment of Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/286
Don’t let the reference to the “New Perspective” throw you. The exegesis really has nothing to do with the controversial elements of the “New Perspective on Paul” view (i.e. those elements dealing with the nature and purpose of justification). Basically, it is just a solid Arminian interpretation of Rom. 9. There are many other exegetical works on Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective to consider. I could point you to some resources if you like. Also, see my response to Patton below.
God Bless,
Ben
Like or Dislike:
0
I was hoping this topic would come up. I have this question, but first a passage:
2 Thes 2:13 But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
Here our election is contingent upon 2 things: 1) sanctification by the Spirit, and 2) faith in the truth.
I’ve always thought of the sanctification by the Spirit as described in John 16:8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment – 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; (not personal sins, but the sin of unbelief)
And, of course, faith in the truth corresponds to belief in the Gospel, or a rejection of the Gospel, since Jesus tells us that condemnation is “by your words” (Matt 12.37).
So, why isn’t Election simply as described here in 2 Thes? God’s separates us and convinces the world of the truth of the Gospel, and man has a decision to make.
Even in Eph 1, election is a spiritual blessing bestowed on those who are “in Christ.” This bestowal takes place either simultaneous or logically subsequent to one’s entrance into Christ, which is based on “having believed, you were sealed.”
Sincerely,
CQ
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke,
“Jugulum,
There are so many anachronisms I won’t even go there. The only thing I’ll say is that you (& CMP) are losing sight of the forest for the trees.”
Seriously? “Anachronism”? I said that I think Calvinism accurately describes the kind of election discussed by Paul (and that Paul anticipates the most common objection people will make against that idea). And you’re calling that “anachronism”?
If that’s really what you meant–you didn’t expand, so I’m not sure–then that’s silly. If I’m wrong in my exegesis, I’m wrong. But if you’re going to call that “anachronism”, then we might as well say the same about every mistaken interpretation that anyone ever makes.
As for “forest for the trees”–I assume you’re referring back to your question to Michael, “Do you think Romans 9-11 is an excursus in Paul’s letter to the Romans?”
His original post explained how Romans 9-11 flows from Romans 8. (And last fall I wrote my own understanding of the flow of thought of Romans 7-12.)
No, we don’t view it as an excursus, and Michael did refer to the forest. You can’t accuse us of missing the forest for the trees simply because we do point out the existence of a particular tree.
If you want to continue arguing that we really are missing the forest for the trees, you should take the time to interact with what Michael originally already said about why Romans 9-11 is there. (And you could also take a look at what I wrote.)
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
While Romans 9 does address election and God’s sovereignty, noticeably absent from the text is the idea of unconditionality.
“If you don’t empathize with the objection, then you have misunderstood Paul.”
Not exactly, the question is rather ignorant and ill-founded, which Paul indicates in his dismissal of it as haughtiness (replying against God).
“…if the Arminian position of conditional election were correct … there is really no problem at all.” … “It is only under the supposition of unconditional election that this makes sense.” … “There is no need for such a response if conditional election is in view!”
Actually, the objection is against God hardening men’s hearts (the resulting works of which He finds fault for), which many Arminians acknowledge He does per Romans 1:21 and on. However, God hardening or blinding some men’s hearts doesn’t imply that He does so unconditionally, the passage I alluded to implying that He does so based upon their rejection of Him:
“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. …” (Romans 1:25-26a)
Still, some still raise philosophical objections against God’s judgment, applying some made-up standard of what God can justly hold people accountable for. The appropriate course of action, which Paul takes, isn’t to try and hash out details to someone asking questions designed to engender strife, but rather to call the objectors on their conceit in thinking they can question God. The objector isn’t voicing an biblically synergistic question about election, but a challenge to God’s sovereignty based upon wordly philosophy. Given the Armininan view on divine hardening (as addressed by Chisholm, http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Chisholm.%20Divine%20Hardening.pdf), our hypothetical “God can’t do that!” objector would have just as much trouble with the Arminian view of hardening and accountability as he would the Calvinist.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I don’t think that’s Paul’s argument. He seems to be saying that the promises to Israel have not been trumped, precisely because they are spiritually fulfilled in the Geniles and may even be physically fulfilled by the Jews at some point in the future as well. The argument then is that Israel can be made up of any who God places in it, since He sovereignly chooses who will be the heirs according to promise.
6 But [it is] not as though the word of God has failed . For they are not all Israel who are [descended] from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Like or Dislike:
0
All, as per my normal routine, I am not going to be able to stay engaged in this for much longer.
However, I do want to respond to JC here:
JC, thanks for your responses. You said:
“Not exactly, the question is rather ignorant and ill-founded, which Paul indicates in his dismissal of it as haughtiness (replying against God).”
Not simply from an exegetical perspective, but from a literary and argumentative perspective, this is about the most misleading thing Paul could do. You are simply saying he dismisses the question as ignorant. But this goes against the rules of an imaginary diatribe. A diatribe is a rhetorical divise for representative clarity. Paul is representing the audience and the possible objections. This is characteristic of Paul throughout Romans. He is very thoughtful about this. Too thoughtful to simply dismiss his own objectors thoughts as ignorant if, in reality, it is a misunderstanding! He would most certianly correct the misunderstanding…which he does not.
“Actually, the objection is against God hardening men’s hearts”
No, the harding of hearts is simply illustrative toward God’s electing purpose. It starts with a specific example then broadens to him sovereign choice on who to have mercy on.
The unconditionality of all of this is built in from the very beginning to the very end. The whole point is that it does not depend upon man. “”It does not depend on the man who wills or runs, but God who has mercy…” It is hard for me to believe that you would fail to see everything in this passage being conditioned only upon God’s will.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Paul brings up Pharaoh, as one in whom God’s glory is shown through his rebellion against Him, in order to say that God can choose to do this to anyone regarding whether they are a member of Israel or not. Hence, whether they are saved and have those promises added to them.
This is why the objector says, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?
The passage is clearly referring to people upon whom God would have mercy and people He hardens in order to demonstrate His mercy on some by demonstrating His wrath on others.
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And [He did so] to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 [even] us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. 25 As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, `My people,’
Like or Dislike:
0
“Not exactly, the question is rather ignorant and ill-founded, which Paul indicates in his dismissal of it as haughtiness (replying against God).”
He does dismiss it as haughtiness, yes–in 9:20a. But then it goes on to 9:20b, and 21-24. The presumptuous question is a pot asking the potter “Why did you make me this way?”–and after calling it presumptuous, Paul goes on to talk about the way God makes us. If that’s a picture Paul uses for election, where does conditionality come in?
If you can establish that Paul is referring to Jeremiah 18, you have a case. If you’ve got an argument for that, please bring it up. I haven’t seen one before–I’ve just seen people simply claim that it does. But Paul could just be drawing on Isaiah 29:16, or Isaiah 45:9, or various Jewish literature from between the OT and the NT. (John Piper’s book The Justification of God details the ways that potter & clay imagery was used.)
Nothing in Paul’s description of the potter and clay points to conditionality. The closest thing is that it says God prepares the pots for mercy, but it simply say the other pots “are prepared” for wrath. But that doesn’t suggest that the election to mercy was conditional!
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
One last try to get this to post. I just am trying to get one question answered. How is saying that God loves those he has predestined and ordained to suffer eternal conscious torment with no hope of relief despite having the full ability to unconditionally elect them to eternal bliss not a contradiction. If this is what love is then I want nothing to do with love.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
“You are simply saying he dismisses the question as ignorant. But this goes against the rules of an imaginary diatribe. A diatribe is a rhetorical divise for representative clarity.”
Well… I’m not sure how ridiculous it is—suggesting that Paul might dismiss the question without explaining. At least, I wouldn’t reject the suggestion out-of-hand because of “the rules of imaginary diatribe”. The forms of imaginary diatribe are an argument, but not perfect proof. (And maybe it’s a stronger argument than I realize—I don’t know enough about the styles of rhetoric from that time. If you’re right, you would need to point someone to the background information that would tell them it really is a very strong point.)
However, even without that kind of background—Paul didn’t just dismiss the objection. He went on, and continued the image of the potter and clay. People have to deal with all of what he said in 9:20-24, and how it fits with 9 as a whole. And 20-24 doesn’t help the non-Calvinist interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
You made a couple of statements that are contradictory unless I misunderstand you completely.
In # 60 you said, “his requires Him to cause some to be born again, and others to remain as they are”
And in #68 you say, “God does not cause anyone to stay as they are. They cause themselves to stay as they are. God simply does not cause them to become what they do not wish to become in the first place”
Which do you mean?
And obviously our understanding of various verses is so different that it is not likey we will ever agree here.
Like or Dislike:
0
What is conditional about “So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy”?
It is not based on the man who wills or the man who runs (i.e., lives according to a pattern of works). This seems to be the same as John’s statement:
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cherylu,
That’s my imprecise language there. I was negating the idea that God causes someone to stay in their sin in the sense that He makes them stay there. They do that on their own. The second statement I simply meant to say that God causes some to be born again, not that He also causes some to stay in their sin. I believe He chooses to let some stay in their sin, but that is different than direct causation. I’m sorry for the confusion. I should have been more clear.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
“…this is about the most misleading thing Paul could do.”
How is shooting down a line of reasoning by calling its underlying assumptions into question ‘misleading?’
“Too thoughtful to simply dismiss his own objectors thoughts as ignorant if, in reality, it is a misunderstanding!”
Notice again that Paul doesn’t actually answer the objection. The question involves a ‘why,’ that was likely a common line of argumentation that was fundamentally wrong because it carried the implicit idea that God had no right to harden people, which Paul does quite inescapably dismiss, since he doesn’t answer it directly (nor need he).
“He would most certianly correct the misunderstanding…which he does not.”
What misunderstanding?
“No, the harding of hearts is simply illustrative toward God’s electing purpose.”
Looking at the text,
“Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” (Romans 9:18-19)
Contextually, the question pertains directly to the hardening, since God would hardly be finding fault in people for being elected!
“The unconditionality of all of this is built in from the very beginning to the very end.”
It must be assumed a priori, since it’s nowhere concretely indicated in the text.
The whole point is that it does not depend upon man. “”It does not depend on the man who wills or runs, but God who has mercy…”
Election is an act of God, not man, and hence is not of us, as Romans 9:16 indicates. No one is disputing that. This doesn’t preclude God from sovereignly choosing according to whatever criteria He wishes (such as His foreknowledge – 1 Peter 1:2), be they conditional or not. Apart from unwarranted importation, unconditional election simply isn’t in the passage.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP, please close your eyes, I am about to disagree with you, probably the first time since I started posting on this site ( LOL )
I tend to agree with what John is stating above (#73) As I read this passage I see it more about God stating his sovereignity and that in the course of life God will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, Bad things happen to Christians.. but know God is sovereign . However , I have difficulty with the vessel for honorable use and dishonorable use. …but allowing this truth as is stated leads me to a position of God creating people for Hell ….And this bothers me quite a bit to the point of “Is this a God I can worship and love!!! ?This becomes my worst nightmare in that if God knows everything why did he continue to create mankind with the end result in view. (endless separation from God with no HOPE!!! I simply can’t go there!!!
I believe Love and Hope must trumpt what these verses are saying.
Love your blog and all the posts….I see people trying to find truth even if I don’t agree!!! Thanks Mike
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum,
“…Paul goes on to talk about the way God makes us. If that’s a picture Paul uses for election, where does conditionality come in?”
That’s not the issue; this is the text most oft cited to prove the opposite. The question is, where does the passage indicate unconditionality?
“Nothing in Paul’s description of the potter and clay points to conditionality.”
Logically speaking, a passage not pointing to conditionality in an isolated instance doesn’t establish unconditionality.
Like or Dislike:
0
JC,
“Desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power…in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy” isn’t a reason?
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
In # 70 you said, “Cheryl, the question that you are bringing up is not unique to the Calvinistic system. All systems of classic theism have to deal with a God who knows the outcome, yet is dealing with them in a real relationship. Even if you don’t accept unconditional election, you have a God who foreknows all “free-will” decisions of all people calling them to righteousness even though he very well knows the ones who won’t respond.”
But only in Calvinism do you have God on the one hand calling people to repentance and on the other hand deliberately refusing to give them the means to repent.
And if that isn’t enough, those people that are not repenting do not even have a choice to repent at all in Calvinistic thinking because they are “utterly depraved” and can’t respond to God. And do you not believe they were born with original sin so they have always been that way–unable to respond? If they have no choice in the matter because they can’t respond, how is it not a contradiction to love them, want them to be saved, call them to be saved, and at the same time steadfastly refuse to them the means to be saved??
So, I still believe there is a real contradiction here. Specially for someone like you that says you believe God loves all people and desires all people to be saved.
Like or Dislike:
0
JC,
“That’s not the issue; this is the text most oft cited to prove the opposite. The question is, where does the passage indicate unconditionality?”
9:11 and 9:15-16, for one. 9:21, for another–”out of the same lump”.
I would also say that the objector’s question “Why have you made me like this?” would leave no room for conditionality. Do you disagree with that? If you’re objecting to unconditional election–if you’re objecting to the idea of God giving some depraved people mercy but leaving others in their depravity—then you’ll talk about being made that way. (That’s what people say to Calvinism—if we’re born with our hearts turned utterly away from God, and God doesn’t give us the grace we need to repent, how can he hold us accountable?)
Note: If the objector didn’t understand Paul correctly, then that doesn’t matter. I just explained something about the objector’s assumptions about how God is working—but if Paul doesn’t accept those assumptions, then it doesn’t matter.
But Paul does go on to use the same imagery—how we’re made. How is “out of the same lump” compatible with your idea? If Paul means that the lump of clay is homogeneous, it isn’t. You would need the potter to be picking the better-quality clay out of the lump—picking the repentant, faithful clay.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jug,
That’s not a direct answer, since it addresses God’s forebearance with evil men, not His holding them accountable.
9:11 and 9:15-16, for one
Neither of which indicate God choosing unconditionally.
“I would also say that the objector’s question “Why have you made me like this?” would leave no room for conditionality. Do you disagree with that?”
Of course, since such a conclusion requires assuming (without textual support) that God chooses to shape people unconditionally. See my citation of Romans 1….
“If you’re objecting to unconditional election–if you’re objecting to the idea of God giving some depraved people mercy but leaving others in their depravity—then you’ll talk about being made that way.”
That doesn’t follow, but you’re welcome to clarify.
“That’s what people say to Calvinism…”
That’s a generality, that’s not everyone’s objection. Mine is that it isn’t scriptural.
“How is “out of the same lump” compatible with your idea?”
You’re shifting the burden of proof again, the question is how does this support unconditionality (or its equivalent, disprove conditionality)?
“Paul means that the lump of clay is homogeneous, it isn’t.”
(?)
“You would need the potter to be picking the better-quality clay out of the lump—picking the repentant, faithful clay.”
That’s the ‘inherent ability’ fallacy all too common to Reformed apologetics. Also, ‘one lump’ doesn’t necessarily imply people being completely homogenous. That’s reading far greater implications into the wording than such an analogy warrants.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jug, great point about “same lump.” Very explicit imagery.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
“Declare and set forth {your case;} Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.” Is 45:21-22
You have stated that you don’t believe God wants all to be saved. Again, this verse which I brought up before has God telling all the ends of the earth to turn to Him, the Savior, and be saved. Why would God tell them all to turn to Him and be saved if He didn’t even want them to be saved or have any plan to save them? That is not only contradictory, it seems down right bizarre to me.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl,
They are “utterly depraved” in both Calvinism and Arminianism. Only forms of Pelagian theology advance the theory of innate ability.
“But only in Calvinism do you have God on the one hand calling people to repentance and on the other hand deliberately refusing to give them the means to repent.”
But my point is that you still have the same problem in any system that advocates exhaustive divine foreknowledge.
System 1: God calls people to repent knowing they won’t. Yet the call is genuine. (Arminianism)
System 2: God calls people to repent knowing they won’t and knowing they can’t. Yet the call in genuine.
Not much difference. Which is not “contradictory” in your system? Are you simply looking for the less “contradictory” of the two?
(BTW: I am not conceding any contradiction, just conceding to your (mis)use of the word for sake of the argument
)
Like or Dislike:
0
Jug,
That is my point. Diatribes are representative conversations for the sake of clarity, not emotional imaginary (and most importantly) dismissive conversational rhetoric. Therefore, I agree, Paul did answer this. He did not dismiss it. He simply gave the answer that, while a conversation stopper, was all we needed to know.
Again, the very rhetoric of this diatribe evidences the Calvinistic interpretation.
Douglas Moo talks about the nature of diatribes in his commentary on Romans. But it is not particular to this section, it is part of the background commentary as Paul uses the diatribe method throughout the book (ref. 6:1 for a clear illustration)
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree with John in #73, when he says:
“Righteousness is now by faith, and that is God’s chosen criteria in this age for his “having mercy on whom he has mercy”. God’s right of sovereignty as demonstrated by Paul rebuts a Jew who thinks God’s promises to Israel makes them above Gentiles.”
if we are going to compare unconditional election as defined by Calvinism, with God’s right to sovereignty over all His creation then we do indeed have a picture of God who is a split personality.
As far as the potter-clay verses go, certainly scripture is full of history showing even the elect can be used by God as vessels of dishonor, as evidenced by David, who was the chosen of God, and even Paul himself, the author of much of the NT. David was used by God to show the consequences of lust,and murder. Paul even murdered Christians and was struck blind by God. Then there is a disciple elected by Christ Himself, Peter, denying Christ three times.
I would find it quite hard to tell someone about Christ, have them accept Him as Lord and Savior by asking for forgiveness of their sins, and then have to tell them that I wasn’t sure if they were part of God’s original elect or not. Especially after telling them that we are saved by grace through faith because of what Christ did, and who He was, not because we were/are originally just part of some divine lottery system instead.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
OK, so people are not able to come to God unless He draws them. That is made clear in John. HOWEVER, to call people, tell them to come and repent and be saved, love them, and desire them to be saved, and at the same time steadfastly refuse to draw them or to enable them in any way to come when you have the ability to do so is contradictory in my way of thinking. (Maybe I am using the word wrong, but I can’t think of another one that works any better here!) Or are you maybe saying that the desire to punish their sin and make His wrath known is stronger than His love for them or the desire to see these ones saved?
If the latter is the case, and it sounds like there will be many more condemned than saved if I understand the NT correctly, it would seem that a statement of “God is wrath” might be more accurate than “God is love.”
Like or Dislike:
0
This is going to have to be my last interaction here.
However: I do appreciate that you all are now keeping it to this text! Good stuff right now.
Michael,
“How is saying that God loves those he has predestined and ordained to suffer eternal conscious torment with no hope of relief despite having the full ability to unconditionally elect them to eternal bliss not a contradiction.”
Well, this is a bit of a reducio ad absurdum, but I will grant it since I understand the problem you have.
Let me lay this out:
1. God has predestined some and not others
2. Those who he has not predestined are going to suffer eternal torment in hell.
3. God could save all but does not.
4. God loves all people, even those not predestined.
There is not a formal contradiction here. There could be, but it could also be a loss of information (meaning that something is left out—i.e. we don’t have all the data.
All one has to do is add one element to see this:
1. God has predestined some and not others
2. Those who he has not predestined are going to suffer eternal torment in hell.
3. God could save all but does not for reasons reserved in his mysterious will.
4. God loves all people, even those not predestined.
But, again, no one can escape this charge. Here is the Arminian scheme (with the reducio)
1. God has created all people.
2. God created those who would not believe in him knowing full well that they would not believe in him.
3. God could have not created them to save them the suffering.
4. God loves all people
But this is not a contradiction either. It, from the arminian perspective, has simply left some key elements out.
But, again, no one can escape this charge. Here is the Arminian scheme (without the reducio):
1. God has created all people.
2. God created those who would not believe in him knowing full well that they would not believe in him.
3. God could have not created them to save them the suffering but did not because _________ (here introduce whatever you want such as “of a divine mystery” or “to give them a chance either way”).
4. God loves all people.
The point is, 1) what you are calling a contradiction is not in any sense. Just a confusing mystery and 2) both sides have the same issue.
The open theists are right: As Arminians, the only way to escape the mystery is to become an open theist, believing that God does not know the future. My problem with this is that it represents a very modernistic approach to the issue that say we cannot entertain any mystery…we MUST have all the answers and it must look good.
Theology is messy sometimes. The Trinity is messy. Creation ex nihilo is messy. They hypostatic union is messy. But none are contraditions and all are true. Same here with divine sovereignty, love, and human freedom.
My opinion: We need to accept what the Scriptures teach here and hold it in tension with the other clear teachings.
What’s the big problem with tension?
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker speaks of a God with a split personality. That is exactly what this whole thing makes me think.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
There is so much to say concerning this that it is very hard to put it all in a post or two. I really do think that the Arminian interp is in far better harmony with the greater context of Rom. 9-11 than the Calvinist interpretation. I would also take issue with your view that Paul is speaking of unconditional security in Rom. 8:28-39. Rather, Paul is speaking of all of the benefits that come to the believer through faith union with Christ (notice the bookend “in Christ” language in Rom. 8:1 and 8:39). While one remains in Christ through faith, nothing in this world can separate the believer from Christ. However, the passage says noting of those who may reject Christ at a later time and remove themselves from the sphere of God’s elective love (which is “in Christ Jesus”, 8:39).
I would also argue that Paul is primarily speaking of the corporate body of Christ, the church, in Rom. 8:28-30 and of individuals secondarily only as they relate to and are identified with the elect corporate body that ultimately finds its identification in Christ (for more on the corporate election view see here). So while these things are true of the corporate body of believers, they are only true of the individual on the condition that he or she remains in that elect body through faith. This truth is clearly brought out in Romans 11:16-24. So Rom. 8:28-39 does not preclude the possibility of apostasy on the part of the individual who may ultimately be broken off from the elect body through unbelief. However, in his reflection on all of the covenant blessings and benefits that belong to the church as a result of their union with Christ, Paul’s thoughts quickly shift to his own people who have largely been denied these benefits due to their unbelief. So the question naturally arises, has God’s promises to Israel failed? Has God been unfaithful to Israel denying them participation in the new covenant that the Gentiles are now enjoying?
In short, the answer is a resounding “no”, since God has the sovereign right choose His covenant people on whatever basis He decides upon. This basis is union with Christ through faith rather than heritage or works. God decides who His covenant partner will be and who His covenant people will be. This is Paul’s point in Rom. 9:1-13. God chose His people through His sovereign election of the covenant heads (the patriarchs) and this election was not based on man’s decision but God’s decision. But God’s ultimate purpose in election was to open the door for all people to enjoy His love as God’s chosen covenant people and that purpose has now been realized in Christ (cf. Rom 4:16-25). Therefore, the children of the promise are not those that God unconditionally elected from all eternity, but the ones who receive the promise by faith (cf. Rom. 3:21-4:25; Galatians 3:15-29). Continued below:
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
In my view God still creates those who will reject Him in the interest of libertarian free will. Free will wouldn’t exist if God simply didn’t create anyone who would reject him. It’d kinda be like the parent who gives their kids an allowance but then stops the kid from spending the money how the kid sees fit. The money really isn’t the kids. In the same way if God stepped in and either refused to create or prevented people from misusing their free will it wouldn’t really be free will (this is also a classical defense of the problem of evil put forth by individuals such as Alvin Plantinga). Maybe it’s just me but this seems to be a much more reasonable argument then simply attributing something to the mysterious unrevealed will of God. I’d much rather stick to what is revealed in Scripture then see Scripture as nothing more then subterfuge and misdirection for what God’s real will is.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
You’re taking the phrase “dishonorable use” by itself.
Was David prepared for destruction? Would David be contrasted with vessels prepared for glory who are called “sons of the living God”?
I would have a hard time doing that, too. And I wouldn’t say that.
Whether you’re Arminian or Calvinist, if someone is trusting in Christ for forgiveness of sins, then they’re saved—they’re “elect”. The evidence that they believe & repent is the evidence that they’re elect. And whether you’re Arminian or Calvinist, there’s such a thing as “false brethren”—people who profess belief and are in the church, but they aren’t actually trusting in Christ.
Either way, we treat people in the church as though they’re genuine. (Though if someone is living in sin or promoting really bad theology, we rebuke & exhort them with the hope of restoring them–and we don’t actually know whether they’re wayward-but-true brethren, or false brethren who need to trust in Christ for the first time. Church discipline looks the same either way.)
And we preach the gospel to everyone–because even Christians often need to be reminded of the gospel, and because there always may be visitors or regular church-goers who don’t know the gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Also on another note I find your accusation of modernism against Open Theists rather amusing since the Open Theists I have read (primarily Greg Boyd since he was a prof at the undergrad school I went to) make the same accusations against the more classical Calvinists (by which I mean those who interpret all the “all” passages in the Bible to mean just the “elect”). I believe Boyd is actually currently working on a 2000 page long book on how Greek and Western philosophy influenced the Church to adopt a deterministic worldview over and against a warfare worldview. Maybe in the end it’s the Arminian’s who have the only view which has tension without contradiction.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
You say God loves even those that are not predestined for eternal life. I reckon that in the end this is the bottom line for me.
If God really loves them, desires them to be saved and even pleads with them to be saved telling them of the horrors of hell and how it is to be avoided at all costs, HOW IN THE WORLD IS THAT LOVE SHOWN by refusing to give them the opportunity to be saved but instead sending them to hell?
Doesn’t love want the best for a person and want to protect a person? Instead of that, God’s love in this case seems to be giving them the ultimate evil imaginable to any man! That is the strangest love and definintion of love I have ever heard. And that is–you got it!–a CONTRADICTION!!
Like or Dislike:
0
cheryl,
Re: split personality
Is it really that unusual to talk about desiring something, but deciding not to make it happen even though you can—because of something else that takes priority?
It’s one thing to say “I don’t understand what takes priority–why God doesn’t save more than he does, since he could”. (I think the Bible says something about it without fully satisfying our desire for understanding.) But that hardly makes a split personality. The basic idea makes perfect sense.
Even if the Bible actually doesn’t teach Calvinistic election–even if it has other flaws of interpretation and/or logic–that isn’t a contradiction.
Like or Dislike:
0
I want to clarify the last point I made. I am not a universalist and I do believe sin needs to be punished.
However, to have a way to save a person from that punishment and to refuse to offer it to them all the while claiming to love them and to BE LOVE, is what I just can’t wrap my mind around.
Like I said above, if it is more important for God to show His wrath rather than His love to the great majority of people, it seems to me that it would maybe have been better to have stated that He is wrath instead of He is love.
Like or Dislike:
0
SEA just promoted a newly released article by Dr. Brian Abasciano which promotes the corporate view of election and gives great insight into the background of passages like the one being discussed here:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/814
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu,
Great points!
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu,
Check out my treatment of Rom. 9 above (starting at comment # 102) for an alternative interpretation. Tell me what you think if you get the chance.
God Bless,
Ben
Like or Dislike:
0
cheryl,
I don’t believe it’s a matter of not offering them a way to be saved. The gospel call goes out even to all, even though we’re set against him in our hearts.
Our “inability” to respond is about unwillingness to respond. It’s not that anyone is outside the gates of heaven wanting entry but having it withheld by God. It’s a matter of everyone being unwilling to come–and God having the ability to soften our hearts, but not doing it for everyone.
I’m sure you have a problem with even that–but it’s not a matter of not offering them a way to be saved.
Like or Dislike:
0
Folks, again, I am not able to engage in this any more. There have been 20 posts in the last hour!
However, some of you are beginning to spam the blog with one comment after another. Please read our rules. There is a reason why there is a 3000 character limit. If it can’t be said in one post, then write a blog response somewhere else and refer to it.
Thanks again for the great contributions!
Like or Dislike:
0
Jujulum,
You said:
“Whether you’re Arminian or Calvinist, if someone is trusting in Christ for forgiveness of sins, then they’re saved—they’re “elect”. The evidence that they believe & repent is the evidence that they’re elect.”
On that we can agree, even though I am neither Calvinist or Arminian, but hold a view somewhere in between. However, the overriding opinion does not suggest the evidence is belief and repentance that makes us the elect, at least according to 5 point Calvinism. This is where I find the dichotomy. According to way Romans 9 is being interpreted by this post, it is more about a predestined choice made by God before we were born, which is the point of this discussion on Romans 9. It is hard to see how Christ factors in the Calvinistic frame of reference in Romans 9. Many of us are hearing some of you say it’s about personal predestination instead of personal redemption through Christ.
I do agree with your assessment however, that the evidence we are ‘elect’ is through believing in Christ, and repenting from our sins.
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu,
I think that you would also greatly benefit from these articles by Dr. Thomas McCall who agrees with your main objections being expressed in this thread.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/811
Like or Dislike:
0
FYI:
The two best commentaries I have read on Romans (and there are so many!!) are Moo and CEB Cranfield. Moo is accessible to all, but Cranfield (which is the standard) is a bit advanced.
I would suggest getting those. Moo, however, does a great job of dealing with the argument.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
You wrote:
However, some of you are beginning to spam the blog with one comment after another. Please read our rules. There is a reason why there is a 3000 character limit. If it can’t be said in one post, then write a blog response somewhere else and refer to it.
I apologize for the length of my posts and that several of them were posted in a row, but the question you ask in your post requires a very detailed answer. So I didn’t see it as spam. I saw it as a detailed response to a question that was repeatedly asked in this thread: that someone offer an alternative interpretation to the one you have offered if one is to properly challenge that interpretation. I do intend in putting my comments above into a post at my blog at some point, but in doing so one can never be sure how many will think it worth pursuing. So I was trying to engage your post in the most direct way as possible. I thought that is what you were after and I made sure to limit the content to Rom. 9. But again, I apologize if that response was longer than you approve of. I did not intend to violate your blog rules.
God Bless,
Ben
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum,
But according to Calvinism “total depravity” means we are totally incapable of responding to God–we are so completely dead in our sin that there is no way we can do so. So how exactly is one to do so if God does not give them the opportunity? And how can it be showing love to that person to have the remedy to the situation and steadfastly refuse to offer it?
Like or Dislike:
0
One of the problems it seems to me is the difference in the way unconditional election is defined by the two different camps. Unconditional election, (as I am seeing it interpreted in the context of this post regarding Romans 9) seems to mean in Calvinism that it has more to do with the predestination of a chosen few, who then are defined as the ‘elect’. However, the overwhelming majority of scripture regarding salvation extends it to ALL who would believe. Paul reiterates this in Romans 10: 9-13:
“For if that shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, that shall be saved.”
“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.”
“For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all them that call upon Him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
That’s why I believe we have to take the two chapters of Romans 9 and 10 together to get the true picture of what Paul was talking about regarding unconditional election.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ben, no problem. That is why we have the comment limiter and the statement about posting one after the other. It is not just you, but we have to delete comments like this all the time or we simply become a surragote for others. I actually have more trouble with a few Calvinists who spam the blog. Even though it is stuff I generally agree with, our moderators must keep this in check.
Like or Dislike:
0
For those who are interested, here is my full response to Patton which was too long for posting in this thread [link]
[comments deleted by moderator]
Ben
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
If those are the rules, then I understand. But, I thought in this case an exception could be made given Ben’s clarification of his intent.
Brian
Like or Dislike:
0
The best thing for someone to do is write their own blog post about it. That is all I can do as there are far too many people who post on this blog who do the same thing.
Like or Dislike:
0
Those passages are not about election; they are explaining how it is that Christians might be more saved than Jews.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Just so you know I have read your blog rules but it was quite some time ago. I remembered that you said comments should not be longer than the OP, and I was kinda going by that. My cumulative response was still shorter than the OP. But my memory of the rule was incomplete as the rule actually states,
3. Keep your comments short. Like when your comments are longer than the blog, that is too long. Try to keep them to 100 words.
The second part about 100 words is what I had forgotten. Also, I didn’t think my comment deleted above was offensive, but on further reflection I can see why it was moderated. However, the fact that the moderator didn’t just delete it but made mention of the fact that it had been moderated, really leaves things up to the imagination of other readers who could easily draw the conclusion that I wrote something very rude or mean, which was not at all the case. It is of course your blog, but I was just wondering why it was moderated that way. I won’t bother you further.
God Bless,
Ben
Like or Dislike:
0
“Why would God tell them all to turn to Him and be saved if He didn’t even want them to be saved or have any plan to save them? That is not only contradictory, it seems down right bizarre to me.”
Cherylu, I’ve already answered this. God desires all to obey Him, but not all will, so He has willed some to be given the love for Him they need to follow Him and others He leaves in their self-love and hatred of His lordship. So God does want everyone to do as He says, but since they don’t all do what He says, He chooses to cause some to do so and leaves others to remain as they are. ALL systems posit two wills in God. Even the neo-theist has to do this because we all obviously believe that God wants everyone to obey, but we also believe that God has to have another plan in the world since everyone will not obey. So there are two wills, two plans (a desired plan for everyone to obey and a desired plan for what He is doing in the world to work out that will not fulfill the first desire).
Having said that, you need to realize that language in the appeal is very generic. It calls out to everyone even though it really is only for those who follow it. If I say to a group at a party, “let’s go to the store for ice,” because five people had previously said they wanted to go with me, and those five people come with me, then really that message was only for those five people even though I made it generic and yelled it out to the entire crowd. So there are a couple different options one could go about answering your objection.
Like or Dislike:
0
People who are positing that Rom 9-11 is about faith vs. works, and therefore, not about election have that little disease I always refer to called “falsedichotomiosis.” The passage is answering why the Jews did not believe and remained in their feeble pursuits to obtain salvation through works and the Gentiles obtained it through faith instead. Why? Because God has mercy upon whom He has mercy and He has chosen that many Gentiles be given the inheritance of Israel now, and therefore, has chosen also to left others who would have received that inheritance in their false pursuits. In other words, one cannot argue that because the passage is concerned with humans doing action A instead of action B and therefore the passage cannot discuss God and His will as the source of action A rather than B.
Like or Dislike:
0
“However, to have a way to save a person from that punishment and to refuse to offer it to them all the while claiming to love them and to BE LOVE, is what I just can’t wrap my mind around.”
Cherylu,
How does your system escape this? Please lay out for me the difference in your system. If your system does not “excuse” God of the above, then it’s a moot point.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Free will wouldn’t exist if God simply didn’t create anyone who would reject him.”
Huh? God could have created only those He knew would accept Him. Hence, they would have the free choice to accept or reject Him, but He would know that they will accept Him. Hence, God creates as He wanted to, all humans He created would have “free-will” (whatever that is for finite sinful humans), and He would not have to send a single person to hell for all eternity. Why doesn’t He do that?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello Folks,
Interesting discussion of a suggested Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 here.
I wrote up a response and then noticed what happened to Ben’s posts (having his comments deleted due to length) and did not want that to happen to my comments as well (who wants to put time into responding and then see their comments deleted?).
A careful and appropriate response to Michael’s comments requires some space and some time.
I also noticed that Ben then went to his own blog and posted his comments there so he could post his comments fully and so there would be no problem caused by the lengths of his postings. I am going to post my comments over at Ben’s blog as well.
Michael makes some clear mistakes in his interpretation of Romans 9. Mistakes that I discuss and explain in my post over at Ben’s blog: ARMINIAN PERSPECTIVES. So if anyone is interested you can go there and see my comments.
My comments are at:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/
Robert
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge: “The argument then is that Israel can be made up of any who God places in it”
Kind of, but more specifically who he chooses is found here: “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;”
(Romans 9:30 NAS95)
“since He sovereignly chooses who will be the heirs according to promise.”
His sovereign choice is now predicated on faith according to v30. Yes, Paul makes the argument that he can predicate it on anything he likes because he is God, and he can predicate it on nothing at all IF HE WANTS, but Paul’s final conclusion about the New Covenant is he predicates it on faith. Why would you think anything else? Because of Pharaoh? But there he predicates it on “showing his power in all the earth”. Because “he will have mercy on who he has mercy”? So he will, but v30 specifies who that is.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi there.
I’m a Christian, a deterministic compatibilist, and not a Calvinist. I, for the most part, agree with your interpretation of Romans 9, and I have no problem with transcendent sovereignty arbitrating the elect from the non-elect according to his optimal plan.
In your mock correction, you had fake-Paul say, “God’s election is not based upon His sovereign unconditional decree, but upon your will to choose Him.”
As a compatibilist, unconditional election is easily reconciled with salvation being (at least partially) contingent on a person’s will.
How?
By recognizing that a person’s will is the product of sovereign predestination. In other words, our willful participation in salvation is absolutely coincident with God’s initial election. As soon as he created the world and planned his miraculous exceptions, he knew exactly who would end up saved.
But it’s not as if he rolled the dice when making his plan. He crafted his plan carefully and specifically so as to be optimal. Among all possible worlds/plans, he consciously crafted the one best for his creation. In other words, “coincident election” is nonetheless consciously predetermined by God. It elegantly satisfies emphases put forth by both sides of the aisle.
Any sort of determinism, even compatibilism, of course requires abandoning the incoherency of metaphysical libertarianism, an illusory conception borne of our inability to grasp the complexity of the unfathomable cause/effect network underpinning our world (both natural and supernatural).
Genuine libertarianism may be incoherent and illusory, but our libertarian feelings are very real, just as our ignorance about the world is very real. It’s important that we don’t treat “illusory” and “meaningless” as synonymous, as the hard determinists erroneously attempt. Over and over again, the Bible talks to us in proximal, libertarian terms. And yet the Bible explicitly advocates determinism. Compatibilism (like Hume’s) is the solution.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
I am almost 100% positive that we will still have no agreement here! However, I believe and have always been taught that the Gospel is offered to all men equally. Then folks do with it as they decide–give in to the drawing or reject it and turn away. Jesus did say in John 12, when referring to His death that He would draw ALL men unto Him when He was lifted up. And John 6 says that this drawing is what enables men to come to Him.
So, how to reconcile that with God choosing some and not others as spoken of in Romans 9 becomes the problem.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMT: “The unconditionality of all of this is built in from the very beginning to the very end. The whole point is that it does not depend upon man. “”It does not depend on the man who wills or runs, but God who has mercy…””
The question for me he is what does not depend on man. As far as I see, what doesn’t depend on man is the conditions for God having mercy. Willing or working isn’t going to cut it if you don’t fit God’s criteria for having mercy.
Remember the Jewish problem in “but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. “Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith” (Romans 9:31). So the Jews were willing to be God’s children, and running (doing works of the law) to be God’s children, but they did not arrive there because of God’s criteria of doing it by faith. Remember, the whole context is Ro 9:1 and following where the Jews do in fact will to be God’s children, but are objecting to Paul’s Gospel where they are no longer necessarily God’s children. That’s the context of what it means to “will”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge says:
“I am almost 100% positive that we will still have no agreement here! However, I believe and have always been taught that the Gospel is offered to all men equally. Then folks do with it as they decide–give in to the drawing or reject it and turn away. Jesus did say in John 12, when referring to His death that He would draw ALL men unto Him when He was lifted up. And John 6 says that this drawing is what enables men to come to Him.
So, how to reconcile that with God choosing some and not others as spoken of in Romans 9 becomes the problem.”
Only if you’re a Calvinist, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, re # 33,
That was me that said that not Hodge! Obviously the Calvinist doesn’t believe the Gospel is offered equally to all as some are enabled to believe and others are not.
But if Jesus is going to draw ALL to Himself, and His drawing is what enables them to come….?? Sounds like a totally different picture to me. That is why I don’t see how Romans 9 can be just taken at face value for what it says without somehow trying to resolve the conflicts–or tensions as CMP calls them.
In my mind there are still down right contradictions here if Romans 9 is taken the way Calvinism sees it.
And I agree with those, I think you were one, that said the end of Romans 9 goes back again to putting the issue on faith–not election.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry, Cheryl. I know what you meant,and I agree. I just addressed it to Hodge to give the obvious answer to the Calvinist dichotomy brought out by your comment that the rest of us who aren’t Calvinists can readily see as a big problem. I think it’s one we all wonder about, but no offense was or is intended to anyone. Just my Irish humor acting up again, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
Certainly no offence taken here! I just didn’t get what you were doing!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge: “This is why the objector says, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?
The passage is clearly referring to people upon whom God would have mercy and people He hardens in order to demonstrate His mercy on some by demonstrating His wrath on others.”
The objector’s objection is not only pertinent to the case of election according to secret will. It is also pertinent to the case of God electing groups – those with faith, or those under the law. The objector is saying, well if God gets to just make up his mind that now faith is the criteria, and those under the law are out on their ears, then how is that fair that God’s capriciousness (seemingly) in setting the rules like that, can change who God’s people are? But Paul’s response is “WHAT IF GOD….” etc. He doesn’t say this is in fact God’s plan to simply make vessels for destruction, but rather he phrases it as a hypothetical to give a hyperbolic answer such that God could IF he wanted, do whatever he wants and be righteous. But it doesn’t actually say that is what he does.
Like or Dislike:
0
unconditional prededination makes sence of the concept of heaven and hell.
Exodus 9:16
But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
Romans 9:17
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
Paul applies the concept in Romans to show why God would do this.
Romans 9:22-24
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
As the elect are really no more deserving than the damned they will have all the more reason to glorify God as they witniss the eternal suffering of those in hell.
Christ will be presiding over both.
Revelation 14:9-11
9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
And all of this was predetermined at the moment of creation.
Matthew 25:34
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love
Hebrews 4:4
And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.”
1 Peter 1:20
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
Revelation 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Revelation 17:8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
Like or Dislike:
0
Also Paul narrowed his definition of the seed of Abraham done to one and not many.
Galatians 3:15-17
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
But this line of reasoning will get you banned at TheologyWeb as I have been.
Although I backed it up scripturaly.
Like or Dislike:
0
Post, please keep it to the topic of Romans 9. Don’t want this things to get so broad.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu, you said:
“However, I believe and have always been taught that the Gospel is offered to all men equally.”
What does “equally” mean? If it’s meant in the functional sense, as in “Each man receives the Gospel to a sufficiently resonant degree,” then we know this claim is false, since many people don’t believe. Is it “equal” for Christ to physically show his pierced hands to the unbelieving Thomas but not the unbelieving Bob?
God, at any time, can miraculously give ANY man enough for him to believe. But we know that he refrains from doing so, since many don’t believe. Every person is different — equal provision does not mean equal satisfaction.
Like or Dislike:
0
Also Jesus does not draw everyone equally.
Perhaps everyone could believe in name under the right conditions, but Jesus still decides who will recieve the baptism of Spirit.
John 2:22-24
22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
23Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.[a] 24But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men.
Belief in name only does not lead to salvation.
Matthew 7:21-23
21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
There is a baptism in name followed by a baptism in Spirit for the true elect.
Acts 8:16
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
both men and women were baptised in name but Paul himself states that only men recieve the Holy Spirit directly.
1 Corinthians 11:3-10 (New International Version)
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
A woman is saved by her relation to a man in child bearing
1 Timothy 2:11-15 (New International Version)
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Corinthians 14:33-38 (New International Version)
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[a]
Like or Dislike:
0
“Yes, Paul makes the argument that he can predicate it on anything he likes because he is God, and he can predicate it on nothing at all IF HE WANTS, but Paul’s final conclusion about the New Covenant is he predicates it on faith.”
This is why Michael asked you previously if you thought the passage was a subjunctive possibility. The argument Paul is making is that God has done this, not that he could do it if He wanted. I think that the argument that God’s decision is predicated on faith fails to consider the argument Paul is making where it is not predicated upon the man who wills or what he does, but upon God who wills. In other words, I think you have the cart before the horse. The argument is that salvation comes through faith. Hence, Gentiles can be considered Israel too; but that reason why ethnic Israel does not have faith and the Gentiles do is because God has chosen it to be so. That to me is the only logical sense of the passage. To say otherwise is to say it does depend upon the man who wills. If it is predicated upon the man’s faith then it is on his will (Note that Paul is contrasting them here, so the argument is that it ultimately turns on God’s desire not on the man’s, so one cannot merely make an argument that it is both).
Like or Dislike:
0
I would like to add that I am an Agnostic so the views of Paul are not my own.
So ladies please do not hate me.
But they are scriptural as Paul had just discussed the gifts of the Spirit exclusivly to men before his admonishment for woman to remain absolutly silant during these procedings.
This indicates his belief that they would not have anything usefull to add and infact with his belief that only Eve had been decieved and Adam unwittingly through her, That perhaps they would be succeptable to channeling evil spirits.
He then finishes with an admonishment to men to follow his suggestions.
If I was a woman I would have even more problems with Christianity than I already do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry. Got carried away again.
OCD for sure!
Like or Dislike:
0
Cherylu,
Don’t be so pessimistic. Unity and understanding is often brought through such conversations.
Not to break Michael’s rules, but just to answer how these are compatible with Rom 9:
“However, I believe and have always been taught that the Gospel is offered to all men equally. Then folks do with it as they decide–give in to the drawing or reject it and turn away. Jesus did say in John 12, when referring to His death that He would draw ALL men unto Him when He was lifted up. And John 6 says that this drawing is what enables men to come to Him.”
I believe the same. We don’t know who is elect. It’s not for us to try and figure that out. We need to obey the Scripture and go and make disciples of all nations, and do so with great intent to save. We’re not God, so we don’t play as though we are.
The passage in John is difficult for the reason that it’s not the same drawing in John 6. The drawing may be speaking of both Jewish and Gentile elect, since in Johannine literature “all” and “world” often mean both Jew and Gentile elect rather than everyone without exception. But even if it did mean everyone, in what way is everyone being drawn to Christ? In order to have to make a decision, whether to accept or reject? Notice, either way, that the drawing in John 6 is accomplished by the Father, not the Son. Whereas, in this passage, the drawing is accomplished by the Son. They could be same, since the Son and the Father are one, but it may also refer to something else.
Rom 9, then, isn’t really in conflict here. In fact, Paul ends this conversation by saying that they will not hear and believe without a preacher, so we need to go preach the gospel. So I would whole-heartedly agree that we should always be doing that. As I said before, these passages come up when someone starts asking the questions, “Why do these believe?” and “Why do these not believe?” When someone answers, as a recent Sunday School I was in did with Rom 9, that it was because of what we do, then that’s when the Scripture pops up and says, No way!
Like or Dislike:
0
John, just noticed your reply there. The willing in context is willing to be chosen by God. Esau was not chosen, Jacob was. It was not based on anything they had done because it was chosen for them before they were even born.
BTW, I think the “what if God” in context has to do with the reason why God might choose some and not others, not whether or not God is actually going to enact such a plan.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge:
This where I think Calvinsim erroneously assumes that because God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants with His creation is that He chooses to. That is not in line with the prophecies throughout the the OT that He knows we will through all the generations choose differently, and not follow His instructions and has simply already made provision for it. To me that is the real mercy of unconditional election, by grace through faith. I don’t think this makes God any less sovereign, but more so, because He already knows how we are and what we will choose, and has chosen to give us His best choice anyway.
Romans 10, I believe, must be included with Romans 9 otherwise it seems to make the case for for a ‘double dipping kind of salvation. I.e., Israel and those of us Gentiles who happened to be grafted in, because we were pre-elected first, makes it seem that Christ died for only us misbehaving. To me unconditional election is just that, (and this according to scripture) that Christ died while we were yet sinners and once for for ALL. This is what scripture says. not that he died for us because we were already elect. That’s why I fail to see how limited atonement, as Calvinism preaches it, could be about God’s mercy toward those who accept Christ in faith, without previous knowledge that they are elected, could be an act of faith at all.
Like or Dislike:
0
I do have a question for everyone who believes that God does not choose to elect one person over another:
What about the guy who never heard on an island somewhere in the Pacific in 30 B.C.? Does God choose to give that guy equal access to salvation in the same way that he does the apostle Peter, who He calls and spends time with and teaches daily? Why did God put this man on the island if he wants him to be saved as Peter is saved? Why not give him the same opportunity? Do you believe that God is really giving him the same fair shake? Or do you believe that God doesn’t choose where to put people on the earth? Or the life they will lead? Even an Arminian will have to admit what Paul here indicates in Rom 9, that God chooses some over others that affects their decisions concerning salvation/the gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I appreciate your view and the grace which you write with.
But I do not share your view (though I hope to share your grace).
Critique:
1. I think you have begun this discussion with an erroneous presupposition: “election/predestination” – I don’t believe the two are the same: “henceforth, election”.
2. There also seems to be some confusion regarding individual or corporate election. Arminians believe that this passage is dealing with corporate election, Calvinists, individual. I think you illustrate my point for me on several occasions: in your observation of the text you accurately use terms like “Israel” and “Church”, but in your interpretation you make the move to individual. I think this is a mistake.
3. I like that you endeaver to place this passage in its context (something I don’t read very often from Calvinists). I like that you mention “righteousness of God” as being one of Paul’s main points. I am disappointed that you did not stick as close to this part of Pauls reasoning as I believe the text calls for. Romans 9-11 is the climax of 1-8 (not just “8″) – so the main point is not “security”, but “the righteousness of God”.
4. You comment correctly that “It is only under the supposition of unconditional election that this makes sense” – I agree. But then you repeat the mistake I’ve already mentioned (in my opinion), namely the removal of the passage from a Jewish worldview and placing it in your own. You do this because you immediately comment: “I could see the objector cowering in the fierceness of the response. He is simply doing the same thing that I would do and have done upon reading this passage”. The Jewish worldview thought in terms of Israel/Gentile, you seem to think this passage is talking about individual salvation and electiont to heaven and hell.
I don’t know if I’m getting close to the “3000″ mark, so I better end my critique.
In short, 1) I don’t think you have placed this passage deeply enough in it’s context. 2) I don’t think you have successfully placed this passage in its historical context. 3) A failure to take into consideration the corporate/individual element has resulted in a wayward interpretation (again, in my opinion). One more thought (lots more, but only time and space for one), like many (many) other biblical passages, a surface reading of the text results in a surface interpretation of the text. This is not always a bad thing, but often surface interpreations lead to erroneous interpretations. It’s as I always say: context, context, context. I’m to preaching (I could learn LOTS from you!). I just don’t think this passage demands to be read as it is in the Calvinist worldview, that it goes against the thrust of the rest of the book of Romans, and – again, only in my opinion – against the whole testimony of the O.T. and the N.T.
So as you have been persuaded in Unconditional Election, I have been persuaded, by the same Bible, in Conditional Election – i.e. “In Christ” “by Faith”.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
It’s inconsistent with the OT? “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.”
I think you mean conditional election. You are arguing that it is based on our decision that God sees from eternity past, correct? How is it not based on the man’s will and based on the man’s will at the same time? John may be able to say that willing is different here in Rom 9, but the Apostle John makes it clear that the willing concerns believing to adoption and salvation. How does your view reconcile these passages together?
Like or Dislike:
0
Me: “he can predicate it on nothing at all IF HE WANTS,”
Hodge: “This is why Michael asked you previously if you thought the passage was a subjunctive possibility.”
Actually Paul never said anything is predicated on nothing, and in fact no Calvinist I have talked to claimed it is predicated on nothing.
Perhaps the better way of saying it is that God can predicate it on _anything_ he wants, perhaps even something he keeps secret. But not all Paul’s examples are secret. The predication for Pharoah is not secret, but it was rather to “proclaim his name in all the world”. The point is, there is no reason to believe that what God has actually chosen in this New Covenant for Gentiles is anything other than faith. You can’t extrapolate Pharoah or Esau or anyone else to the Gentiles.
“The argument Paul is making is that God has done this, not that he could do it if He wanted.”
But what is “this”? My contention is that “this” is God setting any criteria for mercy that he wants, and v30 tells us what that is.
“I think that the argument that God’s decision is predicated on faith fails to consider the argument Paul is making where it is not predicated upon the man who wills or what he does, but upon God who wills.”
But the context of “willing” is the Jews willing to be in God’s family by the old covenant, being descendants of Abraham and what they interpret it to be which is by obedience to the law. Willing to be in God’s family on your own terms, or working to be in God’s family by your own terms does not consider that it is God’s will for who is in his family that counts, and that is not by willing or working to be in by the Jewish criteria.
If you want to try and make willing equivalent to faith, then Paul is saying that salvation is not by faith. Do you think he is really saying that? I think not.
“The willing in context is willing to be chosen by God. ”
Actually no, it is willing to choose the criteria for being in God’s family. Jews were saying it is Abraham’s descendants that are the criteria. Paul then talks about more specific criteria “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” (Romans 9:7 NAS95) and in this situation they were the “children of the promise” (v8).
The point is, if God chose Isaac’s descendants to be God’s children, you can’t will it to be something else if it isn’t so. Obviously it goes without saying that in this new covenant you can’t extrapolate Isaac to make the new covenant about natural descent or being a descendant of Isaac. That’s Paul’s point. The promise is nowdays to those with faith, and not all those other things: willing it to be descendants of Abraham or working to fulfill the law.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
I think John has pretty much laid out the scriptural roadmap I go by, unless of course you are one who believes Israel is the church, instead of the New Covenant made by Christ to all believers. In which case, I would ask again, (for the umpteemth times it seems) why did Christ have to die for the already elect who misbehaved? Why not discipline the elect of the NT directly as God did with the Israelites in the OT?
Like or Dislike:
0
Romans 9:15-17
15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[a] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
Mans desire or effort has nothing to do with it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Christ had to die and be resurected in order to become the first member of the new covenant.
As a Jew he paid the penalty of death and was reserected able to embrace the new covenant as one free from the Law.
Believers through baptism and comunion cloth themselves in the body of the resurected Christ and enter as prospects for membership in the new covenant. This sacrifice of Christ gives them a one time cleansing from sins under the old covenant.
The elect recieve a further baptism of Spirit which transforms them into beings incapable of sinning? and renders them oficial members of the new covenant worthy of eternal life.
Like or Dislike:
0
postroad,
Then by your own definition man would have to make no effort at all to believe? This seems more like the doctrine of fatalsim, i.e. what will be will be. The Bible specifically says we must believe in the work of Christ to be saved and to repent because we realize the great sacrifice He has made on our behalf to save us from our sins.
Like or Dislike:
0
“What about the guy who never heard on an island somewhere in the Pacific in 30 B.C.?”
So are you saying God hates Pacific Islanders, or at least he did?
I think Romans 1 indicates to me that God judges according to what information we have.
Like or Dislike:
0
“If you want to try and make willing equivalent to faith, then Paul is saying that salvation is not by faith. Do you think he is really saying that? I think not.”
The willing isn’t equivalent to faith, which is where I think your interpretation falls short. The willing is that which precedes faith. This is consistent with the rest of the passage and the rest of the NT. So what is based on the willing? The person’s faith. Who’s willing is it based upon? God’s. Hence, it faith is based on God’s mercy that He gives to whomever He wishes, and others are left without God’s will to give them that faith.
So as I said before: “The willing in context is willing to be chosen by God. ” It is willing to have faith in the first place.
“Actually no, it is willing to choose the criteria for being in God’s family. Jews were saying it is Abraham’s descendants that are the criteria. Paul then talks about more specific criteria “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” (Romans 9:7 NAS95) and in this situation they were the “children of the promise” (v8).”
Willing to choose the criteria for being in God’s family? Where does the text indicate that? That’s a neo-Pauline interpretation that I don’t think the text bears out. Paul’s point in saying that it’s not only the descendants of Israel who will be saved, but a specific group, is to introduce the topic of election that he goes into in the following verses. It’s not to argue that the Gentiles are of Isaac, with which I’m sure you agree. So Paul is arguing that God even chooses to accept and reject people who are descended from Abraham. Hence, he can accept and reject people (i.e., the bulk of the Jews at this time) according to His will, and we know that He did this (not just that He could do it) because the text is clear that the bulk of the Jews did not believe and were rejected, and the Gentiles were grafted in.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker.
Belief in name may be somewhat a matter of choice.
But those that accept Christ as their savior and are not transformed by the Spirit into being of complete obediance to God’s perfection reveal themselves imediatly as those that are damned.
They damn themselves with the first act of sin if they state that they now belong to the new covenant.
There is no sacrifice for sin in the new covenant because it states that the members will be conformed to perfect obediance.
So says Paul
14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16″This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[b] 17Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[c] 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
It is the unpardonable sin of blasphemy of the Spirit.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
“In which case, I would ask again, (for the umpteemth times it seems) why did Christ have to die for the already elect who misbehaved? Why not discipline the elect of the NT directly as God did with the Israelites in the OT?”
I’m sorry you’ve had to ask it for the umpteenth time, but I don’t understand the question. God works His election out through means, and He must provide a sacrifice in order to forgive us and remain just. So He must provide a sacrifice for both Old and New Covenant Saints. Is that not what you’re getting at here?
Like or Dislike:
0
““What about the guy who never heard on an island somewhere in the Pacific in 30 B.C.?”
So are you saying God hates Pacific Islanders, or at least he did?
I think Romans 1 indicates to me that God judges according to what information we have.”
So are you saying that He gave the same opportunity to the Pacific Islander that he did to Peter?
And are you saying that people are saved apart from the Gospel? Rom 1 indicates that the people who have natural revelation given to them reject it. It says nothing of people accepting it. Instead, this poses a great problem to any idea that says God equally seeks the salvation of all through the gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
“So are you saying that He gave the same opportunity to the Pacific Islander that he did to Peter?”
Of course, a non-Calvinistic interpretation of Ro 9 does not necessarily imply equality for all. And equality of knowledge doesn’t necessarily equate to equality of opportunity to be saved.
“And are you saying that people are saved apart from the Gospel?”
What is the gospel if not “Abraham had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness”? I don’t know that Abraham knew much more than the Pacific Islanders.
” Rom 1 indicates that the people who have natural revelation given to them reject it.”
When Paul in Ro 1 talks about “they”, I don’t think he refers to every single individual. After all, did every single man with natural revelation “abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another” (Romans 1:27). Of course not.
“the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them”
(Romans 1:18–19 NAS95)
That the wrath is against men who suppress the truth implies to me that there are men who do not suppress the truth, and consequently, God’s wrath is not against them.
Like or Dislike:
0
postroad,
On the one hand in comment # 156 you say:
“Mans desire or effort has nothing to do with it.”
Yet in comment # 161 you state:
“But those that accept Christ as their savior and are not transformed by the Spirit into being of complete obediance to God’s perfection reveal themselves imediatly as those that are damned.
‘They damn themselves with the first act of sin if they state that they now belong to the new covenant’.
“There is no sacrifice for sin in the new covenant because it states that the members will be conformed to perfect obediance.”
There’s a pretty radical difference in your two statements since even after we accept Christ, we as fallen humans go on sinning, despite ourselves, and our best efforts.
Like or Dislike:
0
There is a difference between baptism in name which may be something that people have some input over.
Baptism in Spirit comes after and is a gift from God transforming the believer into perfect obediance as per Jerimiah’s description that Paul is referencing.
Many Christians believe this will happen after they die, in heaven.
Paul indicates otherwise.
Of cource they all believed that the end was iminant, so this concept appeared doable.
1 John 3:5-6
5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
Those clothed in the body of Christ do not sin.
If they do sin they are antichrists.
1 John 2:17-19 17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
1 John 3:7-9
7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
Like or Dislike:
0
I had to LOL when I saw @CMP comment in #113:
“Folks, again, I am not able to engage in this any more. There have been 20 posts in the last hour!”
This is classic! It’s like, “What? My innocent little post generated all of this big ‘ol controversy? I am SHOCKED!”
Well played
Like or Dislike:
0
Christians are always shocked at what being a new covenant believer actualy means.
Like or Dislike:
0
Allen, not shocked at all! Very pleased with some of the conversation though. (Even if I cannot keep up!).
Like or Dislike:
0
Postroad,
Wow for being an agnostic you sure are arguing for some pretty radical views as far as Biblical literalism is concerned. Sure you aren’t a Reformed Fundamentalist???
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
“Of course, a non-Calvinistic interpretation of Ro 9 does not necessarily imply equality for all. And equality of knowledge doesn’t necessarily equate to equality of opportunity to be saved.”
Of course it does. What does the “knowledge of salvation” mean? Why is Paul always concerned about people coming to the “knowledge of the truth”? Knowledge has everything to do with it. Faith must have an object in which it is placed. There must be content to believe at the very least, and knowledge of the Person in whom you are believing.
“What is the gospel if not “Abraham had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness”? I don’t know that Abraham knew much more than the Pacific Islanders.”
John, Paul doesn’t say that Abraham believed the Gospel. It says that He believed God and it was considered as righteousness. Paul is making an analogy between what Abraham needed to do, i.e., have faith.
Now, if you are saying that post-Christ one can still just remain as Abraham, I would say to you that the golden chain of redemption in Rom 8:30 indicates that those who are predestined and justified must be “called.” The calling is the verbal message of the Gospel going out. So those who are predestined are the same ones who are called and those who are called are the same ones who are justified. There is no room for anyone beyond this. The Pacific Islanders worshiped idols and perished apart from the Gospel. Yet, you want to tell me that they have the same opportunity that the Apostle Peter had. I just don’t buy it; and to diminish the necessity of the Gospel in order to exalt your Arminian interpretation, I think, shows that all truth must bow to the priority of human autonomy.
In any case, the argument that God overlooked the times of ignorance in the past, and therefore still is, is negated by this contrast:
30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all [people] everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
BTW, Cherylu never answered my challenge that God chooses not to save people who He could otherwise save in the Arminian system as well. How would you answer this? In other words, even if you try and reinterpret this passage, the truth that God passes over those who are not saved when He could save them, still remains true. How do you explain this without limiting His omniscience and omnipotence, and exalting man’s instead?
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
To add: Rom 1 indicates that those who are given general revelation reject it. You cannot just limit this to some people when no other group accepting it is mentioned. The sins that result as such are not just homosexual sins. I don’t really want to get into it here, since it’s not the subject of this post, but the sins are those of idolatry and sexual immorality in general, sins which every Gentile I know apart from God has engaged in. So, Yes, it is talking about all Gentiles. And that is Paul’s point in Rom 1-3: All Gentiles are under sin (Chapt 1), all Jews are under sin (Chapt 2). Therefore, all people are under sin (3:9). So the argument that says that these are only a portion rather than the whole of the Gentiles ignores the entire context by essentially arguing that only some Gentiles are under sin which negates the passage that argues otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge:
Equality of knowledge must equal equality of opportunity of salvation?
That means I guess that the first disciples had a relatively poor opportunity for salvation compared to us in this day and age with theological libraries, computer based bible programs, and Christian book shops in every city.
Are you really going to make opportunity for salvation precisely proportional to theological knowledge?
“Paul doesn’t say that Abraham believed the Gospel.”
Ok, what is the Gospel then? Bearing in mind that Jesus preached it (e.g. Mt 4:23) before there was any talk of him dying on the cross.
“The calling is the verbal message of the Gospel going out.”
How do you know it is always that, and/or how do you know the Gospel is as detailed as you think? Hebrews 5:4 seems to say that calling of the OT and NT are the same kind of thing.
“to diminish the necessity of the Gospel in order to exalt your Arminian interpretation, I think, shows that all truth must bow to the priority of human autonomy.”
First let’s see what you think the Gospel is, and if your definition is biblical, before we can say if anyone is diminishing its necessity.
“In any case, the argument that God overlooked the times of ignorance in the past, and therefore still is, is negated by this contrast:
30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all [people] everywhere should repent”
Well hang on now. Had God already “declared to all everywhere they should repent”? Including Pacific Islanders? If he did literally with missionaries, this conversation is moot. If he did in some other more subtle way like the Ro 1 way, then you concede they have heard the Gospel. If you deny they have, then you agree that this verse is still getting played out in history, and therefore God is overlooking ignorance.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Rom 1 indicates that those who are given general revelation reject it. You cannot just limit this to some people when no other group accepting it is mentioned. ”
Of course there is another group mentioned. Paul says that “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” have a problem. This is immediately after stating “the righteous live by faith”, and immediately prior to stating that “that which is known about God is evident”. QED, knowledge of God is available to all, some men suppress it, and others in righteousness live by faith.
“Therefore, all people are under sin”
Yes, all people are under sin. Even so “to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;”
(Romans 2:7 NAS95). It’s not contradictory to say that while all are under sin, there are a subset of those people who by perseverance in doing good seek immortality, get eternal life, and those are the people with faith.
And if you are thinking of saying there are no such people, then I throw Michael’s subjunctive accusation your way.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Are you really going to make opportunity for salvation precisely proportional to theological knowledge?”
When it comes to the basic Gospel, Yes. The disciples knew less of Christ and His Gospel than we do post-pentacost?
“Ok, what is the Gospel then? Bearing in mind that Jesus preached it (e.g. Mt 4:23) before there was any talk of him dying on the cross.”
No, Jesus was preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God had come. There was more good news that later revealed itself how that would work out. So He is not preaching the Gospel in its fully revealed form. Paul tells us what the Gospel in its fully revealed form is post-pentacost:
1 Cor 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
“How do you know it is always that, and/or how do you know the Gospel is as detailed as you think? Hebrews 5:4 seems to say that calling of the OT and NT are the same kind of thing.”
By looking up all the uses of it in relation to the gospel and studying them. “Call” itself is always a verbal invitation. It is never something mystical, or a voice within. It is always a verbal, audible message that is heard (hence, how will they hear without a preacher–in your view they can bypass the preacher and simply believe anyway, which negates what Paul says in Rom 10).
The calling in Heb 5:4 is the verbal call a prophet received by God for a ministry. We receive a call to believe the gospel. I don’t make up the details of that message. It must, however, include the elements Paul mentions or it is not the gospel.
“Well hang on now. Had God already “declared to all everywhere they should repent”? Including Pacific Islanders? If he did literally with missionaries, this conversation is moot. If he did in some other more subtle way like the Ro 1 way, then you concede they have heard the Gospel. If you deny they have, then you agree that this verse is still getting played out in history, and therefore God is overlooking ignorance.”
It doesn’t say that. It says that God is now declaring (lit. “has given strict orders”) to men (most likely His apostles) that all men everywhere should repent. Hence, the apostle is arguing that the Greeks ought to repent because He has been given a message by God for them to do so. God doesn’t need to then work it out in history, since that would be odd while millions of people who have never heard of the gospel die in the mean time.
Like or Dislike:
0
The doctrines of election have brought either pain or arrogance into many’s understanding. Pain to those who understand that if your name is not “on the list” the Gospel message will do nothing for you. It has driven many from believing in Christ and the “unfair and vindictive God of the Christians”. Arrogance, again, manifests with those who latch onto the doctrine to promote, for example, their White’s Supremacy theologies – we have a good lot of those here in South Africa where some promote the idea that the Afrikaner descends from the lost tribes of Israel and is the Biblical remnant (I’m White, and an Afrikaner, so this is not a racialist observation).
Sadly, I believe the doctrine’s are all wrong. To keep it short: the message of election in the NT has to do with an elect generation which was to be the generation through whom the transition from the OT Law (or Mosaic dispensation) to the NT dispensation would come. It was the generation of the apostles. Consider Mat. 24:34, for example, bearing in mind Paul’s principle of 1 Cor 4:6, not to read above/beyond what is written. When Paul writes about “us” and “we” in his letters, he is not referring to the people of 2010. There is a contextual position of his generation.
That generation of believers suffered with Christ, they were beheaded, crucified, thrown to the Lions, etc.
On Rom. 9:8 – it explains John 3 (born of water and Spirit), which has also been elevated into all sorts of traditions above what is written. A thought about this based on the Calvinist election doctrine – the so-called sinner’s prayer that is so commonly used in the charismatic and pentecostal environments is then not only a man-made ritual, but in essence nothing else than the practicing of deceit?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Of course there is another group mentioned. Paul says that “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” have a problem. This is immediately after stating “the righteous live by faith”, and immediately prior to stating that “that which is known about God is evident”. QED, knowledge of God is available to all, some men suppress it, and others in righteousness live by faith.”
1. Paul is talking about man’s preconditions, not as they now stand before God. Some who rejected the natural revelation became believers later. “So were some of you…” The righteous living by faith is not in contrast to those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but rather the prologue to the book. You seem to be suggesting that because “men” have a qualifier “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” means that it’s only those men who do it, which is a Pelagian argument. The qualifier is talking about all Gentiles as opposed to Jews, so there is a group there, but you’re contrasting it with the wrong group and then thinking that Paul is just talking about some Gentiles rather than all. If that’s true, the Paul has not established that all people are under sin, as he said he did in Rom 3:9; but instead he has only established that some are under sin. Are you arguing with the apostle? Has he not just established that based on his argument preceding or are you going to argue with him that this is simply a new statement he is making that was not previously established?
Like or Dislike:
0
“It’s not contradictory to say that while all are under sin, there are a subset of those people who by perseverance in doing good seek immortality, get eternal life, and those are the people with faith.”
I didn’t say it was contradictory. I said that that’s not what Paul says about what he previously argued. His point is that he just argued that all Gentiles, not just some of them, are under sin. Hence, all Gentiles are spoken of in Rom 1, not just a few. If that is true then all Gentiles reject natural revelation when it is given. Thus, God had to overlook their ignorance in times past, but now they need the gospel to be saved.
Like or Dislike:
0
Gerrie,
The great news of the Bible is that God’s election is not based on race, but on His own desire to save whom He chooses. Black, white, Asian, Native-American, whatever ethnicity one may be. God has filled His kingdom full of all nations (something that would be difficult to do apart from election).
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge: “There was more good news that later revealed itself how that would work out.”
Good news = gospel. Sounds like you are saying there are more gospels.
“So He is not preaching the Gospel in its fully revealed form”.
So its the same gospel, just more fully expounded?
Which is it, multiple Gospels, or one Gospel more fully explained? If its the latter, I don’t see the problem. Still the same gospel.
“Call” itself is always a verbal invitation. It is never something mystical, or a voice within.”
So in this verse:
2Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you
Why would you have to make certain of your calling, if it is a verbal thing? I mean, you either heard that preacher punch out that Gospel message, or you didn’t, right?
Are you *sure* there is not a mystical aspect to calling?
“in your view they can bypass the preacher and simply believe anyway, which negates what Paul says in Rom 10“.
Well, clearly people did believe in God without a preacher in the old testament. And clearly people did believe in God because knowledge of God was obvious from what is made, says Paul in Ro 1. The specific context of Ro 10, “calling on the name of the Lord”, which in its original context was probably Yahweh, but in Paul’s thinking is probably Jesus, you can’t do without a preacher. But I don’t thinking calling on the Name is the full story here. Yes, calling on the name can get you saved, but trusting God is the more basic form of that plan.
“It says that God is now declaring to men (most likely His apostles) that all men everywhere should repent.”
You would have Paul talk about himself in the 3rd person? I don’t think it means that. Literally it says “God is now declaring to people all everywhere “repent”.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Good news = gospel. Sounds like you are saying there are more gospels.
Is winning a million dollars good news? I guess there is more than one type of good news that carries with it different content. I think you’re getting hung up on the term “gospel.” What you need to ask yourself is whether the Bible can talk of good news in any other way than the gospel Paul defines for us. I, of course, believe that the coming of the kingdom is good news, but most during Christ’s day would have thought that He meant that He was restoring the physical nation of Israel. The full gospel was understood once it’s primary and necessary elements were revealed.
“2Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you
Why would you have to make certain of your calling, if it is a verbal thing? I mean, you either heard that preacher punch out that Gospel message, or you didn’t, right?”
The word bebaios doesn’t mean “make certain” I think in the sense that you are taking it. It means to “place trust in,” “become firm,” “well-founded in.” So they are not necessarily wondering if God has called them.
“So its the same gospel, just more fully expounded?
Which is it, multiple Gospels, or one Gospel more fully explained? If its the latter, I don’t see the problem. Still the same gospel.”
Both, because without the other elements, it’s misunderstood. Saying “God’s here” is good news too. It just isn’t all of it and therefore is different until all is revealed. Someone would not be saved today by trusting in the idea that “God’s here,” which can be interpreted in a thousand different idolatrous ways as well.
“Well, clearly people did believe in God without a preacher in the old testament. ”
What? Are you referring to the idea that perhaps people believed in YHWH from other nations who had never heard of Him? Are you suggesting that Israel didn’t need a preacher?
“And clearly people did believe in God because knowledge of God was obvious from what is made, says Paul in Ro 1.”
John, this is begging the question. Paul does not say that they did, so it not only is not clear, it isn’t according to what is revealed. The Bible says instead that people in other nations worshiped idols and didn’t follow God, but that God had to look over this time of ignorance for them. So they are in fact the people in Rom 1 who reject natural revelation and become idolaters.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge: “You seem to be suggesting that because “men” have a qualifier “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” means that it’s only those men who do it, which is a Pelagian argument.”
It’s only a Pelagian argument in the same way as the trinity is a Pelagian argument. In other words, there is nothing distinctively Pelagian about it. A lot more would have to be added to make it Pelagian.
I don’t understand your argument. You admit freely there is a qualifier, but you are intent on disregarding it.
“Paul is talking about man’s preconditions, not as they now stand before God.”
Well, they are preconditions to repentance and ceasing to suppress the truth.
” The righteous living by faith is not in contrast to those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but rather the prologue to the book.”
Well, it is all one sentence. I don’t know if I’d call it a contrast, but I would say that Paul is saying that the righteousness of faith is the solution to those who are suppressing the truth. That is why there is the “For” between those statements.
“The qualifier is talking about all Gentiles as opposed to Jews”.
So no Jews suppress the truth? I don’t see a reason to assume that.
“If that’s true, the Paul has not established that all people are under sin”.
It’s not the role of Ro 1-2 to establish all are under sin. Rather he is establishing the moral ground under which people operate: for Jews the law, for Gentiles the general revelation. In Romans 3, Paul gets around to saying that all have fallen short of the perfection that their moral situation calls them to. But falling short of the perfection is not the same as saying there are none seeking to do good, which Paul has already claimed there are.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The specific context of Ro 10, “calling on the name of the Lord”, which in its original context was probably Yahweh, but in Paul’s thinking is probably Jesus, you can’t do without a preacher. But I don’t thinking calling on the Name is the full story here. Yes, calling on the name can get you saved, but trusting God is the more basic form of that plan.”
Which is not only an argument from silence, but counters what Paul says in Acts 17 and Rom 1-3. All are under sin, now God requires all to repent and come to His Son, since there is now a remedy for this sin, and therefore, all must be shut up under sin so that they must come to him by faith. And faith’s object in Romans is defined as what? Faith in YHWH/Jesus, as you just indicated, and is clear by the rest of Chapter 3.
Like or Dislike:
0
“It’s only a Pelagian argument in the same way as the trinity is a Pelagian argument. In other words, there is nothing distinctively Pelagian about it. A lot more would have to be added to make it Pelagian.”
Not really. It’s Pelagian because it assumes that there are two different groups of people: people who don’t seek God and are evil and people who do and are righteous. Paul’s argument here, I think, is clear. There are only those who don’t seek God and are evil. Hence, faith in the Gospel of Christ is needed by everyone. In the Pelagian scheme, the Gospel of Christ is only needed by some because some can find their way in the light of natural revelation.
“I don’t understand your argument. You admit freely there is a qualifier, but you are intent on disregarding it.”
John, here’s the problem: you seem to think that the qualifier limits the amount of people involved. The qualifier simply displays a quality of the group to which it refers. So if I say, “men who have lungs to breathe the air” that does not mean that I am referring to just a portion of men because I put a qualifier on the term. Do you see what I mean?
“Well, it is all one sentence. I don’t know if I’d call it a contrast, but I would say that Paul is saying that the righteousness of faith is the solution to those who are suppressing the truth. That is why there is the “For” between those statements.”
Oh that’s not my disagreement. That is what Paul is saying. It’s not all one sentence in the sense that it displays the contrast; but you[re right that it is the answer to what follows. The issue is that it is the prologue to the argument of the rest of the book that follows, so the argument begins with the gar “for” and hence should not be contrasted with the preceding, but instead seen as the argument supporting the preceding statements concerning faith. Therefore, there are not two groups: ones who have faith and ones who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but two groups who are under sin and need to live by faith in Christ instead: Jew and Gentile.
“So no Jews suppress the truth? I don’t see a reason to assume that.”
Well, even though I didn’t say that, No, they don’t. Suppressing the truth is about hiding it. The Jews can’t hide the truth because it’s in Scripture and the prophets/teachers that were always before them. They can disobey it and hate it, but they can’t hide it because it is written down before all to see. That’s why Paul says that they have an advantage due to the oracles given to them.
But it’s not necessary to believe one way or the other on that for what I’m arguing here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
I’m not sure if you understand my observation correctly – I fully agree that there are not divisions based on ethnicity in God’s heart. We are all equal. That was my point on the arrogance some find in the election doctrines.
But as to your statement on being saved, we also need to be sure: saved from what? What does the bible say? Gal 4:5, for example, refers to redemption of those under the law. Of course, it is impossible to debate the topic properly in a blog space. Heb. 9:15 also refers to redemption from transgressions under the first covenant.
John 3:16-18, which is reference to the whole of humanity, clearly has no hint of an election by God. It is man who elects to believe or not.
It is absolutely essential that we start out our understanding of the Letters by understanding who they were addressed to in the first place and why. Then we can understand the revelation and principles they hold for us, BUT, we cannot put ourselves into that addressee’s place. By doing exactly that, the institutional church of today, with its 38000 denominations, has produced the doctrines of bondage and confusion we have to navigate today. Election is one of them.
Like or Dislike:
0
“It’s not the role of Ro 1-2 to establish all are under sin. Rather he is establishing the moral ground under which people operate: for Jews the law, for Gentiles the general revelation. In Romans 3, Paul gets around to saying that all have fallen short of the perfection that their moral situation calls them to.”
According to Paul, it is the role of what he previously said: “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged/established a case beforehand that both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin”
When did Paul establish the case that all Jews and Gentiles were under sin? Before. His quoting of OT verses in application to both groups is simply a re-establishing what he already argued.
“But falling short of the perfection is not the same as saying there are none seeking to do good, which Paul has already claimed there are.”
11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
According to Paul, that’s what he means by “fall short,” not that they almost make it but don’t get close enough. His point is that they don’t do anything at all toward pleasing God, but instead go the opposite way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge, just a thought on your statement that “God has filled His kingdom full of all nations (something that would be difficult to do apart from election)”. I would say that the Calvinist doctrine of election makes precisely the exclusion of some possible and not difficult.
Like or Dislike:
0
Gerrie, my point is that, given the cultural influence of other religions and familial units, etc., it is unlikely that in man’s rebellion the gospel coming in from a foreign culture would persuade him (even if we didn’t bring up the sin issue, the cultural tendencies alone would cause him to reject it). That why, I believe, the NT speaks of God having to draw men to Himself and cause them to be born again.
BTW, you said before:
“John 3:16-18, which is reference to the whole of humanity, clearly has no hint of an election by God. It is man who elects to believe or not.”
I’m not going to go into John beyond this point, because it’s not part of the post here, but it does relate with Rom 9 in this passage I quoted before:
1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
How exactly does man elect to believe if in fact it his regeneration is not of his own will?
Like or Dislike:
0
“I guess there is more than one type of good news that carries with it different content.”
I can’t see that there are multiple Christian Gospels. I mean, you are saying there is the Gospel Jesus preached, and then there is Paul’s Gospel, and of the two Paul’s is really better. But the one in the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark etc is actually Jesus’ one.
“What you need to ask yourself is whether the Bible can talk of good news in any other way than the gospel Paul defines for us.”
Except that Jesus was preaching THE Gospel, not just some random good news.
“2Pet. 1:10”
Well then, what about your golden chain? All who are called are justified. You are not going to claim all who receive verbal calling are justified, right? Isn’t there a mystical calling going on here?
“It just isn’t all of it and therefore is different until all is revealed. Someone would not be saved today by trusting in the idea that “God’s here,”
You are saying Jesus didn’t preach enough to be saved? Jesus didn’t preach the Christian Gospel? That’s certainly not the way Christianity has always understood things, which is that what Jesus preached is in fact the Christian message. What Jesus said was the ultimate authority for the early church.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Not really. It’s Pelagian because it assumes that there are two different groups of people: people who don’t seek God and are evil and people who do and are righteous. ”
That’s not Pelagian, that’s Christianity. You’ve heard of Two Ways to Live perhaps?
“In the Pelagian scheme, the Gospel of Christ is only needed by some because some can find their way in the light of natural revelation.”
No, Pelagianism has nothing to do with the nature of revelation, rather it is a teaching that people are neutral moral agents. Nobody is claiming that here.
“The qualifier simply displays a quality of the group to which it refers.”
Except that not all men suppress the truth. That’s why we have Christians, right? This discussion of Paul continues right into Ro 2:5 “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart …” etc. But we know some repent, right? You’re not going to claim nobody repents, surely? And this leads directly into v7 where explicitly the category of those who are saved is mentioned.
Like or Dislike:
0
” “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged/established a case beforehand that both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin”
This establishes that both major groups have a sin problem, but it doesn’t establish that all individuals have a sin problem. After all, a righteous Jew might want to claim he is OK, and a righteous Gentile might make the same claim. Not until Romans 3 does Paul debunk that possibility that anybody is without sin.
“His point is that they don’t do anything at all toward pleasing God, but instead go the opposite way.”
Yes, but that is Paul’s point about those pre-repentance. pre-faith. I hardly think Paul is going to claim that say he himself has “no fear of God” as that quote says.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I can’t see that there are multiple Christian Gospels. I mean, you are saying there is the Gospel Jesus preached, and then there is Paul’s Gospel, and of the two Paul’s is really better. But the one in the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark etc is actually Jesus’ one.”
John “gospel” is a terminus technicus in parts of the NT, so I realize what I’m saying may be confusing, but “good news” can refer to anything. The question is whether Jesus is preaching the gospel as the terminus technicus that is later preached, or if the good news here is simply referring to something else or a portion, but not all of what the later term encompasses. If I say that you’ve been cured of cancer, that’s good news. That doesn’t mean I’m positing another Christian gospel.
“Except that Jesus was preaching THE Gospel, not just some random good news.”
That’s not what the context says. The context says that He was preaching the good news about the Kingdom (i.e., that it had come). Do you believe that people would have been saved just by believing that the kingdom had come, defined in whatever way they wished?
“Well then, what about your golden chain? All who are called are justified. You are not going to claim all who receive verbal calling are justified, right? Isn’t there a mystical calling going on here?”
No, because it’s all who are predestined and called who are justified and glorified, not just all who are called. Many are called, but few are chosen. There is no mystical call. The call is as it sounds: An invitation that is spoken from one’s mouth.
“You are saying Jesus didn’t preach enough to be saved? Jesus didn’t preach the Christian Gospel? That’s certainly not the way Christianity has always understood things, which is that what Jesus preached is in fact the Christian message. What Jesus said was the ultimate authority for the early church.”
Of course He did. But He didn’t do that here. He goes on to explain the gospel further by saying that the Son of Man has to die and be raised.
“That’s not Pelagian, that’s Christianity.”
Which is what Pelagius would have said.
“No, Pelagianism has nothing to do with the nature of revelation, rather it is a teaching that people are neutral moral agents. Nobody is claiming that here.”
OK, I disagree that it doesn’t assume it, and I think we could go on and on about it, but I don’t think it matters whether it is Pelagian or not. The Scriptural reading is untenable, as I showed before.
“Except that not all men suppress the truth. That’s why we have Christians, right?”
Talk about begging the question. I’m not arguing that Paul is saying that no one stops suppressing once they are regenerated by God and have faith unto eternal life. Paul’s argument is that apart from this, the Gentiles were shut up under sin, along with the Jews. Hence, both have to repent and believe. The Gentile situation in Rom 1 precedes faith, per Paul’s argument, and is therefore all inclusive, as Paul says in Rom 3.
Like or Dislike:
0
“This establishes that both major groups have a sin problem, but it doesn’t establish that all individuals have a sin problem.”
You missed the ALL in the verse that I tried to emphasize. Paul has just established that ALL Jews and Gentiles are under sin. All Jews and Gentiles is everyone.
“Yes, but that is Paul’s point about those pre-repentance. pre-faith. I hardly think Paul is going to claim that say he himself has “no fear of God” as that quote says.”
Of course it is. My point wasn’t that these people don’t turn and have faith once God grants that to them. My point is that all Gentiles are being referred to in Rom 1. If that is true, then all Gentiles who receive only natural revelation reject it. Therefore, faith must come through some special revelation, the preaching of the gospel, the call, as Paul says later. And of course we know that faith in Rom is arguing for faith in Christ and His Gospel, not natural revelation anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0
“You missed the ALL in the verse that I tried to emphasize.”
Maybe all means Jew and Gentile, but if you’ll disavow that interpretation for John 12:32, I’ll do the same
Actually, I’ll agree that Ro 1-2 discusses the sin of all in their pre-repentant state.
“My point is that all Gentiles are being referred to in Rom 1. If that is true, then all Gentiles who receive only natural revelation reject it.”
I don’t see how that follows. Again, Paul distinguishes those who repent with those who suppress the truth.
“And of course we know that faith in Rom is arguing for faith in Christ and His Gospel”
But not when he discusses Abraham, right?
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
You said, “his desire for all people to be saved remains.”
Everytime I use that argument (I am decidedly NOT Calvinist) I am told something like, “Oh, that just means he desires all the ELECT to be saved.”
My problem is, that is not what the passage (2 Pe 3:9) says. I have always held that “all” means “all.”
Would you please offer some insight to that?
Michael.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge, I see what you mean – like the Ethiopian did when Philip explained the Gospel to him?
Sorry, just couldn’t resist that one (will be waiting for my T-shirt).
I’m afraid that as I read the current argumentation on this blog, I experience precisely what I experience with much of church doctrines – a simple message in Scripture is taken by theological argument and confused way beyond recognition.
So, blessings to all. I’ll just retreat to the Bible. It’s much easier to understand than theological argumentation.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP, in #12, you say:
“I don’t want to discuss the broader theological issues, because that just leads to proof texing.”
While, at the same time refusing to take the passage in question in the broader theological context so you can… use it as a proof text. Ironic, no?
As for an alternate explanation: IMHO, this specifically teaches that God knows, and purposes based on His knowledge, not that God has a bag of souls and tosses some to Himself, and some to Satan. I’ve never really considered this a mystery–I know what my kids are going to do before they do it (at least while they’re immature, but this is a human example of a divine point, and all such things fall at some point in their life). There’s no way I can outrun God. He knows what I’m going to do from the time I’m born.
And this is another part of the problem–for us, reading this today, the phrase “from the womb” means from the point of conception. I don’t think this is the way any decent Jewish Rabbi, like Paul, would read this. Instead, it would be read more like, “I’ve just come from the store.” In other words, I’ve just left there, and now I’m here. From the moment these two left the womb, in other words.
I don’t think this verse supports the Lordship/5 point Calvinist position (the same thing) at all, read in the context of the ENTIRE Scriptures–which is just what you don’t want us doing, is it?
Russ
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
“Diatribes are representative conversations for the sake of clarity, not … dismissive conversational rhetoric.”
Not sure how Paul couldn’t be clarifying things and simultaneously dismissing an ignorant question; the two ideas don’t seem mutually exclusive, since it’s not exegetically improper to shift focus from an errant paradigm to the correct one. To the main point, without assuming the Calvinist distinctive that God hardening mens’ hearts (thus effectively crafting them into vessels of wrath) must be unconditional, nothing in Paul’s reply indicates such:
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”
The question here is based on the erroneous assumption that we have a right to call God into question for how He chooses to run the world. Paul answers appropriately,
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
Given the foundational premise of such questions, it’s not particularly surprising that Paul doesn’t even attempt reason, but rather destroys its premise in reaffirming that man has no right to question God. Keep in mind that God being sovereign doesn’t imply specifically how God chooses to work.
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Without the Calvinist assumption I listed above, the analogy, ‘The Potter shapes the pots’ doesn’t amount to unconditional, exhaustive determinism. Some may infer that from the analogy, but that’s far from sufficient evidence. Argument by analogy is rather weak, since analogies by definition break down (e.g. people aren’t lifeless pots, clay doesn’t make decisions, it seems rather odd for the potter to craft pots specifically designed to talk back to him, etc…). The ‘lump’ spoken of indicates people as a whole; it’s quite a stretch to interpret it as some alllusion to complete and utter homogenity.
23-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory….
Which, if not interpreted through the lens of the Calvinist presupposition, likewise give no credence to unconditional election.
Like or Dislike:
0
[QOUTE]Postroad,
Wow for being an agnostic you sure are arguing for some pretty radical views as far as Biblical literalism is concerned. Sure you aren’t a Reformed Fundamentalist???[/QUOTE]
No I am an agnostic but I grew up in a very conservative family and society..
I was forced to defend myself against constant condemnation from my peers.
Unfortunatly for them I was willing to spend the time. Thousands of hours of study to debate them.
I soon realised that they were for all intent and purpose Biblically iliterate.
Most Christians I know do not even know the process by which the new covenant was put into place.
That is if they even know what the new covenant is, or the old for that matter.
Or even what the Law was.
All they knew was that I was going to hell.
They did not like it when I showed them that the possibility existed that they would also be joining me there.
It was my way of forcing them to devote at least one tenth of the time to Bible study that I did.
I forced them to find the texts that held these concepts in tension.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul shows that God’s work had been complete since the creation of the world.
This would only indicate that things had been progressing in a predetermined manner ever since.
Paul shows that the elect will be entering his rest, that is to say God’s completed work.
Jesus indicates that no one but him had ever seen or known the Father.
Jesus also indicates that it was himself that appeared as the great I AM of the OT and not the Father.
It was Jesus and Satan who where doing the work as predetermined by the Father.
Like or Dislike:
0
23-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory….
And yet it makes perfect sence from a Calvenist perspective and from the OT text that Paul uses as a preamble to these verses.
Exodus 9:15-17 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up ] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go.
Romans 9:17
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
Not only that, but God tell Moses what he will do.
Exodus 4:21-22
21 The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,
Like or Dislike:
0
1) It is important to let all of scripture speak to this issue. There are plenty of scriptures that seem to contradict the interpretation of election understood as God’s choice alone. For example we are told that God is willing that none should perish, as well as that the preaching of the gospel is so that no man would be without excuse. There is even a case for conditional election, but it is beside the point I want to make here.
2) Perhaps we have been presented with a false choice. In other words, who says that God’s election and our choice are mutually exclusive ideas? Sure, God can harden and soften hearts, but this can be understood as either a confirmation of our own hardening/softening, or as something which God exercises selectively for His own purposes. (Not necessary that it is at all times.)
Another way in which this could be a false choice is that God’s choosing and our choosing do not need to be understood as one occurring before the other. Could this not be understood as both choosing each other, much as what happens when a man and woman choose each other in marriage? Particularly when we consider that God exists without regard to time, I think we have to consider this possibility.
Furthermore, the verses in Romans 8 and 9, taken by themselves, could lend themselves to the (erroneous) idea that people can be saved by some other way than by grace through faith. If God’s choice is entirely arbitrary, there is nothing to say that God would not save non-believers, or even save everyone in the end. This is why we cannot take these verses alone in coming up with a potential solution.
In fact, this list of scriptures make it quite difficult to believe that election is to be understood as God’s arbitrary choice alone:
http://www.biblehelp.org/biblesay.htm (I do not endorse everything on this site, but the list is handy.)
Perhaps we should conclude that we have a paradox, and that it is a mystery unsolvable this side of eternity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Postroad,
I have responses for every verse you list that interpret them in a different or non-literal manner, however getting into this would be getting off-topic and I’ve already been warned once so I’ll respect CMP’s wishes. I do have one question for you though. Is it your belief that the Bible teaches this that causes you to not believe in Christianity?
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Thank you for a clear exposition of this passage. I don’t know that it trumps John Piper’s book, but it is certainly easier to fit into a Sunday School lesson!
As one who is a former Arminian, I have a less-than-common perspective on this issue, and I can both appreciate the emotion of those objecting to it, and at the same time have a clearer understanding of the truth of the unconditional-election argument than I might have had I not been Arminian for many years.
I’ve seen many references to “the whole counsel of God” in the responses to your blog; I will add that the whole counsel of God never really made coherent sense to me until I re-read scripture in light of the doctrines of grace. Now it does!
Like or Dislike:
0
I know you said to keep the comments directed at the passage in romans 9 only but, why use this reference to GOD hardening Pharoah’s heart out of context to support one view when it can also be used for the other?!
First let me say that I do not believe that my salvation is the result of my works, but I do believe that “believing GOD is righteousness and I also believe see that it is obvious that choice plays a clear part as clearly expressed in scripture, as well as through spiritual revelation and through experience.
It is my goal to allow scripture to interpret scripture and everything else in life as well. Shouldn’t that always be the case, that scripture interprets scripture? Getting to the point I would like to make, in Exodus scripture clearly reads that Pharoah hardened his heart Ex 8:15;32 against GOD and his chosen people before it states that GOD hardened Pharoah’s heart. I would also like to say that I do not completely agree with either of the options as represented above.
I would never say that anyone could ever do anything of themselves resulting in righteousness or salvation anymore than I would say that GOD causes people to sin and sends them to hell. I do not believe that man was created by God to be sinful.
I believe we were created in the image of GOD and GOD is not sin. Man chose in the garden to believe something other than GOD in order to try to be like GOD the same as satan desired to be like GOD resulting in sin. Scripture says that sin is anything done without faith and scripture says every man is given a measure of faith so, I do not think it can be said that God doesn’t give us an opportunity to believe.
I believe faith is like a muscle that through exercise or the lack of becomes weaker or stonger depending. I do not believe that we are monkey puppets with no will. I believe those of us called believers have exercised the faith given (through mercy) to us by GOD to believe in him resulting in righteousness, salvation, obedience.
I am troubled my lack of understanding of the purpose to this post which seems to suggest that you can form your theology from fragments of scripture. Or are you just looking to raise an argument for the sake of arguing? Or is it as stated so many times, to raise tension. (I do not seek tension but rather PEACE and understanding. Which by the way, God says he will give to us by the HOLY SPIRIT) Should any scripture stand alone? Shouldn’t our goal be to examine the whole of scripture from beginning to end to form our understanding of HIM? Please correct me if I am wrong as I do not desire to be a fool.
Furthermore, LOVE (which I believe is GOD not just an attribute) the same as TRUTH is the person of Jesus Christ, is described in far more detail than most anything else in scripture as being self less as CHOOSING to deny your self for the sake of another. Without choice, where is there LOVE?
Like or Dislike:
0
I recently read Jeremiah 18:1-10, which echoes the potter and clay concept. One salient point is the inclusion of a call to decision frequently found in the OT: “Repent and live, turn from God and die”.
In our New Covenant of grace, we do not please God by our efforts and constant study of scriptures, but through grace in Christ. And our faith (decision) in Christ is irrevocably imputed as righteousness. Notice the finality and security in the New Covenant which is missing in the old!
And yet a salient theme common to both involves individual human will; even in the Garden, before the fall, God placed a decision or obey or disobey. Perhaps a truly thorough exegesis of election will integrate this element of will and decision? And I think this is the irritant to many who balk at unconditional election: the subjective loss of control over one’s fate.
Like or Dislike:
0
Derek wrote in comment 52 above,
2. There also seems to be some confusion regarding individual or corporate election. Arminians believe that this passage is dealing with corporate election, Calvinists, individual. I think you illustrate my point for me on several occasions: in your observation of the text you accurately use terms like “Israel” and “Church”, but in your interpretation you make the move to individual. I think this is a mistake.
Just for clarification, there is a wide range of interpretations on the Arminian side. Some do see this as primarily discussing individual election (though not necessarily every element). A good book that takes the conditional election perspective but interprets the passage in the framework of traditonal Arminian thought (individual election of believers) is F. Leroy Forlines’ “The Quest fir Truth” (He interacts a great deal with Calvinists, esp. Piper). Picirilli’s book “Grace, Faith, and Free Will” and his commentary on Romans are also very good. I personally hold to a corporate election view, but that is not necessarily the standard Arminian position on election in this passage or otherwise. BTW, your comments are excellent.
God Bless,
Ben
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
“Maybe all means Jew and Gentile, but if you’ll disavow that interpretation for John 12:32, I’ll do the same
”
Unfortunately, that’s not how words work. That’s like saying “world” means the wicked mindset of fallen humanity in 1 Jn 2:15 and then someone arguing “Well, then it must mean that in John 3:16.” Not quite, but I know you were joking there.
“I don’t see how that follows. Again, Paul distinguishes those who repent with those who suppress the truth.”
Actually, it follows because if all that is said of group X is that they do Y with information Z, then the text indicates that whenever group X has Z they do Y with it. To say otherwise is to argue from silence. Instead, Paul argues that this is why they need the gospel of Christ.
“But not when he discusses Abraham, right?”
Actually, Yes and No. Abraham’s faith was not in the revealed Gospel, but he is applying what Abraham did (i.e., have faith in what was revealed) to the gospel that has now been revealed fully. So what is a person required to do? Have faith in Christ as Abraham had faith in the special revelation given to him. To not do this now is to not believe.
Now, if we get back to Rom 9 and the objection, I still have that question that I think flies over all of this anyway; and that is, How does God not choose some and not others if in fact, even in an Arminian system, He can save anyone He wants, but doesn’t? Can you answer this without limiting His omniscience and omnipotence and without exalting the world, the devil and the individual’s abilities over God’s?
Like or Dislike:
0
Gerrie,
“Hodge, I see what you mean – like the Ethiopian did when Philip explained the Gospel to him?”
I’m not sure what you mean. My argument was arguing that people must have God draw them supernaturally because it is unlikely that someone in a foreign culture is going to respond positively to someone from another foreign culture in bringing a message that contradicts their cultural religion and heritage. Simply pointing out that someone from another culture believed when the gospel was spoken to him just shows that someone believes, not the source of his belief. Whenever that is discussed, the source is God, not the person believing.
Like or Dislike:
0
[QUOTE]Postroad,
I have responses for every verse you list that interpret them in a different or non-literal manner, however getting into this would be getting off-topic and I’ve already been warned once so I’ll respect CMP’s wishes. I do have one question for you though. Is it your belief that the Bible teaches this that causes you to not believe in Christianity?[/QUOTE]
Bingo! And I am aware of all of them.
And that is why I am agnostic.
In fact the whole premice of Christianity is that The Jews were deliberatly decieved by a literal translation of their own Scripture.
That God knew in advance that they could not keep the Law to the letter and certainly not to the spirit.
That it was purposly designed to entrap them in sin and disobediance.
That the new covenant was the intended outcome and this would result in the inward transformation to perfect obediance through the intervention of the Spirit directly to the believers hearts and minds.
That no written code would be neccesary and believers from the greatest to the smallest would instinctivly follow God’s Law.
Imagine my suspicion at a new written code combined with its followers as much as white washed tombs as any Pharesee condemned by Christ.
The New Testement should not have been neccesary in a new covenant.
Like or Dislike:
0
If the only choices are the two you posit, then you have chosen the right position. Are they the only two?
Like or Dislike:
0
Also I did accept Christ as a young teen out of fear of hell. But to partake in water baptism and comunion, No way untill I was sure I really could live up to the standard of perfection demanded.
Paul says that such a person has died to sin and is clothed in the body of Christ.
To walk around claiming to be clothed in Christ and blasphemise his image by the behavior I was witnissing from Christians was more frightening than anything I could imagine.
I knew instinctivly that it was in fact the blasphemy of the Spirit, the unpardenable sin.
And I still know this with absolute certainty.
Like or Dislike:
0
In fact I wish I could go back and not have accepted Christ as my Savior.
Even that may have sealed my fate.
All may be forgiven but not blasphey of the Spirit.
And that can only be comitted by someone who claims Christian.
Like or Dislike:
0
BTW, if anyone thinks postroad’s ramblings sound a bit strange, you’re not alone. His double-spaced non-sequiturs and impenetrable resistance to contextual reading have netted him a ‘platinum screwball award’ nomination from TheologyWeb for such gems as,
“Perhaps the whole point of Scripture is deception of the human mind?”
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2862206
Back on topic, in the post, CMP postulated that [what he perceives as] the Arminian view of election could answer the objection, were it true,
Objector: ”If this is true, why does God still find fault in people. Who can resist His will?”
Paul: “Oh, you have misunderstood me. You think that I am saying that God’s will is the ultimate cause of our salvation, not ours. Let me clarify. God’s election is not based upon His sovereign unconditional decree, but upon your will to choose Him. Therefore, He finds fault in people who do not choose Him by their own natural freedom. Doesn’t this make perfect sense?”
He assumes that the objector would happily concede at that. But given the type of question asked, I don’t think our objector would be satisfied with this somewhat inaccurate answer. He’d likely respond to the non-sequitur with,
Objector: “What does God saving people based upon their compliance have to do with hardening other peoples’ hearts and then finding fault with them?”
Even answering that God hardens those who reject His grace (as I believe) won’t satisfy such a wordly mindset, since such a question presupposes that God has no right to harden peoples’ hearts to begin with. And hence, the correct answer is to it is to derail the notion that man has some right to question God, as Paul does.
Like or Dislike:
0
It’s about TIME!
Every post here is based on the assumption that God’s involvement with man requires him to be limited by time, part of His own creation. God created timeand is thus unbound by time. Most everyone here would agree that God is unbound by time, yet we in every arguement tie God to time.
Examples:
1.God chooses man first so that this elect individual can be saved.
2.God looked forward in time and saw who would choose Him and thus he elects them first.
We see everything as the “now”. We also view the past and look forward to the future. But God (The alpha, omega, beginning and end, who was and is, and is to come) knows all three at the same time. Even this statement can limit God to His own creation of time. It is a concept that we cannot fully comprehend. If we could understand this then I am convinced we could understand election.
The mystery that inevitably bogs down this discussion is that of God being outside of time. Can He remain good, just, and fair by knowing everything. Being outside of time He can equip the unbeliver to choose to be saved or not. At what point in time does this equipping take place is the problem. More so we want to wrap “election” into a an issue of when does this equipping take place. Why? Because for us it’s about time, and when, and who chooses first, and we limit the whole discussion to time. God is not limited by time.
This is hardest to receive by the person who believes God elected the individual first. For the person who believes in free will it explains that (not how) God can equip and “dead man”.
Maybe most of us believe predominantly the same thing and are only allowing a misguided arguement to divide us, as it has done for a long time.
In Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
correction:
God can equip a “dead man”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Postroad,
I just have to respond to this because it is so ridiculous as to be laughable. If one had to be completely perfect following becoming a Christian and being baptized or whatever then no one, not even Paul and Peter are in heaven. Peter for instance sinned when he fell back in with the racism of the Judaizer’s and had to be rebuked by Paul besides the whole thing with denying Jesus. Paul goes on at length about the thorn in his side. Thomas refused to believe (hence the term doubting Thomas until he saw Jesus with his own eyes. The disciples themselves were ultimately a sinful bunch of misfits who were anything but perfect, yet still managed to be saved.
Your problems is that you want to read the Bible as if it were written as a 19th or 20th Century legal or historical textbook. It’s not. It uses a whole array of literary and linguistic tools to aid in communication including the most relevant to some of the texts you mention, hyperbole. Hyperbole is a literary tool that the ANE and the modern NE for that matter are quite fond of. If you ever go over to the Middle East and barter with someone don’t be surprised if they tell you that you are “spitting on their mother’s grave” when you quote too low of a price. It is the same in the Bible when Jesus tells you to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin. It’s a hyperbolic statement, not a literal one.
Just do yourself a favor and stop proof-texting verses out of the Bible. We can all do that and use it to prove whatever we want to. You must instead understand the whole counsel of the Bible in the context of it’s original intent and the literary tools and genres used. Ignoring this and just reading the words on the page is a very modernistic way of approaching a text and one in which the Bible was never intended to be read.
Like or Dislike:
0
JC you are the white washed tomb otherwise known as JP Holding?
Where the Jews decieved purposely as Christianity claims?
To bring them to despair in their own human nature.
Their is even mention of Laws abandoned that God had allowed to exist to fill them with horror.
25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.’
Of cource I am aware that the Jewish Church and Paul where at odds over doctrine.
Why should this be so if they recieved the same Spirit.?
Paul himself states that their is only one correct Gosple
Is it such a far stretch to wonder if the Bible is meant to decieve the human mind concidering that the written Law was in fact designed to decieve the Jews.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ernie,
Calvinists don’t base their arguments on chronological, but logical succession, even though for us, God has made the decision from before the foundation of the world. The argument is whether one believes because of what God has logically done first, or if what God does is caused by man believing first. It’s cause and effect, not necessarily chronological.
Like or Dislike:
0
And by their own testimony Paul and the Disciples are not saved.
They have shown that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit could not transform them into perfect harmony.
The new covenant was to usher in a leval of perfection from the inward to the outward.
Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ ”
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people
.Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Review your whole statement. It binds everything within the limits of time. Cause and effect ARE chronological. “Before the foundation of the world” is our best understanding of God “outside of time” not “before” time. I’m not denying “election”. I’m saying that our understanding of it is wrong. I’m also saying that I cannot describe it completely because I, like everyone else, try to apply our concept of time to it.
But when election is placed within time constraints it is very logical to arrive at Nightraptors conclusion of God being the author and promoter of evil. (Note: To accuse Nightraptor of having the fallacy of humans in that we cannot understand good and evil, one must apply this same fallacy to one’s self and invalidate one’s own conclusions.)
In Christ,
Like or Dislike:
0
By the way, I am convinced that Postroad doesn’t believe what he is spouting. He is just yanking your chain.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I do appreciate your graceful attitude in your presentation on this difficult subject. How do you respond to the Molinist position, championed by William Lane Craig (among others)?
Like or Dislike:
0
You are right Ernie that I am agnostic.
That is I admit that I do not know.
But can Christ be understood through knowledge.
Paul says no.
1 Corinthians 1:16-18 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
In fact he is hesitant to admitting that he baptised anyone.
Because if he baptised someone who in fact became an antichrist afterwards, that would be evidence of his own error.
By his own testimony he would then be a flawed witness of the body of Christ.
Jesus himself did not make such mistakes.
John 2:23-25 (New International Version)
23Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.
He knew who where his.
John 10:28-30
28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Ernie,
It’s not necessarily chronological. For God, it could be at the moment we believe. I’m not saying it is, but my point is that it is more like my pulling back a trigger to a gun before it clicks the hammer. At that point, the moment I click the trigger the explosion takes place. It may still be chronological, but it is so virtually the same moment that to talk about it in chronological fashion seems out of place. But the trigger had to be clicked in order for the explosion to take place, so there is a cause and effect that is logical there.
I don’t see how God’s decisions entering into time have anything to do with Him being the author of evil.
“To accuse Nightraptor of having the fallacy of humans in that we cannot understand good and evil, one must apply this same fallacy to one’s self and invalidate one’s own conclusions.”
This would only be true if we did have the Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to understand it. Left to our own understanding, we don’t come to the truth, which is why I said we need to be concerned about what the Scripture says, not our gut feelings. The Holy Spirit is not leading us to understand that God is evil, and therefore, any extra-biblical comment that a Biblical passage interpreted in such and such a way makes God evil falls prey to what I said before.
Like or Dislike:
0
Postroad
You are very good at distortion. But anyone who has spent time in Analytical Logistics would stop you at your base assumptions.
In Christ,
Like or Dislike:
0
Also Ernie,
I think that your understanding of “before the foundations of the world” are mistaken. God is not describing His being outside of time. He’s describing the time when we did not yet exist. This is made evident by the way this language is used. For instance, God asks if Job was there when He laid the foundation of the world. Job is not there, so it is not talking about what God did in timeless eternity, but what God did in relation to us, i.e., those who live in time.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge
We are more in agreement than this may sound, but look at your use of “virtually the same moment” and “in order”. Whether God is looking forward or looking backwards or just knowing, we still want God to click the trigger before the explosion. Or elected the individual before the salvation. If this is true then Ngihtraptors progression is valid.
I’m saying that there is NO chronological sequence in God’s election. He can equip the unbeliever to chose salvation whether the individual chooses life or rejects it.
Outside of the few noted exceptions in scripture we see a complete allowance of individuals to chose or reject God. For God to recieve the glory due him from mankind there has to be those who would chose him and those who would reject. God does know who will receive/reject him and can use both to bring himself glory. Thus we have our Rom 8 examples. But view this passage with an eye to a God not choosing before hand but interacting as one who can rewind/fast forward the tape of life(crude example with lots of flaws, so don’t pick it apart) according to his will.
It maybe can be understood if one could accept that God can answer prayer before it’s even asked. Not because He knew before hand but because He is outside of time.
And No I am not advocating any extra-biblical understanding or revelation of knowledge. I must daily submit to the leading of the HS so that I might understand and serve faithfully my God.
In Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge
As for “foundations of the world” I think we have to look at foundations as the whole created existance. Time, Sound, Color, Physics, Space, Life, Death, Knowledge, Thought, Etc…
The use of “before” is God knowing that we could never comprehend “outside of this existance”.
So yes I do think that God was telling Job that in God’s timeless eternity, Job was not there.
In Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
“I’m saying that there is NO chronological sequence in God’s election. He can equip the unbeliever to chose salvation whether the individual chooses life or rejects it.”
Do you mean with a prevenient grace? You said that He equips them to choose to accept or reject. Doesn’t God have to first equip someone so that they can then choose? How is that different from what I am saying? We may disagree about conditionality and how God knows what a human is going to do, but the “chronological” aspect seems the same in both.
As it says in John 6:37: “All that the Father has given to Me will come to Me.” Jesus is speaking in time that the Father has already given Him those who will come to Him, but all who were given have not yet come to Him. Now, you might still say that God knew their decision to accept Him, but that does not negate the idea that they believe in time, so His election precedes their belief. In other words, His giving precedes their coming. Do you not agree?
This is true of Rom 9 as well. What is their election based upon? Not the person’s desiring or running, but upon God’s will. So their decision to accept Him turns on His will.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow postroad, not even sure how to respond to that. You’ve made enough misrepresentations, distortions, taking passage out of context and most of all non-sequitars to make any analytics head explode. Not a single one of your conclusions followed from the passages or arguments you have made. Your arguments are akin to saying “the sky is blue and therefore it must be Monday”. To borrow from Billy Madison “what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Sorry for the ad hominem but your arguments are so ridiculous and irrational that it is impossible to even respond to. There just is no argument there to be talked about.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Think outside the box. Outside of Time. Your statements still are chronological. “first must equip” “preceds thier faith” Yes we are in time and everything WE DO is tied to time. God is not.
A God outside of time can intervene in time in ways that don’t invalidate His immutability AND respond to man’s request. An Omnipotent God can so configure existance that we have free will and still God’s will be done. Do I understand this, no.
In Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
Ernie,
Are you a molinist? Your arguments sound very close to that of William Lane Craig’s.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Not sure if I’m a Molinist. I am West Texas Baptist. lol. I looked up Molinist and captured the qoute below:
Molina maintained that the human faculties having been elevated by what might be called prevenient Grace, so as to make them capable of producing a supernatural act, the act itself is performed by the will co-operating with the impulse given by God. Man is, therefore, free, and at the same time dependent upon God in the performance of every good act. He is free, because the human will may or may not co-operate with the divine assistance, and he is dependent upon God, because it is only by being elevated by prevenient Grace freely given by God that the human will is capable of co-operating in the production of a supernatural act. It follows, too, that the efficaciousness of Grace arises not from the Grace itself but from the free co-operation of the will, and that a Grace in itself truly sufficient might not be efficacious through the failure of the will to co-operate with it. The omniscience of God is safeguarded, because, according to Molina, God sees infallibly man’s conduct by means of the scientia media or knowledge of future conditional events (so called because it stands midway between the knowledge of what is possible and the knowledge of what is actual).
To a large part I agree with this but it too has issues with God being bound by time constraints. It’s not “God’s knowledge of the future” but it is God’s knowledge and even control of time, and more so how He can interact with us who are bound by time.
In Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
Ernie,
What’s your support for the notion that God is “outside of time” in the sense you understand it?
Like or Dislike:
0
Ernie, the problem with your statement is it assumes that God is responding to our decision. The Bible tells us otherwise. So we are responding to God’s decision. However you want to view that is fine, but to say that God is really just working with our decision from a timeless standpoint, and then not be able to describe that 1. counters the Bible that says that election depends on God’s will, not ours (i.e. they’re in contrast, so they are not working together, otherwise it’s both of our wills), and 2. Says nothing, since you want to posit a third option but then say that you can’t describe how that works with our decision. If you can’t describe how that works out then what are you arguing?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Says nothing, since you want to posit a third option but then say that you can’t describe how that works with our decision. If you can’t describe how that works out then what are you arguing?”
Not that I agree with Ernie necessarily but this doesn’t seem any worse then attributing things to a unrevealed mysterious second will of God which according to unknown criteria decides who to torture and who to accept.
Like or Dislike:
0
What have I distorted?
New covenant is new covenant.
Jesus and Paul stated that it was in effect.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New International Version)
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
Paul states that this means Jesus only as the one seed of Abraham and those Christ chooses to elect in his grace.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, ”
declares the LORD.
It will not be a written code impossible to faithfull follow in letter and spirit in mans fallen state.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
It will be an inward tranformation directly from God rendering the recipiant completly obediant to Gods saving qualifications.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
It will be instinctual to every recipiant regardless of age and intelect.
There will be no written code neccesary or any outside interpretation.
They will become sinless after God forgives them of all sins under the old covenant.
This is all in line with Pauls interpretation
Although I do have a problem with Paul so casually dumping the physical nation of Israel in favour of the one seed.
Like or Dislike:
0
Although he states that their are Jews in the elect who will have their eyes opened when the full number of Gentiles are saved.
Which by the way indicates that there is a predetermined number of saved and that a Spiritual intervention is neccesary to unlock the mystery of salvation.
Romans 11:1-16
l
1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3″Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day.” 9And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge: “Actually, it follows because if all that is said of group X is that they do Y with information Z, then the text indicates that whenever group X has Z they do Y with it. ”
I think the point is, we both acknowledge that some people do not suppress the truth (you can say it is after regeneration, or whatever conditions you like), and my point is that Paul refers to these people in Romans 1-2, specifically 1:17 and 2:7. If you deny that you are open to the subjunctive argument that Paul is not talking reality. I don’t see any reason to go down that road, since we both agree there are people who do not suppress the truth.
“Yes and No. Abraham’s faith was not in the revealed Gospel, but he is applying what Abraham did”
Well, that’s an assumption you have, but I’m not sure we need to go down that road.
“How does God not choose some and not others if in fact, even in an Arminian system, He can save anyone He wants, but doesn’t? ”
I don’t see the problem. The parable of the ungrateful son, who takes his inheritance early indicates that God gives us the freedom to go, but he wants us to come back on our own accord. I can’t see any other conclusion one could make from this parable.
“That’s not what the context says. The context says that He was preaching the good news about the Kingdom”
Sometimes it says that, but other times it is just “THE Gospel” (e.g. Mk 13:10 which must be preached to all nations!!! Isn’t that what Paul had to do?), other times it is the “Gospel of God” (Mk 1:14) compare to Ro 1:1 where Paul calls his Gospel the Gospel of God. Sometimes it is the Gospel of Jesus (Mk 1:1), compare Ro 15:19 “the Gospel of Christ”.
“Do you believe that people would have been saved just by believing that the kingdom had come, defined in whatever way they wished?”
I don’t think that is what Jesus was preaching. He was preaching repent and believe which is a bit different.
“No, because it’s all who are predestined and called who are justified and glorified, not just all who are called.”
Well, you’re departing from the whole Calvinist argument, and you’ve broken the chain. Maybe I need to help you brush up on Calvinist arguments
“these whom He predestined, He also called”
(Romans 8:30 NAS95). It doesn’t say he called a bunch of people, some of whom are predestined, or that those who are predestined AND called are justified. Rather it says those who are predestined are called.
And then it says “these whom He called, He also justified;”
(Romans 8:30 NAS95). Not “those predestined AND called”, rather those called are justified. That’s why they call it a “chain”. Your interpretation is not a chain.
But if you want to break Calvinism’s “Golden Chain”, go ahead.
Like or Dislike:
0
This acusation of distortion is always leveled at me and I confess it drives me crazy.
For crying out loud, Paul puts it as plain as day just before he quotes the text of Jeremiah regarding the new covenant.
Hebrews 10:14
because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Doe not sound like
Because of the ability to crucify Christ repeatidly, believers can gain forgiveness for transgressions as they strive half heartidly to conform themselves into a semblance of perfection in order to enter the holy presence of the Father.
Like or Dislike:
0
Romans 11:29
for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
No free will involved here.
But we can asume that there are conterfiet believers.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
“In the beginning” God chose these words to show that He is (ask Moses what to call God) and everything else is created by Him, including time. This makes God outside of time. Timeless. However we want to describe it. But let me go further. God can do/create anything. He can create an existance for us that allows Him to accomplish His will even while responding to a relationship with man. He is not a God who does not respond. Without violating who He is OR His will, God responds. He spared the Isrealites in the wilderness. He gives Kings more years to live. He delivers from the oppressor. He sends angels to His prophets when they call to Him. ALL of this responding doesn’t take ANYTHING away from God or His will. For God to not respond to created man, who is given free will to choose God not only for salvation but in every aspect of his life, would mean that everything is just a puppet show. Has God entervened at times in the lives of individuals for His will to be done? Of Course. Romans 8. But God not responding goes completly contrary to the interactive God of scripture.
Let me be clear. I am in no way elevating man to a position of any simblance of equality. Without God man is deservedly dead in his sin. But God doesn’t leave it there. The HS draws and woos individuals to Him according to His will. That same will that desires for all men to be saved.
In Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
The God of the OT was interactive.
Paul states that the Father had rested from his works since the seventh day of Creation.
Like or Dislike:
0
postroad: “Romans 11:29
for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
No free will involved here.”
There is no freewill involved with these Jews Paul calls “enemies of the Gospel”?
It seems to me the general call of God to Israel is irrevocable, but clearly this is not about individuals, since they have rejected God’s call.
“Because of the ability to crucify Christ repeatidly, believers can gain forgiveness for transgressions…”
And you wonder why people accuse you of distortion? How about you tell us who claimed that, and we’ll see if being driven crazy by these accusations is natural justice.
Like or Dislike:
0
Did I not say “does not sound like”?
“Because of the ability to crucify Christ repeatidly, believers can gain forgiveness for transgressions…”
Are you trying to distort my words?
How about Pauls?
Romans 6:9-11
9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 5:8-10
8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 9:11-15
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
Hebrews 9:25-30
25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Hebrews 10:1-4 (New International Version)
Hebrews 10
Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Like or Dislike:
0
Post,
“because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”
You have indicated earlier that the sacrifice of Christ is only effectual for past sins and once one sins after accepting Christ they prove themselves to not be true Christians and commit the damnable sin of blaspheming the holy spirit. Yet that doesn’t fit with this verse which indicates the exact opposite. You’ve have quoted in support of your heterodox understanding of sanctification one of the primary verses which supports the already, but not yet understanding of classical sanctification. Notice that the language of this verse. It indicates that God has already made perfect those who ARE being made holy. The “ARE being made holy” indicates that they are not yet holy, but are still in the process of becoming holy which is exactly what the classical understanding of sanctification teaches. Christians are declared righteous (justified) before God on account of their faith. They are declared perfect. Yet the inward, outward and behavioral changes which reflect this declaration, the being made holy part of this verse, is a process that occurs over time.
Again your argument is non-sequitar and the verse you cite for your position proves the opposite.
Like or Dislike:
0
14. For-The sacrifice being “for ever” in its efficacy (Heb 10:12) needs no renewal.
them that are sanctified-rather as Greek, “them that are being sanctified.” The sanctification (consecration to God) of the elect (1Pe 1:2) believers is perfect in Christ once for all (see on [2578]Heb 10:10). (Contrast the law, Heb 7:19; 9:9; 10:1). The development of that sanctification is progressive.
This is from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary which is a commentary from the conservative Reformed perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0
Post,
Please notice these verses in the book of I John:
I John 1:7-2:1 “but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous…”
Notice he is talking to Christians. He makes it very clear that we WILL still sin as Christians, but that Jesus will forgive us. We are, of course, in that process of sanctification that Michael wrote about.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: “It indicates that God has already made perfect those who ARE being made holy. The “ARE being made holy” indicates that they are not yet holy, but are still in the process of becoming holy which is exactly what the classical understanding of sanctification teaches. ”
I don’t think this is the classical understanding of sanctification, although it is a common protestant sentiment.
The verb appears to be a middle, and ἁγιάζω carries the meaning of being set aside or dedicated. One I think might interpret this as someone who has “set themselves aside for God”. διηνεκής has the meaning “continuously”. (cf Heb 7:3, Christ is a priest “perpetually” διηνεκής). Therefore, the act of perfecting, why grounded in what happened in the past, is applied continually.
So I would tentatively offer the translation that “By one offering he has perfected continually those who set themselves aside for God”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Are you a RC or EO John? I honestly don’t know much about how these organizations interpret sanctification. What I gave is the common Protestant understanding offered by just about every commentary on the subject I’ve ever read. Although I must admit I don’t know Greek and thus must rely on others that do and are trustworthy.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: I’m EO.
The word commonly translated sanctification is the verbal form of Holy. The noun form of which is used to refer to “the saints” aka believers or “Holy ones”.
There are a number of words where Greek has a corresponding noun/verb form, but English doesn’t which tends to obscure various issues. One is Holy/Sanctified. Another is righteous/justified.
The best lexicons for ἁγιάζω seem to make the Protestant idea of sanctification to be a lessor meaning. i.e. #4 in BADG “to Purify”. #1 is “to set aside for ritual purposes” #2 to consecrate or dedicate. #3 to treat with reverence.
Like or Dislike:
0
“because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”
Or
He has made perfect as in it is complete.
John 19:29-31
29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “IT IS FINISHED” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
They of cource did not all believe at the same instant.
So they are being made holy, each individual seperately.
It does not say who he is making holy, but rather made holy.
On a side note.
It is interesting that Jesus is given wine vinager on a hyssop branch.
Also that he was taken down before morning and that he did not have his legs broken.
Perhaps I am reading to much into it, But here is my theory.
It symbolises a passover meal from the bondadge of the old covenant to the freedom of the new.
10 “Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they may still celebrate the LORD’s Passover. 11 They are to celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations.
Paul states as much.
1 Corinthians 5:7
Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
The Lord’s supper was also on the passover.
Mark 14:12
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
Like or Dislike:
0
[QUOTE]Post,
Please notice these verses in the book of I John:
I John 1:7-2:1 “but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous…”
Notice he is talking to Christians. He makes it very clear that we WILL still sin as Christians, but that Jesus will forgive us. We are, of course, in that process of sanctification that Michael wrote about.[/QUOTE]
Or as the author adresses it to little children, it could mean that they are aprentice believers not yet baptised?
How else would these statements later make sense?
1 John 3:6
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
Sounds like more of a warning against taking baptism lightly.
Like or Dislike:
0
In fact the progression is shown in 1 John chapter 2
1 John 2
1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Adressed to children perhaps unbaptised.
3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Adressed to adults, baptised and now clothed in the body of Christ.
A rather high standard of behavior.
Like or Dislike:
0
Of cource any unbaptised individual who claims that they have not sinned would be calling God a liar.
Jesus states that even those who have entertained temptations have comited the sin.
Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Which brings us back to the standards of the new covenant.
Jeremiah 31:33
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
“Not that I agree with Ernie necessarily but this doesn’t seem any worse then attributing things to a unrevealed mysterious second will of God which according to unknown criteria decides who to torture and who to accept.”
It’s quite different because it’s not a matter of us figuring out why God makes His decisions, but what has He revealed He does and how that relates to what we do. So it’s apples and oranges. One is a why question and the other is a what based on revelation.
BTW, I would take ἁγιάζω as a passive, as that is also indicated not only by the grammar, but by the subject of the verb in Hebrews (cf. 2:11; 10:10, 29; 13:12). There is no likelihood that it should be taken differently here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Post,
If you read the whole book of I John, you will see that John refers to the people he is talking to there 9 times as “little children”. NINE times!!
And it is exceedingly obvious that he is not speaking to unbaptized children as you suggest above! Check it out for yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
“I think the point is, we both acknowledge that some people do not suppress the truth”
No we don’t. You are assuming that by people not continually suppress the truth when they come to Christ in faith that somehow means that they do not suppress the truth revealed to them via natural revelation, which would contradict what Paul says here. All of the Gentiles given natural revelation suppress it and reject it. They need the real Gospel through which they will be quickened by the Spirit in my view. So every Gentile given natural revelation rejects it. God must then come and bring them to faith in the Gospel via special revelation, the preacher bringing news of good tidings. So the issue is that you are assuming that because some of Group A does not continue to suppress once the Gospel/special revelation is delivered that means that some of Group A does not suppress the natural revelation given to them.
“Well, that’s an assumption you have, but I’m not sure we need to go down that road.”
Well, it’s an assumption based on what Paul tells us the gospel is. So the author does know what Gospel about which he is arguing.
Gospel of course is used in different ways, but most of the examples you gave me were from an informed view of what the gospel was, since they are at the end of the Gospels or a part of the author’s, who now understands what the Gospel is, understanding of it. BTW, the gospel of God preached in Mk 1:14 is informed by v. 15: it’s about the kingdom of God coming.
“I don’t see the problem. The parable of the ungrateful son, who takes his inheritance early indicates that God gives us the freedom to go, but he wants us to come back on our own accord. I can’t see any other conclusion one could make from this parable.”
So it’s freedom to be completely convinced by the devil and the world to reject God, but not freedom if God were to convince you with his persuasive ability? How is it not freedom if God can convince you to believe without infringing upon your free will in any different manner than the world does? And if the world does infringe on your free will, and God lets you be apart of that world, how is God allowing you have free will?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Well, you’re departing from the whole Calvinist argument, and you’ve broken the chain. Maybe I need to help you brush up on Calvinist arguments
“these whom He predestined, He also called”
(Romans 8:30 NAS95). It doesn’t say he called a bunch of people, some of whom are predestined, or that those who are predestined AND called are justified. Rather it says those who are predestined are called.”
Yes, I know. I don’t believe that this passage alone argues the exclusivist position. I do still believe that it argues the Calvinistic one however. So the same group who is predestined is the same group who is called is the same group who is justified. This does not mean that no one else is called. Your logic is faulty there. If I say that I invited everyone that I had planned to invite to my party, and they came, that does not mean that I did not invite anyone else. The argument is that those God predestined are called and are justified and are glorified. Now, do we know from other Scripture that those who are predestined and justified and glorified are only those who have faith in the gospel? Yes. But you would not necessarily get that from this passage. Do we likewise know from other Scripture that there are others God calls? Yes, but they are not predestined and therefore not justified and glorified.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ernie,
Either I don’t understand the logic of your position, or it’s contradictory. I don’t know which. The point I would make is that you want God to respond to something that happens in time, but you do and don’t want someone in time to respond to God. Response is language of causation, so you are equally guilty of positing chronological or logical causation.
Are you honestly arguing that God elects to help us to believe because He knows that we will believe anyway? Why do we need to be elected and helped?
Like or Dislike:
0
I have read it many times and It confuses me to.
I put the ball in your court then.
How should I reconcile the text of 1 John calling those who claim to know him but continue to sin as being liars?
He calls such individuals antichrists here.
1 John 2:17-19 17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
It apears that some members have broken away.
This is so alarming to the Author that he indicates that the end is imanent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Post,
Since what you are talking about here is so far off topic, this will be my last response to you.
Have you read the book of I Corinthians lately? This is a church, a group of people that Paul addresses as fellow Christians. However, he rebukes them over and over and over for their sinful behavior. But he still refers to them as fellow Christians. Fellow Christians that need to repent and live in a Godly manner and grow up in their walk with God.
Like or Dislike:
0
“You are assuming that by people not continually suppress the truth when they come to Christ in faith that somehow means that they do not suppress the truth revealed to them via natural revelation”
The logic goes like this: We know some people do not suppress the truth (which you must admit). Therefore when Paul says something about “men who suppress the truth”, we ought to assume it is just that subset. And that being the case, we have no cause in Ro 1 to say that all men suppress natural revelation.
Futhermore, while Paul says a lot about these people and all the wide and flagrent things they do against decency, he then goes on to discuss gentiles who do what the law requires, because it is written on their hearts (2:14). Does that sound like the same people who are “filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice”. It doesn’t sound like it to me. How can they be totally suppressing everything to do with God, completely filled with wickedness, but then they are doing what the law requires because it is written on their hearts? That doesn’t make sense.
And how much sense does it make for Paul to say that God has revealed so much about himself in in natural revelation that his qualities are “clearly seen, being understood”, and then say that all men don’t see it? That contracts the meaning of “clearly seen” and “understood”.
“Well, it’s an assumption based on what Paul tells us the gospel is. ”
I don’t see how.
“BTW, the gospel of God preached in Mk 1:14 is informed by v. 15: it’s about the kingdom of God coming.”
Yes, the question is why you don’t think all uses of “gospel” should be similarly informed.
“So it’s freedom to be completely convinced by the devil and the world to reject God, but not freedom if God were to convince you with his persuasive ability?”
The issue is not word games about the meaning of freedom, the issue is the Text of Luke 15.
Like or Dislike:
0
Postroad,
Again you distort the Bible. “Little children” is not a term for the unbaptized, but rather believers who are new to the faith. It has been interpreted this way since the earliest writings of the church we have dating to the 2nd Century. This is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible as well. Paul for instance uses similar terminology when addressing the believers in the Corinthian church.
“Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?”
This is done immediately after addressing them this way
” 1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
It is clearly that though these people are still “worldly” Paul considers them brothers in Christ and having attained salvation.
Furthermore your entire argument is incoherent and illogical because you in essence say that the teachings of the writers of the Bible exclude the writers of the Bible from salvation. For instance Paul clearly had sin in his life after being baptized as did Peter. Yet it is evident from the Bible that they (Paul and Peter) felt assured of their salvation. So surely they didn’t intend the text the way you are reading for if they did they wouldn’t be assured that they would be saved and in fact would openly admit they were going to hell. Yet they didn’t do this thus making your argument ridiculous.
Like or Dislike:
0
All good things must come to an end. So must this thead of comments.
Thanks everyone.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Predesination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Christianity, there is a camp that believes humans have no free will (illustrated by this post from Parchment and Pen). That our lives, and salvation, are predestined from before the time we are born. [...]
More Comments: