Since high school, it has been my practice to read through the Scriptures each year. Upon readings in more recent years, I have been struck repeatedly by strong expressions of divine exasperation. Of course, I acknowledge God’s awareness of what free choices human beings will make, and I recognize that God can use free human choices and rebellion to accomplish his sovereign purposes. Humans can harden themselves (e.g., Mark 3:5) and then God, if he chooses, may add to this hardening (e.g., Mark 4:12); that is, human self-hardening gives way to “phase two” when God withdraws his grace and further removes humans from repentance, “giving them over” to the consequences of their own self-initiated resistance to God’s grace. Let me add here that Kenneth Keathley’s book Salvation and Sovereignty
I am hoping to do some writing in this area of divine exasperation, and I thought that I would check with faithful Parchment and Pen readers to get your take on the following verses. As I read them, they strongly suggest God’s legitimate expectation of spiritual fruitfulness, repentance, or obedience. That is, what hinders their repentance is not God’s withholding grace so that they cannot repent. Indeed, abundant grace has been given that justifies the expectation of repentance—even if God in his foreknowledge knows it is not forthcoming. Despite God’s initiating grace, humans continue to “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51)—to grieve him (Ephesians 4:30) and quench him (1 Thessalonians 5:19). God commands all people without exception to repent (Acts 17:30); so presumably God’s initiating grace is available for all to do so.
What is your take on the following sampling of verses that reflect “divine exasperation”?
- Genesis 4:6-7: “Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.’”
- Psalm 81:10-11: “Open your mouth wide, and I [God] will fill it.” Israel’s response? “But my people did not listen to My voice, and Israel did not obey Me….Oh that my people would listen to Me…!” God goes on to say that if they did listen, he would subdue their enemies and feed Israel with the finest of wheat (vv. 13-16).
- Isaiah 5:1-7: “Let me sing now for my well-beloved a song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it and also hewed out a wine vat in it; then He expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground. I will lay it waste; it will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it.” For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.”
- Jeremiah 5:3: “O Lord, do not Your eyes look for truth? You have smitten them, but they did not weaken; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent.”
- Jeremiah 5:21-25: “‘Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see; who have ears but do not hear. Do you not fear Me?’ declares the Lord. ‘Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, an eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and departed. They do not say in their heart, “Let us now fear the Lord our God, who gives rain in its season, both the autumn rain and the spring rain, who keeps for us the appointed weeks of the harvest.” Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have withheld good from you.’”
- Ezekiel 6:9: “How I [God] have been hurt by their adulterous hearts.”
- Ezekiel 18:23, 32: “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” “Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies…. Therefore, repent and live.”
- Matthew 23:37: Jesus laments over Jerusalem: “How I longed to gather you . . . but you were unwilling.” (It appears that it wasn’t Jesus or his Father who was unwilling!)
- Luke 7:30: Israel’s religious leaders had “rejected God’s purpose for themselves.”
- John 3:16-17: “God so loved the world [which stands in opposition to God/Christ] . . . God did not sent His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
- Romans 10:21: “All day long I have stretched out my hand to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
- 2 Corinthians 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.”
- 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9: God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”; God “is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance.” Surely the sense of the text cannot be turned around to mean that God is willing that certain people should perish and not come to repentance!
- 1 John 2:2: Christ died for the sins of “the whole world [holou tou kosmou]”—the same “whole world” that lies in the hands of the evil one (1 Jn. 5:19) and that Satan leads astray (Rev. 12:9).
- Revelation 2:21-22: Regarding the Thyatiran false prophetess “Jezebel,” Jesus says: “I gave her time to repent; and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.”
What do you all think? If these are not genuine expressions of divine exasperation and genuine divine calls to freely repent in response to God’s grace, how are we to understand them? I’d appreciate your input.
270 replies to "Divine Exasperation"
So, in Isaiah 5, God asks the hearer to judge and declare God righteous for doing everything He could be expected to do. He says that He “expected” it to produce good grapes, and it produced sour ones.
I think the best point you’ve got in this passage would be to imply that the argument being presented here was complete in the sense of meaning that God had done NOTHING that would in any way hurt Israel’s chances of responding to Him. For example, if the owner had failed to mention that the vinyard was sown with salt, that would be a crucially unfair omission from that case being presented. I think you’d like to argue that sowing total depravity in men’s hearts would be like sowing the vinyard with salt, and that any fair judgement would find against the owner and for the vinyard.
Am I right in this? I’ll let you speak for yourself, because I know classical Arminianism wouldn’t make this argument — and in fact, I think it’s a thoroughly Pelagian argument, so I don’t want to argue against it until I know whether you accept it (and I want to give you a fair chance to nuance your argument so it doesn’t fall into any traps).
Just to be clear, I’m not saying you’re Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, nor am I accusing you of presenting Pelagian arguments. But the only way I can see to read this passage in an incompatibilist manner is Pelagian. Let me know what I’m missing.
-Wm
I’m not replying to Part VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI because the verses in it don’t refer at all to compatibilism or incompatibilism; they merely show that man does bad things and is to blame for them. Again, the claim compatibilism makes is that man can justly be blamed. Your showing that it’s just to blame man doesn’t disprove compatibilism.
I’ll briefly mention that the end of part X (actually in part XI) makes the point that “Why the divine jealousy about idolatry if Israel can’t turn away from it anyway? It strikes me as divine play-acting.” This is a superficially fine argument, but a total non-sequitur from the passage itself (Deut 32). It’s a little bit against the context, since there God proclaims His power to achieve His ends.
The argument presented in part VIII stands alone, but I don’t respond simply because it’s so profoundly eisegetical: your claim that the Old Testament “assumes” your view would be the ultimate level of question-begging, if you didn’t top it by saying that the New Testament has to be read according to emanations of this penumbra. You’re making a claim (assumption) that requires proof, not simply assertion.
But part XII brings up what I think is one of the best passages to bring against Calvinism.
-Wm
Okay, I’m finally back.
It’s interesting that you associate Jeremiah 18 with Romans 9. Jeremiah isn’t using the metaphor of clay talking back to the potter, but rather the metaphor of clay turning wrong and having to be thrown down into a different pot. Before I look more closely at Jeremiah, let me point out the passages that do use Paul’s metaphor: Isaiah 29:16 and Isa 45:9. The common element between the two passages is that they both regard as perverse and gravely dangerous to argue with your maker about what He’s making you into. The different elements are in the context; Isa 29 is about God’s promise to restore, while Isa 45 is about God’s authority to bring disaster and benefit according to His plan and desire. I think it’s reasonable to say that Paul was referring to both, since his quote isn’t exactly parallel to either; but I’m open to correction (perhaps the LXX used that, for example).
I think you’d have to agree that Isaiah isn’t being misused by Calvinists in looking at Paul’s quote. I’d like to hear from you a defense of how Paul was attempting to use Jeremiah, because I simply don’t see any trace of common meaning or wording between the two passages.
Don’t want to run over the limit… I’ll post this.
-Wm
Now, let’s look at the passage in Jeremiah. The context is, I think, that some people believe that God’s threat of destruction followed their breaking of the covenant, and that therefore there was no way to be restored to the covenant, nor any obligation to keep the covenant. In this passage, God tells the people that if they repent, God will remove the curses of the covenant; and He also reminds them that His covenant blessings are also conditional.
The two major Reformed churches both hold that God’s Law has three purposes. The Lutherans hold that its purposes are to curb social evil, to mirror depravity, and to rule sanctification. Calvin held that the three purposes are to mirror God’s goodness and man’s depravity, to restrain social evil, and to reveal what is pleasing to God.
In a similar way, I can easily see at least two purposes in this passage, and I’m going to suggest a third purpose for this passage, since a sermon with only two points is like a man with only two legs (that metaphor may have gotten away from me).
First, this promise talks to those who think they’re the People of God and reminds them that being the People of God means that God is working through you, and if your work isn’t being pleasing to God, God is about to change the way He works through you — if you’re enjoying where you are right now, this is a THREAT.
Second, this promise speaks to those who think they’re cast away by God, and reminds them that if they follow the Law of God, God will work through them — and if you fear the threat of the withdrawal of God’s good works, this is a PROMISE.
Third, this promise hints that there’s a way to please God even when we’ve willfully sinned, a way not given by the Law at all (because the Law only offers sacrifices for accidental sins): God accepts repentance! God covers our past guilt with the righteousness of His Son, and our present inabilities with the working of His Holy Spirit, and our future perfection with…
(Oops, truncated again. I wonder if my browser can do a word count to help keep my writing short enough. It’s a pity that the site’s word count has never worked for me.)
… God covers our past guilt with the righteousness of His Son, and our present inabilities with the working of His Holy Spirit, and our future perfection with the Father’s predestination to be conformed to the image of His Son. This offer was available to all of the Old Testament saints through faith in God’s promises, a faith which must have seemed improbable to them but which is now completely revealed to us. This third point is, as I’ve said, not explicit in this text; but it’s implicit because in order for God to accept and bless a change in behavior He must somehow satisfy the demands of His own perfect justice for the old bad behavior.
This is a consistently Calvinistic interpretation of this passage. Next I’ll write a comment in which I attempt to explain that nothing in this passage undermines either the persistence of the saints, or total depravity.
-Wm
Okay, so does Jeremiah say here that when God curses the formerly blessed people, is God taking away salvation from saved people? The problem with reading this is that there’s no mention here of salvation, only an implication of blessings from following the Law. We know now that following the Law doesn’t give salvation, so this passage is also not talking about removing salvation.
But I do believe this passage applies to a person in the Church who is failing to follow God’s law. That person should be warned that although he now has the blessings of Christ, God is not obligated to keep the blessings of Christ applied to him; on the contrary, the cursings of the New Covenant will apply to those who break it. Calvin would have said that such a person was not truly saved, because the Holy Spirit would not have failed to seal a saved person to Himself, and the Son would never let go of a person the Father had given to Him.
Next, does Jeremiah here say that an unsaved person can, by his own effort, fulfill the law to merit salvation? As I showed with my third point, this passage doesn’t mention God’s gracious acceptance of repentance, so all this passage explicitly says is that a person can regain the present blessings of the covenant, but it doesn’t explain how their past sins can be forgiven, nor how their future sanctification can be gained.
-Wm
Hello, folks.
I’m catching up after Atlanta, but let me jump right in.
William, on John 3:16, does God love the entire world without exception or simply individuals within the world (all without distinction)? If the latter, this would go against the very (negative) general use of “world” throughout John’s Gospel. (Isn’t this the same “world” that Jesus doesn’t pray for in John 17?!) This point is reinforced by 1 Jn. 2:2—Christ didn’t die for an elect few but for the whole world; note that this phrase is used only one other time in 1 Jn (5:19)—where the “whole world” lies in the hands of the evil one.
As for Matthew 5, the “perfect fulfillment of the Law” is beside the point. Also, on the general misreading of the Sermon on the Mount, see Glen Stassen/David Gushee’s Kingdom Ethics (IVP) and their discussion of the transforming initiatives (a triadic rather than the traditional dyadic structuring), which makes much better sense of the text than traditional interpretations do. At any rate, the context of peacemaking and reconciliation reflects God’s character—being called “children/sons of God” and reconciling with our enemies, mentioned earlier in Matthew 5—nicely informs this passage at the end of Matthew 5 regarding God’s love for his enemies. God seeks reconciliation with his enemies and he loves them—and so should we. Jesus exemplifies this love for the world (or worldy-minded)—namely, the rich young man in Mark 10:21: “Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him.” He felt compassion for the multitudes (presumably all without exception!) who were like sheep without a shepherd (Mt. 9:36). God makes provision for his enemies, even using language like “purification from his former sins” and “bought” to characterize false teachers who have turned away from the truth [2 Pet. 1:9; 2:1]).
PART II:
Sure, Jesus speaks to people who he foreknows will not be saved, but that’s a moot point. He desires and fully provides for their salvation nevertheless, doing all that he can for their repentance. What prevents their repentance is not God, but human resistance to God’s grace. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Paul desires the salvation of his hard-hearted kin in Rom. 9-10. Does Paul have more compassion and concern for their salvation than God does? May it never be! And Stephen himself says that his hearers are resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51). My question is this: Isn’t the Spirit attempting to convict hard-hearted humans? If not, why the “resistance” language? If the Spirit has hardened their hearts anyway and prevented their repentance, then “resistance” language is totally unnecessary and even contradictory. (Hebrews 3:15: “If you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts….”)
On John 6:44-45, of course God must initiate the process. I don’t think that what you said undermines the points I made earlier.
Rich, I think you miss the point of claims regarding middle knowledge. Counterfactual knowledge of what humans would freely do is exemplified by the account of David at Kielah (1 Sam. 23:11-12)—hardly guesswork. You didn’t really interact with Molinism; so I won’t comment further.
PART III:
On the potter and the clay, take a look at the context of Jeremiah 18 (which Paul is citing in Rom. 9). The original passage actually reveals significantly free human action. God the potter is free to relent from threatened calamity IF a nation freely turns from its evil. And who said anything about “totally free”? That’s a misrepresentation of my position. All I am saying is that humans have freedom to resist God’s gracious initiative. Totally free we are not. After all there are plenty of influences and limitations all about us: our place in history, our geography, our education, our mental abilities, etc. My point is that the buck stops with the agent; while desires and even character states can influence, they don’t determine. Of course, those who insist that my position is false are presumably arguing because of their own strongest desires! If so, then their conclusion is not a rational one and thus cannot be called knowledge since their view is only accidentally true. (See Kenneth Keathley’s discussion in *Salvation and Sovereignty* on this.)
Rich, as for your discussion of John 3:16, see the above comments and the use of the phrase “whole world” in 1 Jn. 2:2 and 5:19 (cp. 2 Pet. 2:1: “denying the Master who bought them”). As for Jn. 3:36, yes, the wrath of God remains on people unless they repent. After all, we were too by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Eph. 2:1-3).
As for your comment about the need for regeneration to believe, it seems that this goes beyond what Scripture states. The problem with the common Calvinistic dictum “regeneration precedes faith” is that it isn’t found in the Bible! Repentance/faith (through God’s gracious initiative, which can be resisted) precedes salvation/rebirth:
PART IV:
• “But as many as received Him, even to those who believe in His name, to them He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).
• “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:24).
• “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
• “Repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
• “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:2)
• “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13).
We even see in Hebrews 6:4-5 that people can be enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, be made partakers of the Holy Spirit, taste the good word of God and the power of the age to come and not in the end be saved. This sounds like the working of a kind of prevenient grace to me! I can’t go into a lot of detail, but I don’t find the passages you gave all that difficult to answer.
The discussion is getting long. I guess I’d better get to William’s stuff.
PART V:
Isaiah 5: I’m glad you think this powerful passage is a “more worthy choice”; the point here is that not only is man to blame for fruitlessness, God has provided for Israel’s repentance and rightly calls for them to do so, having done all he can for them. God’s desire/will for them is being obstructed in its fulfillment. I don’t think we need to keep appealing to Dt. 30 to resolve the Isaiah issue since even within Dt. 30 itself God tells the people to choose life over death; God has made this provision for them to choose life. Yes, God foreknows what Israel will freely do, but he has done all he can to enable them to choose life over death then and there in the wilderness—to circumcise their hearts and not stiffen their necks any longer (10:16). Israel is responsible for its own hard-heartedness; God will eventually give them over to their hard-heartedness—i.e., hardening their hearts (stage two in the hardening process).
You say about Isaiah 5 that “God presents what He’s actually done for Israel, and Israel responds by admitting that this SHOULD have been sufficient but they still disobeyed.” Not at all. Israel isn’t admitting anything! God is saying he has done all that he can to create conditions for spiritual and moral fruitfulness for Israel, yet Israel refused despite God’s strongest efforts. The “sowing with salt” analogy misses the point that Isa. 5 is making. This isn’t merely a matter of God’s not hurting their chances. Rather, “totally depraved” Israel has been given sufficient and necessary grace by which they truly can respond to God and produce moral/spiritual fruit, and God makes full provision for their doing so and desires it. God does all he can, and yet this isn’t enough because Israel refuses his initiating grace (i.e., this is a far cry from Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism!).
I think your other interactions with the passages I’ve listed miss the point you make about each one supporting compatibilism. Rather,…
PARTS IV FF AGAIN!
Sorry, I messed up on my posting. I was cut short and couldn’t patch things up. So I’ll begin my RE-POSTING and then continue. Pardon any confusion!
William, you claim that in my citing Old Testament passages (primarily), I am simply restating/assuming the tenets of compatibilism: humans are responsible for their responses to God and this is compatible with divine determination. No, these texts illustrate something more—namely, God fully provides for repentance, having done all he can to encourage this, but humans act contrariwise and stubbornly refuse. That is not compatibilism at all but rather incompatibilism. Should Cain have acted differently than he did (Gen. 4)? The biblical text assumes that God has done all he can to provide for repentance and obedience; all that prevents Cain’s obedience is Cain! When God tells his people to choose life over death (in Deut. 30, of all places!), this assumes he has given them opportunity to do so; God has opened the way for them to do so, doing all he can for them, but they refuse. This is not compatiblism.
PART V (CORRECT VERSION):
Isaiah 5: William, I’m glad you think this powerful passage is a “more worthy choice”; the point here is that not only is man to blame for fruitlessness, God has provided for Israel’s repentance and rightly calls for them to do so, having done all he can for them. God’s desire/will for them is being obstructed in its fulfillment. I don’t think we need to keep appealing to Dt. 30 to resolve the Isaiah issue since even within Dt. 30 itself God tells the people to choose life over death; God has made this provision for them to choose life. Yes, God foreknows what Israel will freely do, but he has done all he can to enable them to choose life over death then and there in the wilderness—to circumcise their hearts and not stiffen their necks any longer (10:16). Israel is responsible for its own hard-heartedness; God will eventually give them over to their hard-heartedness—i.e., hardening their hearts (stage two in the hardening process).
You say about Isaiah 5 that “God presents what He’s actually done for Israel, and Israel responds by admitting that this SHOULD have been sufficient but they still disobeyed.” Not at all. Israel isn’t admitting anything! God is saying he has done all that he can to create conditions for spiritual and moral fruitfulness for Israel, yet Israel refused despite God’s strongest efforts. The “sowing with salt” analogy misses the point that Isa. 5 is making. This isn’t merely a matter of God’s not hurting their chances. Rather, “totally depraved” Israel has been given sufficient and necessary grace by which they truly can respond to God and produce moral/spiritual fruit, and God makes full provision for their doing so and desires it. God does all he can, and yet this isn’t enough because Israel refuses his initiating grace (i.e., this is a far cry from Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism!).
PART VI:
I think your other interactions with the passages I’ve listed miss the point you make about each one supporting compatibilism. Rather, in passage after passage, the point is that God makes full provision for repentance, having done all that he can, but Israel freely resists God’s grace. Don’t you see in these passages that God has done all that he can to facilitate repentance? It’s like Revelation 2:21: “I gave her time to repent…but she refused to repent of her immoralities.” It is a reasonable point to say a compatibilist interpretation makes such passages look like divine play-acting. (I should add that I’m hardly question-begging if I note that passages like the potter and the clay mentioned in the NT are rooted in a broader OT context. This is the complaint NT Wright correctly raises in his book Justification.
You ask about whether Jeremiah or Isaiah is behind the potter-clay theme in Romans 9. The potter-clay issue AND not complaining against one’s Maker pervade both Jeremiah and Isaiah. (In his NICNT Romans commentary, Douglas Moo notes that this general Old Testament theme is in Paul’s mind; so one doesn’t need to choose between Isaiah and Jeremiah.) God asks in Jeremiah 18:6: “’Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. ‘Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.’” Indeed, this Jeremiah passage along with the Isaiah passages is commonly noted by New Testament commentators.
PART VII:
I don’t think I need to comment too much on your perspectives on the Jeremiah passage. I appreciate the exposition from a Reformed viewpoint. You ask: “Okay, so does Jeremiah say here that when God curses the formerly blessed people, is God taking away salvation from saved people?” That’s not the issue. My point is that God makes provision for the repentance of his people so that they might find salvation/forgiveness and avert judgment. Most of God’s chosen people died in the wilderness because of their unbelief (Heb. 3:14-19; note that here too humans should not harden their hearts if they hear God’s voice; the implication, once again, is that God has done all he can to make repentance possible and that it is up to humans to respond to that initiating grace).
This is much like Ezekiel 18:23 (“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?”) and Ezekiel 18:31-32 (“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live”). This is very incompatibilistic! God has done all that he can, and now it is left up to humans to respond to that initiating grace. (Again, the issue of divine foreknowledge—God’s knowing how humans will freely respond—is beside the point here.)
You say, “Next, does Jeremiah here say that an unsaved person can, by his own effort, fulfill the law to merit salvation?” No, that issue was put to rest well before the Law came—in Genesis 15:6! The point I’ve been making over and over is that God does all he can for the salvation/repentance of ethnic Israel, but most of them refuse God’s gracious initiative and freely resist his grace.
PART VIII:
I suppose I should say something about “vessels of wrath” in Romans 9:22. Paul is specifically referring to his Jewish brothers (“my kinsmen according to the flesh” [v. 3)]). But Paul also says that “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants” (9:6-7). So long as ethnic Jews cling to their privileged status of peoplehood and refuse to trust in the Messiah, they remain vessels of wrath. We know that through Messiah, the seed of Abraham (9:5-7) is now a global family. The image of the potter in Jeremiah 18 shouldn’t be ignored (indeed, God in that same passage says that Israel is like a lump of clay to him). There God says that the destruction or preservation of the vessel was conditioned upon the repentance of the people: “if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent [repent of] concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.”
The language in Rom. 9 is not that the potter deliberately makes some vessels to destroy—potters do not do that! Rather, God makes vessels to be used, whether for benevolent purposes or for menial use (see 2 Tim. 2:19-21). All vessels are used to accomplish God’s purposes–even the dishonorable vessels who resist him (like Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Caiaphas, Pilate, Judas Iscariot, etc.). These vessels can thus honor God by displaying his wrath; God will use them to further his ends so that in this sense, no one can resist his will. However, it can be done in other ways, as in Luke 7:30: “But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves….”
PART IX:
In this context, the menial “vessels of wrath” are unbelieving Jews, and the “vessels of mercy” are believing Jews and Gentiles, but nothing in the text says that a vessel of wrath could not become a vessel of mercy. As I’ve noted, all Christians were “by nature children of wrath” before conversion (Eph. 2:3). So Paul prayed for unbelieving Jews that they would no longer be “vessels of wrath” through whom God provoked the Gentiles to salvation, but he desired their salvation (10:1).
In fact, while Romans 9 mentions “honorable” and “dishonorable vessels,” this state isn’t fixed and determined by God, but is conditioned upon the human response to God’s grace. As 2 Timothy 2:20-1 reminds us, although there are vessels of “honor” and “dishonor” in a household, “if a man cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel of honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.” That is, as long as people rebel and disobey God, they are appointed to doom and can be used as dishonorable vessels (1 Pet. 2:8). But if they respond to God’s grace by turning to him, then they become part of God’s elect people.
That’s about all I can do for now. Feel free to post comments. I don’t guarantee how quickly I’ll get back to your comments as I’ll need to post a new piece soon and will be interacting with comments there. I’ll do what I can.
Paul,
A curiousity question. Do you consider yourself a Molinist or a traditional Arminian? If the former you might be interested in another discussion that’s been going on for awhile now on this blog on what exactly Molinism posits and whether or not this is logically possible. Reading just the last 5-10 posts would probably suffice to get a picture of the disagreement.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/10/why-i-reject-the-arminian-doctrine-of-prevenient-grace-2/
Michael,
Yes, I am a Molinist. I looked at the blog on prevenient grace, and I’m tempted to jump right in and comment on middle knowledge, free will, and prevenient grace. Maybe I’ll just make a couple of brief comments here.
1) I do note above that “regeneration precedes faith” appears to have even less exegetical warrant than you claim about prevenient grace! That’s why some Calvinists (like Millard Erickson) must resort to an “effectual calling” (which isn’t exactly the most exegetically-stable doctrine). Effectual calling strikes me as ad hoc and must be added into the ordo salutis mix. Michael, just curious: what do you think about my reference above to Hebrews 6 (being enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, being made partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasting the good word of God and the power of the age to come) as being one example of prevenient grace? What about Jesus giving Jezebel time to repent in Rev. 2:21? These and the many OT passages I’ve mentioned could be considered examples of prevenient grace, where God has done all he can to create the conditions for repentance.
2) I think that Roger Olson’s puzzlement about choices apparently not having a cause incorrectly assumes *efficient* causality is the only game in town (the kind of causality emphasized by Calvinists, who assume pre-existing conditons that cause or direct the will to move in one direction rather than another); however, he overlooks the explanation of *final* causality–namely, that choices are directed toward some end rather than being caused by pre-existing influences.
I think this is about all I have time for.
Paul,
I think you misunderstand me. I am a Arminian who is intrigued by Molinism. I’m just not sure that it answers all my objections to Calvinism. For instance I’m not convinced that Molinism isn’t ultimately deterministic despite claims by the likes of WLC that it isn’t. This is ultimately what the debate between me and William on the other blog post is about. William (being a Calvinist) argues that Molinism is ultimately just as deterministic if not more deterministic then Calvinism. I’m not so sure so I’m ultimately trying to learn what I can about Molinism from the debate. You being a Molinist I thought would be a good person to perhaps correct any misunderstandings by William or myself.
Michael T,
My apologies. I didn’t note the initial for your last name, and so my mind was thinking only of (Calvinist) Michael P., who wrote on (against!) prevenient grace elsewhere on this blogsite!
As for Molinism, it’s important to remember what is *logically prior* in the range of actualizable worlds–namely, what humans *would* freely do when placed in this or that world/circumstance. *That* is logically (not chronologically) prior to what God foreknows, which is logically prior to the world that God actualizes/decrees. So to say that “Molinism looks just as deterministic as Calvinism (or even more than Calvinism)” is metaphysically confused. That is, God’s knows what humans would genuinely freely do in this or that world; his foreknowledge is logically posterior to what humans would freely do if placed in this or that possible world. God, in the next logical moment, selects the actual world. God’s doing so does not violate human freedom (which is logically prior to his foreknowledge and selection) but yet accomplishes God’s purposes. Molinism nicely brings together divine providence and libertarian freedom.
If you miss the logical priority (which William appears to do), then you’ll draw a mistaken conclusion about how “deterministic” Molinism appears to be.
‘Hope that helps!
I’m speculating that when you say “exegetical warrant” you mean explicit textual support (a comparison would be that there’s only a little explicit textual support for the Trinity, but it’s exegetically required). But even you agree that something happens to man before faith is possible — you and Augustine both call it “prevenient grace”, although you have completely different definitions. Calvinists call “regeneration” the operation of that which Augustine called “prevenient grace”.
How does one “fall away” from prevenient grace? I thought it was always present for everyone.
It doesn’t fit what I thought was prevenient grace, but perhaps my understanding of that doctrine is wrong. If this IS prevenient grace, it seems to place a lot of clarity on how prevenient grace works, a LOT differently than I’ve seen any teacher give. I suspect that given this passage and the assumption that it’s talking about prevenient grace, I could find contradictions.
I’ll get to the OT ones eventually. But this one is easy — if “giving her time” is sufficient to show prevenient grace, and prevenient grace is defined as help sufficient to enable one to overcome one’s inability to accept God, then the only conclusion is that time is sufficient to overcome one’s inability to accept God. This seems like full-blown Pelagianism.
-Wm
It’s no good praying to God for people’s salvation, then — He’s already done all He can do. Better to pray to the people.
This “God has done all He can” seems empty. The intent is to defend the goodness of God, which is right and laudable, but the defense still leaves God involved in exactly the same evils every other theology does; and worse, God can’t improve things; God can’t protect you, and God can’t save any more than He planned to.
It reminds me of the joke: “The optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears that this IS the best of all possible worlds.”
-Wm
WM,
This is a low blow but,
“It’s no good praying to God for people’s salvation, then — He’s already done all He can do. Better to pray to the people.”
In Calvinism why pray at all?? God has already decided.
Michael said “In Calvinism why pray at all?? God has already decided.”
This isn’t a problem with Calvinism — it’s a problem with anything except Open Theism, since of course God has already decided based on His omniscience. One version of Calvinism (the one with a “meticulous decree”) adds the element that God decreed even the contents of our prayers, but this doesn’t affect our decision of whether to pray (just because God says that you WILL doesn’t mean you SHOULDN’T).
In general, we can agree that God uses BOTH the things that He has decreed AND the things that He has not decreed in order to accomplish His good purposes. Even an open theist can agree with that, so long as I allow them to say that God has decreed nothing.
-Wm
The phrase “the entire world without exception” is ungrammatical, because “the entire world” is a single object. How can you make an exception to a single object? You’re assuming that John is actually using “world” to refer to a group of individuals, but there’s no reason in the verse itself to make that conclusion.
John 3:16 it doesn’t say anything about individuals until it starts talking about “whoever believes” (which isn’t “the world”). John 3:17 doesn’t change that to individuals, either. John 3:18 is talking about individuals, and now we see how Jesus didn’t condemn the world but rather saved it: He didn’t change individuals from “not condemned” to “condemned”, but rather the other way around. And who did He change from “condemned” to “not condemned”? Only those who believed on Him. God loved the world such that He saved some individuals.
Of course, you and I disagree on how God selects those individuals. But that’s not what this verse is about.
I don’t think it’s useful to appeal to a general use in this manner. This is the world that God loves; it’s not the same concept as the world we’re told to “love not”. This is the world that Jesus came into (John 1), not the world that He doesn’t pray on behalf of (John 17).
Quotations from Patristics: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3326
-Wm
I don’t understand. (Ditto for your book recommendation.)
Yes; that’s why it’s in the Law — the Law is a mirror of God’s own righteousness.
You do seem to be overlooking that the result of God’s loving His enemies is to turn them into friends; and that God also has enemies that He doesn’t turn into friends, ones that He does nothing more than send rain to feed (“on the just and the unjust”); and then God has enemies onto whom He sends WAY TOO MUCH RAIN (“And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.”). God doesn’t treat everyone the same.
-Wm
That doesn’t seem to be a generous way to respond to my argument. You’ve done nothing to show that my argument is moot.
I already knew you believe that, and you already know I disagree entirely. Why would you repeat it, considering it’s nowhere present in the verses we’re talking about? In fact, as my argument said, Christ in John 6 says things that drive people away, and John says that He said those things BECAUSE He knew that they did not believe. This contradicts your claim that Christ is “doing all He can for their repentance.” Far from it — he’s driving them away.
As Paul said at the end of that very chapter: “Though the number of the children of Israel are as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved, for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth completely and quickly.”
But there’s a difference. Paul weeps, but can do nothing. God judges — but He also saves.
You deplore that people are eternally lost, and claim it’s not compassionate to leave anyone as lost; but God is the one who actually reaches down into the lives of some who are His enemies and saves them.
It’s not unrighteous for God to allow some of His enemies to perish. Nor is it unrighteous for God to save some of them.
-Wm
I don’t think this verse belongs in this discussion — the actions of the Holy Spirit that Stephen is talking about is His sending of prophets (Acts 7:52), not His attempting to save, justify, and sanctify.
This is a good verse for you to quote. But I never said the Spirit hardened their heart; I said that humanity’s heart is hard (Jeremiah compares it to a stone). That’s not the fault of the Spirit; it’s the fault of humanity. And the right thing to do is to listen to God’s voice, just as the right thing to do is to fulfill the Law perfectly. The fact that humans can’t do that is why we need a savior.
Even when we do have a Savior we still will slip into resistance — this is why Jesus serves not only as the satisfaction, but also as the High Priest (Heb 4-5), so that God’s justice will be satisfied, and we will be able to repent and receive forgiveness for our sins. Over and over.
-Wm
I claimed that the verse you were citing contradicted your point. That, by definition, is an undermining of what you were saying.
You claimed that John 6:44 was talking about prevenient grace. I pointed out that first, it was likely saving grace; and second, that it was clearly irresistible.
Please respond to my claims; don’t blow them off.
-Wm
This is the best passage I’ve seen cited by Molinists. The problem is that there are other explanations for it that make much more sense, so unless you have a prior commitment to middle knowledge there’s no reason to suppose this verse is using it. The most obvious explanation is that God is using His knowledge of people’s character to judge what those people would do.
Even hard LFW concedes that people have character and habits that make their actions predictable, so there’s no philosophy that opposes this interpretation of this verse.
If you do insist on citing middle knowledge for this verse, the natural problem is that this doesn’t answer the question of why God knows that — middle knowledge is a puzzle, not an answer.
-Wm
I carefully researched my claim that this isn’t true. I’d like you to read my responses, please. Paul is citing Isaiah 29:16 and Isa 45:9, not Jer 18. This isn’t a special Calvinistic thing; it’s in the words Paul uses.
No, it reveals that God is free, not that humans are free. It reveals that humans are responsible, and you (being a moral incompatibilist) believe that this means that human will operates in a libertarian manner; but this is not present in the passage at all.
Again, a fair reading of this passage says that:
1. Humans are always responsible to obey God, even when God has promised them blessings or cursings.
2. God is always free to remove blessings or cursings.
-Wm
The simple fact that I want to argue does not mean that I want to argue falsely — and in fact even if you proved that I wanted to argue falsely, you’d still be responsible to show that my argument was false before dismissing it as you’ve done here.
On the contrary, the mind is not a logical automaton. It takes positive actions of will to perform logical reasoning. This means that one cannot simply make free choices in reasoning; one must make choices that follow logic, consistently. If one makes a free choice that doesn’t follow logic, their conclusion will be completely undermined. Correct reasoning depends not on free will, but rather on consistent and unvarying character that places a respect for logic above any other desire that might interfere with the process of reasoning.
-Wm
William,
I have a quick question. I don’t see why “middle knowledge” is such a puzzle as it is used in the I Sam verses above, if indeed that is what it is. From the time I was a little girl I have understood that omniscience–the state of knowing all things or infinite knowledge–included knowing what any and all people would do in the future. And that was without believing in any form of detailed determinism. It was just a given. I guess it would be called one of the things a human mind just can’t fully grasp about God. I can’t grasp how He can be omnipresent or eternal–with no beginning or end–either. But they are things that I, (and I assume you too), believe about God. Why does it have to fit into some philosophically/mentally understandable category to be believed and accepted? Am I missing something here?
You attempted to cite verses to show that “repentance/faith (through God’s gracious initiative, which can be resisted) precedes salvation/rebirth.”
• “But as many as received Him, even to those who believe in His name, to them He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).
The sequence here isn’t perfectly clear, but “who were born” isn’t obviously after faith; but the real problem is that having the faith couldn’t possibly be “of the will of man”. Thus, either being born of God enables having faith, OR faith is given by the will of God rather than of man. This verse alone demolishes your argument.
(Snipped a collection of verses which have nothing to do with the topic — yes, we have to believe; but the argument is about whether belief follows regeneration/new birth, NOT whether or not we have to believe.)
• “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13).
As you see, this is another verse that simply mentions the vital role of belief in salvation, without mentioning whether or not something else precedes faith. Eph 2’s precise meaning may be debatable, but it does mention something that precedes salvation: Eph 2:4 says that God, “even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ – by grace you are saved!” Does this making alive occur as a precondition to faith? I admit that it’s not clear from the verse; but the obvious reading is that it’s describing salvation as a two-step process, one step by grace alone that brings us alive, and one step by grace through faith that enables us to do the good works prepared for us in Christ.
-Wm
Well, that’s exactly what I said — it’s probably not middle knowledge. If you claim it is, you bring in a whole host of philosophical puzzles.
You believe entirely correctly. Of course, the I Sam example isn’t about God knowing the future; it’s about God knowing something that never happened. So it’s a little more complicated. We ask “how did God know that”, and the answer is either “because He knew the men’s character, which told him what they’d do”, or “because He possesses a mysterious type of knowledge that can’t be explained.” I prefer the answer that actually explains; but if you believe that human free will is completely independent of culture and character, then God couldn’t have predicted the outcome of an action that never happened.
-Wm
I said “If you claim it is, you bring in a whole host of philosophical puzzles.”
I didn’t mean to imply that “you” were saying that, Cheryl. I should have said “If ONE claims it is…”
-Wm
Um… No. I claimed the OPPOSITE of that. You are assuming INcompatibilism. Search for that word, you’ll find my post (unfortunately the post numbers seem to change from time to time, so I can’t point to it). You’re assuming it into even your own examples, as follows:
That is neither compatibilism nor incompatibilism. It’s a true statement about God’s actions and man’s actions. Compatibilism and incompatibilism (in this context) are positions about moral judgement in the presence of determinism, not about actions.
Suppose I added the phrase to your example, “therefore God would be justified in sending them all to hell.” This makes example compatibilist — because even though all humans refuse (thereby proving that they refuse by nature) they can still be judged guilty for rejecting it. (I’m interpreting “humans” as meaning “all humans” rather than “some humans”, for the sake of this example.)
But suppose I added the phrase: “therefore in order to judge them, God had to first free them to repent. After that, He was able to send any who still refused to repent to Hell.” This is profoundly incompatibilist.
I hope I’ve managed to make my point clear this time. Until we reach a common vocabulary, it’s going to be very hard to discuss this. It’s frustrating to have so many verses quoted without context or interpretation when none of them seem to have any connection to the topic, and only now do I begin to understand the…
Hi Paul
Wayne Grudem has a good exegesis of Hebrews 6 in the book Still Sovereign. I dont see prevenient Grace in the passage. I see two types of people in scripture, in the church community. Those who profess Christ and those who posses Christ (are born again).
1. The soils show this,
2. Wells without water.
3. Clouds without rain.
4. Dogs go back to vomit, one returns to what they really are, there un-converted nature.
5. Pigs return to the mud…
I see in Hebrews 6, people in the community, who profess Christ, sample him, but fall away.
even Matt 7;15 we are warned of false prophets. Is a false prophet a Christian? Some one who comes to you in Sheep’s clothing, but inwardly is a wolf. The clear answer is NO!
1. They are not true Christians, only professes, not possesses of Christ.
2. Yes they prophesize in Christ’s name, but this is just lip service.
3. 1 Corr 11;13 says there are false apostles transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
4.1 Corr 1;15 speaking of Satan, says, his ministers transform themselves into minister of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
5. What is the end of the works? The answer is bad fruit.
6. Jesus speaks of bad fruit as non-believers, the Pharisees (Matt 12;33)
Again we see there are people who are false, not genuine believers. Wearing sheep’s clothing, but being a wolf, is not a true sheep.A good fruit is one that is born again, and stands in Christ righteousness and manifests the fruits of the spirit from the out-flowing of the work of the Holy Spirit.
Those who fall away in Hebrews 6, cant be brought back to repentance because Christ and his work was good enough for them the first time, they have resisted the holy Spirit, almost Blasphemed.
How does the arminian interpreted that? You get saved, but if you fall away you cant be brought back to repentance, so your now damed with no hope.
Hi Paul,
A few more thoughts I have on Matt 7,
Why is it that when we get to these verses, preachers return to saying that it refers to true believers, trying to show that one can lose their salvation. The whole context so far as shown has been that there are two types of people. Oh but the charge is given, but non Christians cant do the above things!
1. But non-Christians can be false prophets.
2. Non-Christians can prophesize in Jesus name, but be liars in what they say.
3. Non-Christians can profess Christ, but not posses him.
4. You are not a true Christian, just because you use “Jesus’” name.
5. Non-Christians can cast out demons, because Jesus honors his name.
6. The Pharisees were doing it and charging Jesus by what power he could cast out demons. Jesus said to them “And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? (Matt 12;27). Obviously the Pharisees were not true born again Christians.
7. Even false apostles can cast out demons and do signs and wonders (1 Corr 11; 13)
8. “For false Christ’s and False prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matt 24;24)
I use the term Non-Christian, to mean not genuine or truly born again.
Even Judas who was not saved was one of the twelve that went out casting out demons.
“Then he appointed twelve, that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach, and to have power to heal and cast out demons (and lists the names of them and Judas is there) (Mark 3;14-15)
Scripture gives us clear signs that Judas was not a true believer,
1. He never address Jesus as Lord or Master, only as teacher.
2. His name was the son of perdition, the only other person given that name is the “Antichrist.
3. ”John 6;68-71 says “Did I not chose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil (Judas).
4. Judas was called for a service, not for salvation.
5. Yes Judas repented in the end, but this was worldly sorrow, not…
not godly repentance. If it was godly he would not have gone off and committed suicide straight after.
Some may be quick to say, Oh but Luke 10;20 say of those casting out demons that there names are written in the book of life, so this must include Judas. But if one reads the context, these are two different accounts. Mark 3;14-15 speaks of the twelve, while Luke 10;20 speaks of a different group of 70 people.
“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock.” (Matt 7;24)
As Christ is the rock the foundation of his Church, the one who will build his church. This verse is saying that those who hear his words and enter into the kingdom, that is believe and become born gain, will have safety in the foundation of Christ through faith.
“There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves with be thrust out!” (Matt 8;12)
So who are those who have been thrown out, they are Jews who think thy are in because they have a divine right to it. But this is not the case! You must be born again.
Verse 28 parallels Matt 21;43.
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” (Matt 21;43)
This is talking about taking the kingdom from the Jews who think its theirs because of their birth right, without faith in Christ, and giving it to the gentile nations to come into faith. Again the image is of those who don’t have a genuine faith. They have not entered into the Kingdom of heaven.
As scripture teachers in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, there are professors and Possessors,
1. As in the OT, Rom 9;6 “ Not all Israel are Israel, it is not for the children of the flesh, but of the promise who are saved.
2. So is it in the NT, “Not all Church members are born again Christians”. Many might say Lord, Lord,…
Hi Paul
Im trying to understand Molinism!
You say; That is, God’s knows what humans would genuinely freely do in this or that world;
But how does he know? if he does not do what Calvinist say, shape and fashion them by his decree. I know some people who just say, God knows, because he has all knowledge, but that is not an answer really. Calvinist say his knowledge of all finite things is due to his decree.
How does God know what independent creature will do, who dont yet exist or have done anything from a monolism view?
To know what some one would do in any world surely must involve knowing how these people are fashioned, there make up, but how can God have this knowledge when they dont exist in a monolism view.
Im trying hard to understand this view as it the one question I dont get.
Some thoughts on some comments I haven’t replied to yet…
Yes, the text says that. Now, if one reads this to mean that God can do nothing more for anyone, one wonders why St. Paul ever got saved — it would seem that SOMEONE did something more for Paul’s conversion than God did for Isaiah’s contemporaries. In fact, it seems rather strange to say that God’s capabilities are limited; the record of Scripture shows that God actually intervenes in the world in ways not limited to natural causes (as with St. Paul’s conversion, or Jesus’ conception).
I claim that in fact God could have done something more, miraculously, and it would seem odd to claim that such action literally wouldn’t save anyone. My conclusion is that this passage is not actually making a claim about God’s incapability to do more to influence the number of saved people; rather, He’s pointing out to His nation Who owns them, Who provided for them, Who gave them what they needed to live — and how ungrateful they are to Him. This is a passage setting moral blame, not a passage intended to set a limit on God’s power. The actions God performed SHOULD (in a moral sense) have been met with profound and permanent gratitude; for the Israelites to ask for more is greed, not justice.
-Wm
Rich, you said: “How does God know what independent creature will do, who dont yet exist or have done anything from a monolism view?”
Your question, when elaborated a good deal, becomes known as the “Grounding Objection”. The answer Molinists have is to assert that it might be possible for God to have that kind of knowledge as part of omniscience — a knowledge not actually grounded in (nor corresponding to) anything, simply THERE and inexplicable.
-Wm
Whoops, you’re right. I meant to say that Isaiah structured the argument such that Israel would have to admit that. Of course, they actually didn’t; they simply rebelled.
As I’ve pointed out before, God is hardly at the end of His rope. God’s strongest efforts are … strong. The story as recounted here is very clearly a parallel: look at the elements. God provided a hedge (protection), removed stones (I suspect the religious distractions of the former Canaanites), planted a vine (this could be the faithful remnant, considering Christ’s use of this same metaphor), built a tower (leaders / kings), constructed a winepress (temple??).
I think the point isn’t that God couldn’t possibly save more people: that’s not present in the text. I think the point is that this is exactly what any nation should need in order to prosper, and thereafter to worship the God who gifted them all that. Yes, I do insist that God could have saved for Himself a ever-larger remnant — but although that would be good for the individuals saved, it wouldn’t change the fate of the nation as a whole.
-Wm
As for Deut 30… Foreknowledge would be the lesson here if God had said, “you’re free, and I know what you’ll do.” No, He didn’t say that; He said “choose life or death; you’ll choose death, and I’m going to bring you back from it.” That is NOT the same thing as foreknowledge, since foreknowledge is as free as the creature it foreknows, while this is prophecy– it’s bound by the words on the page. Israel’s freedom to choose, Israel’s moral obligation to choose life, and Moses’ prophecy of their choice of death must all be compatible. This is only possible if moral freedom is compatible with divine determination.
Or, of course, you could argue that Moses never said that, and those words were added by a later redactor.
-Wm
I’m not asking. The Isaiah passages directly pertain to Paul’s quotes (they both make roughly the same objection); the Jeremiah passage only pertains indirectly (you have to back WAY out to see the shared context of someone protesting because they expected locked-in covenant blessings even though they’re earned cursings, and protests because someone who HAD earned cursings repented). But either way, the theme in Jeremiah is that the Lord is not bound by conditional promises when the conditions are violated. The theme in Jeremiah is NOT human freedom; it’s divine freedom, argued against someone who imagines that a single promise of blessings binds God forever (hello, hypercalvinists!!!).
Now, I do believe that human freedom is essential (although not in the way you believe it to be); but I don’t think it’s central to Romans 9, and thus it’s not central to the passages Paul cites in support of his argument. If it were, Paul would not have said that “it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.”
-Wm
Not debating but just respectfully expressing my first thoughts on Patton’s comments from post #1:
Patton: “…I know that these can be very confusing.”
What I Thought: Double-think/double-speak usually is “very confusing”.
Patton: “They are to me.”
What I Thought: Sounds like an admission that Patton either does not exactly know what the Bible really means (considering how he interprets it) or he doesn’t know exactly what to make of what he believes and expounds.
Nelson,
The Trinity is also confusing. Quantum mechanics is confusing. Even Newtonian mechanics is confusing! The fact is that reality is confusing; this may be why double-speak is often deceptive, because people can’t tell at first thought whether something’s confusing because it’s inconsistent (doublespeak) or confusing because it’s complex (reality).
So no disrespect for your first thoughts; skepticism is a good idea “at first thought”. I’m glad you admitted they were only first thoughts, and I hope you’ll give the matter deeper thought.
-Wm
Nelson, it also occurs to me to state the Biblical data that form the problem we’re looking at here. Remember the classical formula for the Trinity, from the Athanasian Creed?
Paraphrased: “There is only one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father.”
All of those statements are directly supportable from the Bible in multiple places, and the doctrine of the Trinity is a solution to the apparent problem that those statements create, a way to accept all of them as being completely true without contradiction.
Next post: I’ll make a similar statement of the Biblical data on the problem we’re discussing. I’m not going to go on to explain how the compatibilism, five points of Calvinism, the Remonstrants, or the Open Theists attempt to reconcile the data, but I’ll let you think about it. My point is only that the problem is complex, so the solutions will be complex as well.
-Wm