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.
273 replies to "“Why Does He Still Find Fault”: Predestination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9"
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Again, keep it focused here. The issue is Romans 9. Don’t go too broad.
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.
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.
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).
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.
“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.
What Hodge said…
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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?
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)
that should be “our finite reasoning.” Yikes, I haven’t made that mistake since elementary school.
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.
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.
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
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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,’
“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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Jug, great point about “same lump.” Very explicit imagery.
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.