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"
Cheryl,
They are “utterly depraved” in both Calvinism and Arminianism. Only forms of Pelagian theology advance the theory of innate ability.
“But only in Calvinism do you have God on the one hand calling people to repentance and on the other hand deliberately refusing to give them the means to repent.”
But my point is that you still have the same problem in any system that advocates exhaustive divine foreknowledge.
System 1: God calls people to repent knowing they won’t. Yet the call is genuine. (Arminianism)
System 2: God calls people to repent knowing they won’t and knowing they can’t. Yet the call in genuine.
Not much difference. Which is not “contradictory” in your system? Are you simply looking for the less “contradictory” of the two?
(BTW: I am not conceding any contradiction, just conceding to your (mis)use of the word for sake of the argument 🙂 )
Jug,
That is my point. Diatribes are representative conversations for the sake of clarity, not emotional imaginary (and most importantly) dismissive conversational rhetoric. Therefore, I agree, Paul did answer this. He did not dismiss it. He simply gave the answer that, while a conversation stopper, was all we needed to know.
Again, the very rhetoric of this diatribe evidences the Calvinistic interpretation.
Douglas Moo talks about the nature of diatribes in his commentary on Romans. But it is not particular to this section, it is part of the background commentary as Paul uses the diatribe method throughout the book (ref. 6:1 for a clear illustration)
I agree with John in #73, when he says:
“Righteousness is now by faith, and that is God’s chosen criteria in this age for his “having mercy on whom he has mercy”. God’s right of sovereignty as demonstrated by Paul rebuts a Jew who thinks God’s promises to Israel makes them above Gentiles.”
if we are going to compare unconditional election as defined by Calvinism, with God’s right to sovereignty over all His creation then we do indeed have a picture of God who is a split personality.
As far as the potter-clay verses go, certainly scripture is full of history showing even the elect can be used by God as vessels of dishonor, as evidenced by David, who was the chosen of God, and even Paul himself, the author of much of the NT. David was used by God to show the consequences of lust,and murder. Paul even murdered Christians and was struck blind by God. Then there is a disciple elected by Christ Himself, Peter, denying Christ three times.
I would find it quite hard to tell someone about Christ, have them accept Him as Lord and Savior by asking for forgiveness of their sins, and then have to tell them that I wasn’t sure if they were part of God’s original elect or not. Especially after telling them that we are saved by grace through faith because of what Christ did, and who He was, not because we were/are originally just part of some divine lottery system instead.
CMP,
OK, so people are not able to come to God unless He draws them. That is made clear in John. HOWEVER, to call people, tell them to come and repent and be saved, love them, and desire them to be saved, and at the same time steadfastly refuse to draw them or to enable them in any way to come when you have the ability to do so is contradictory in my way of thinking. (Maybe I am using the word wrong, but I can’t think of another one that works any better here!) Or are you maybe saying that the desire to punish their sin and make His wrath known is stronger than His love for them or the desire to see these ones saved?
If the latter is the case, and it sounds like there will be many more condemned than saved if I understand the NT correctly, it would seem that a statement of “God is wrath” might be more accurate than “God is love.”
This is going to have to be my last interaction here.
However: I do appreciate that you all are now keeping it to this text! Good stuff right now.
Michael,
“How is saying that God loves those he has predestined and ordained to suffer eternal conscious torment with no hope of relief despite having the full ability to unconditionally elect them to eternal bliss not a contradiction.”
Well, this is a bit of a reducio ad absurdum, but I will grant it since I understand the problem you have.
Let me lay this out:
1. God has predestined some and not others
2. Those who he has not predestined are going to suffer eternal torment in hell.
3. God could save all but does not.
4. God loves all people, even those not predestined.
There is not a formal contradiction here. There could be, but it could also be a loss of information (meaning that something is left out—i.e. we don’t have all the data.
All one has to do is add one element to see this:
1. God has predestined some and not others
2. Those who he has not predestined are going to suffer eternal torment in hell.
3. God could save all but does not for reasons reserved in his mysterious will.
4. God loves all people, even those not predestined.
But, again, no one can escape this charge. Here is the Arminian scheme (with the reducio)
1. God has created all people.
2. God created those who would not believe in him knowing full well that they would not believe in him.
3. God could have not created them to save them the suffering.
4. God loves all people
But this is not a contradiction either. It, from the arminian perspective, has simply left some key elements out.
But, again, no one can escape this charge. Here is the Arminian scheme (without the reducio):
1. God has created all people.
2. God created those who would not believe in him knowing full well that they would not believe in him.
3. God could have not created them to save them the suffering but did not because _________ (here introduce whatever you want such as “of a divine mystery” or “to give them a chance either way”).
4. God loves all people.
The point is, 1) what you are calling a contradiction is not in any sense. Just a confusing mystery and 2) both sides have the same issue.
The open theists are right: As Arminians, the only way to escape the mystery is to become an open theist, believing that God does not know the future. My problem with this is that it represents a very modernistic approach to the issue that say we cannot entertain any mystery…we MUST have all the answers and it must look good.
Theology is messy sometimes. The Trinity is messy. Creation ex nihilo is messy. They hypostatic union is messy. But none are contraditions and all are true. Same here with divine sovereignty, love, and human freedom.
My opinion: We need to accept what the Scriptures teach here and hold it in tension with the other clear teachings.
What’s the big problem with tension?
mbaker speaks of a God with a split personality. That is exactly what this whole thing makes me think.
CMP,
There is so much to say concerning this that it is very hard to put it all in a post or two. I really do think that the Arminian interp is in far better harmony with the greater context of Rom. 9-11 than the Calvinist interpretation. I would also take issue with your view that Paul is speaking of unconditional security in Rom. 8:28-39. Rather, Paul is speaking of all of the benefits that come to the believer through faith union with Christ (notice the bookend “in Christ” language in Rom. 8:1 and 8:39). While one remains in Christ through faith, nothing in this world can separate the believer from Christ. However, the passage says noting of those who may reject Christ at a later time and remove themselves from the sphere of God’s elective love (which is “in Christ Jesus”, 8:39).
I would also argue that Paul is primarily speaking of the corporate body of Christ, the church, in Rom. 8:28-30 and of individuals secondarily only as they relate to and are identified with the elect corporate body that ultimately finds its identification in Christ (for more on the corporate election view see here). So while these things are true of the corporate body of believers, they are only true of the individual on the condition that he or she remains in that elect body through faith. This truth is clearly brought out in Romans 11:16-24. So Rom. 8:28-39 does not preclude the possibility of apostasy on the part of the individual who may ultimately be broken off from the elect body through unbelief. However, in his reflection on all of the covenant blessings and benefits that belong to the church as a result of their union with Christ, Paul’s thoughts quickly shift to his own people who have largely been denied these benefits due to their unbelief. So the question naturally arises, has God’s promises to Israel failed? Has God been unfaithful to Israel denying them participation in the new covenant that the Gentiles are now enjoying?
In short, the answer is a resounding “no”, since God has the sovereign right choose His covenant people on whatever basis He decides upon. This basis is union with Christ through faith rather than heritage or works. God decides who His covenant partner will be and who His covenant people will be. This is Paul’s point in Rom. 9:1-13. God chose His people through His sovereign election of the covenant heads (the patriarchs) and this election was not based on man’s decision but God’s decision. But God’s ultimate purpose in election was to open the door for all people to enjoy His love as God’s chosen covenant people and that purpose has now been realized in Christ (cf. Rom 4:16-25). Therefore, the children of the promise are not those that God unconditionally elected from all eternity, but the ones who receive the promise by faith (cf. Rom. 3:21-4:25; Galatians 3:15-29). Continued below:
CMP,
In my view God still creates those who will reject Him in the interest of libertarian free will. Free will wouldn’t exist if God simply didn’t create anyone who would reject him. It’d kinda be like the parent who gives their kids an allowance but then stops the kid from spending the money how the kid sees fit. The money really isn’t the kids. In the same way if God stepped in and either refused to create or prevented people from misusing their free will it wouldn’t really be free will (this is also a classical defense of the problem of evil put forth by individuals such as Alvin Plantinga). Maybe it’s just me but this seems to be a much more reasonable argument then simply attributing something to the mysterious unrevealed will of God. I’d much rather stick to what is revealed in Scripture then see Scripture as nothing more then subterfuge and misdirection for what God’s real will is.
mbaker,
You’re taking the phrase “dishonorable use” by itself.
Was David prepared for destruction? Would David be contrasted with vessels prepared for glory who are called “sons of the living God”?
I would have a hard time doing that, too. And I wouldn’t say that.
Whether you’re Arminian or Calvinist, if someone is trusting in Christ for forgiveness of sins, then they’re saved—they’re “elect”. The evidence that they believe & repent is the evidence that they’re elect. And whether you’re Arminian or Calvinist, there’s such a thing as “false brethren”—people who profess belief and are in the church, but they aren’t actually trusting in Christ.
Either way, we treat people in the church as though they’re genuine. (Though if someone is living in sin or promoting really bad theology, we rebuke & exhort them with the hope of restoring them–and we don’t actually know whether they’re wayward-but-true brethren, or false brethren who need to trust in Christ for the first time. Church discipline looks the same either way.)
And we preach the gospel to everyone–because even Christians often need to be reminded of the gospel, and because there always may be visitors or regular church-goers who don’t know the gospel.
CMP,
Also on another note I find your accusation of modernism against Open Theists rather amusing since the Open Theists I have read (primarily Greg Boyd since he was a prof at the undergrad school I went to) make the same accusations against the more classical Calvinists (by which I mean those who interpret all the “all” passages in the Bible to mean just the “elect”). I believe Boyd is actually currently working on a 2000 page long book on how Greek and Western philosophy influenced the Church to adopt a deterministic worldview over and against a warfare worldview. Maybe in the end it’s the Arminian’s who have the only view which has tension without contradiction.
CMP,
You say God loves even those that are not predestined for eternal life. I reckon that in the end this is the bottom line for me.
If God really loves them, desires them to be saved and even pleads with them to be saved telling them of the horrors of hell and how it is to be avoided at all costs, HOW IN THE WORLD IS THAT LOVE SHOWN by refusing to give them the opportunity to be saved but instead sending them to hell?
Doesn’t love want the best for a person and want to protect a person? Instead of that, God’s love in this case seems to be giving them the ultimate evil imaginable to any man! That is the strangest love and definintion of love I have ever heard. And that is–you got it!–a CONTRADICTION!!
cheryl,
Re: split personality
Is it really that unusual to talk about desiring something, but deciding not to make it happen even though you can—because of something else that takes priority?
It’s one thing to say “I don’t understand what takes priority–why God doesn’t save more than he does, since he could”. (I think the Bible says something about it without fully satisfying our desire for understanding.) But that hardly makes a split personality. The basic idea makes perfect sense.
Even if the Bible actually doesn’t teach Calvinistic election–even if it has other flaws of interpretation and/or logic–that isn’t a contradiction.
I want to clarify the last point I made. I am not a universalist and I do believe sin needs to be punished.
However, to have a way to save a person from that punishment and to refuse to offer it to them all the while claiming to love them and to BE LOVE, is what I just can’t wrap my mind around.
Like I said above, if it is more important for God to show His wrath rather than His love to the great majority of people, it seems to me that it would maybe have been better to have stated that He is wrath instead of He is love.
SEA just promoted a newly released article by Dr. Brian Abasciano which promotes the corporate view of election and gives great insight into the background of passages like the one being discussed here:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/814
cherylu,
Great points!
cherylu,
Check out my treatment of Rom. 9 above (starting at comment # 102) for an alternative interpretation. Tell me what you think if you get the chance.
God Bless,
Ben
cheryl,
I don’t believe it’s a matter of not offering them a way to be saved. The gospel call goes out even to all, even though we’re set against him in our hearts.
Our “inability” to respond is about unwillingness to respond. It’s not that anyone is outside the gates of heaven wanting entry but having it withheld by God. It’s a matter of everyone being unwilling to come–and God having the ability to soften our hearts, but not doing it for everyone.
I’m sure you have a problem with even that–but it’s not a matter of not offering them a way to be saved.
Folks, again, I am not able to engage in this any more. There have been 20 posts in the last hour!
However, some of you are beginning to spam the blog with one comment after another. Please read our rules. There is a reason why there is a 3000 character limit. If it can’t be said in one post, then write a blog response somewhere else and refer to it.
Thanks again for the great contributions!
Jujulum,
You said:
“Whether you’re Arminian or Calvinist, if someone is trusting in Christ for forgiveness of sins, then they’re saved—they’re “elect”. The evidence that they believe & repent is the evidence that they’re elect.”
On that we can agree, even though I am neither Calvinist or Arminian, but hold a view somewhere in between. However, the overriding opinion does not suggest the evidence is belief and repentance that makes us the elect, at least according to 5 point Calvinism. This is where I find the dichotomy. According to way Romans 9 is being interpreted by this post, it is more about a predestined choice made by God before we were born, which is the point of this discussion on Romans 9. It is hard to see how Christ factors in the Calvinistic frame of reference in Romans 9. Many of us are hearing some of you say it’s about personal predestination instead of personal redemption through Christ.
I do agree with your assessment however, that the evidence we are ‘elect’ is through believing in Christ, and repenting from our sins.
cherylu,
I think that you would also greatly benefit from these articles by Dr. Thomas McCall who agrees with your main objections being expressed in this thread.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/811
FYI:
The two best commentaries I have read on Romans (and there are so many!!) are Moo and CEB Cranfield. Moo is accessible to all, but Cranfield (which is the standard) is a bit advanced.
I would suggest getting those. Moo, however, does a great job of dealing with the argument.
CMP,
You wrote:
However, some of you are beginning to spam the blog with one comment after another. Please read our rules. There is a reason why there is a 3000 character limit. If it can’t be said in one post, then write a blog response somewhere else and refer to it.
I apologize for the length of my posts and that several of them were posted in a row, but the question you ask in your post requires a very detailed answer. So I didn’t see it as spam. I saw it as a detailed response to a question that was repeatedly asked in this thread: that someone offer an alternative interpretation to the one you have offered if one is to properly challenge that interpretation. I do intend in putting my comments above into a post at my blog at some point, but in doing so one can never be sure how many will think it worth pursuing. So I was trying to engage your post in the most direct way as possible. I thought that is what you were after and I made sure to limit the content to Rom. 9. But again, I apologize if that response was longer than you approve of. I did not intend to violate your blog rules.
God Bless,
Ben
Jugulum,
But according to Calvinism “total depravity” means we are totally incapable of responding to God–we are so completely dead in our sin that there is no way we can do so. So how exactly is one to do so if God does not give them the opportunity? And how can it be showing love to that person to have the remedy to the situation and steadfastly refuse to offer it?
One of the problems it seems to me is the difference in the way unconditional election is defined by the two different camps. Unconditional election, (as I am seeing it interpreted in the context of this post regarding Romans 9) seems to mean in Calvinism that it has more to do with the predestination of a chosen few, who then are defined as the ‘elect’. However, the overwhelming majority of scripture regarding salvation extends it to ALL who would believe. Paul reiterates this in Romans 10: 9-13:
“For if that shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, that shall be saved.”
“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.”
“For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all them that call upon Him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
That’s why I believe we have to take the two chapters of Romans 9 and 10 together to get the true picture of what Paul was talking about regarding unconditional election.
Ben, no problem. That is why we have the comment limiter and the statement about posting one after the other. It is not just you, but we have to delete comments like this all the time or we simply become a surragote for others. I actually have more trouble with a few Calvinists who spam the blog. Even though it is stuff I generally agree with, our moderators must keep this in check.
For those who are interested, here is my full response to Patton which was too long for posting in this thread [link]
[comments deleted by moderator]
Ben
CMP,
If those are the rules, then I understand. But, I thought in this case an exception could be made given Ben’s clarification of his intent.
Brian
The best thing for someone to do is write their own blog post about it. That is all I can do as there are far too many people who post on this blog who do the same thing.
Those passages are not about election; they are explaining how it is that Christians might be more saved than Jews.
CMP,
Just so you know I have read your blog rules but it was quite some time ago. I remembered that you said comments should not be longer than the OP, and I was kinda going by that. My cumulative response was still shorter than the OP. But my memory of the rule was incomplete as the rule actually states,
3. Keep your comments short. Like when your comments are longer than the blog, that is too long. Try to keep them to 100 words.
The second part about 100 words is what I had forgotten. Also, I didn’t think my comment deleted above was offensive, but on further reflection I can see why it was moderated. However, the fact that the moderator didn’t just delete it but made mention of the fact that it had been moderated, really leaves things up to the imagination of other readers who could easily draw the conclusion that I wrote something very rude or mean, which was not at all the case. It is of course your blog, but I was just wondering why it was moderated that way. I won’t bother you further.
God Bless,
Ben
“Why would God tell them all to turn to Him and be saved if He didn’t even want them to be saved or have any plan to save them? That is not only contradictory, it seems down right bizarre to me.”
Cherylu, I’ve already answered this. God desires all to obey Him, but not all will, so He has willed some to be given the love for Him they need to follow Him and others He leaves in their self-love and hatred of His lordship. So God does want everyone to do as He says, but since they don’t all do what He says, He chooses to cause some to do so and leaves others to remain as they are. ALL systems posit two wills in God. Even the neo-theist has to do this because we all obviously believe that God wants everyone to obey, but we also believe that God has to have another plan in the world since everyone will not obey. So there are two wills, two plans (a desired plan for everyone to obey and a desired plan for what He is doing in the world to work out that will not fulfill the first desire).
Having said that, you need to realize that language in the appeal is very generic. It calls out to everyone even though it really is only for those who follow it. If I say to a group at a party, “let’s go to the store for ice,” because five people had previously said they wanted to go with me, and those five people come with me, then really that message was only for those five people even though I made it generic and yelled it out to the entire crowd. So there are a couple different options one could go about answering your objection.
People who are positing that Rom 9-11 is about faith vs. works, and therefore, not about election have that little disease I always refer to called “falsedichotomiosis.” The passage is answering why the Jews did not believe and remained in their feeble pursuits to obtain salvation through works and the Gentiles obtained it through faith instead. Why? Because God has mercy upon whom He has mercy and He has chosen that many Gentiles be given the inheritance of Israel now, and therefore, has chosen also to left others who would have received that inheritance in their false pursuits. In other words, one cannot argue that because the passage is concerned with humans doing action A instead of action B and therefore the passage cannot discuss God and His will as the source of action A rather than B.
“However, to have a way to save a person from that punishment and to refuse to offer it to them all the while claiming to love them and to BE LOVE, is what I just can’t wrap my mind around.”
Cherylu,
How does your system escape this? Please lay out for me the difference in your system. If your system does not “excuse” God of the above, then it’s a moot point.
“Free will wouldn’t exist if God simply didn’t create anyone who would reject him.”
Huh? God could have created only those He knew would accept Him. Hence, they would have the free choice to accept or reject Him, but He would know that they will accept Him. Hence, God creates as He wanted to, all humans He created would have “free-will” (whatever that is for finite sinful humans), and He would not have to send a single person to hell for all eternity. Why doesn’t He do that?
Hello Folks,
Interesting discussion of a suggested Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 here.
I wrote up a response and then noticed what happened to Ben’s posts (having his comments deleted due to length) and did not want that to happen to my comments as well (who wants to put time into responding and then see their comments deleted?).
A careful and appropriate response to Michael’s comments requires some space and some time.
I also noticed that Ben then went to his own blog and posted his comments there so he could post his comments fully and so there would be no problem caused by the lengths of his postings. I am going to post my comments over at Ben’s blog as well.
Michael makes some clear mistakes in his interpretation of Romans 9. Mistakes that I discuss and explain in my post over at Ben’s blog: ARMINIAN PERSPECTIVES. So if anyone is interested you can go there and see my comments.
My comments are at:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/
Robert
Hodge: “The argument then is that Israel can be made up of any who God places in it”
Kind of, but more specifically who he chooses is found here: “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;”
(Romans 9:30 NAS95)
“since He sovereignly chooses who will be the heirs according to promise.”
His sovereign choice is now predicated on faith according to v30. Yes, Paul makes the argument that he can predicate it on anything he likes because he is God, and he can predicate it on nothing at all IF HE WANTS, but Paul’s final conclusion about the New Covenant is he predicates it on faith. Why would you think anything else? Because of Pharaoh? But there he predicates it on “showing his power in all the earth”. Because “he will have mercy on who he has mercy”? So he will, but v30 specifies who that is.
Hi there.
I’m a Christian, a deterministic compatibilist, and not a Calvinist. I, for the most part, agree with your interpretation of Romans 9, and I have no problem with transcendent sovereignty arbitrating the elect from the non-elect according to his optimal plan.
In your mock correction, you had fake-Paul say, “God’s election is not based upon His sovereign unconditional decree, but upon your will to choose Him.”
As a compatibilist, unconditional election is easily reconciled with salvation being (at least partially) contingent on a person’s will.
How?
By recognizing that a person’s will is the product of sovereign predestination. In other words, our willful participation in salvation is absolutely coincident with God’s initial election. As soon as he created the world and planned his miraculous exceptions, he knew exactly who would end up saved.
But it’s not as if he rolled the dice when making his plan. He crafted his plan carefully and specifically so as to be optimal. Among all possible worlds/plans, he consciously crafted the one best for his creation. In other words, “coincident election” is nonetheless consciously predetermined by God. It elegantly satisfies emphases put forth by both sides of the aisle.
Any sort of determinism, even compatibilism, of course requires abandoning the incoherency of metaphysical libertarianism, an illusory conception borne of our inability to grasp the complexity of the unfathomable cause/effect network underpinning our world (both natural and supernatural).
Genuine libertarianism may be incoherent and illusory, but our libertarian feelings are very real, just as our ignorance about the world is very real. It’s important that we don’t treat “illusory” and “meaningless” as synonymous, as the hard determinists erroneously attempt. Over and over again, the Bible talks to us in proximal, libertarian terms. And yet the Bible explicitly advocates determinism. Compatibilism (like Hume’s) is the solution.
Hodge,
I am almost 100% positive that we will still have no agreement here! However, I believe and have always been taught that the Gospel is offered to all men equally. Then folks do with it as they decide–give in to the drawing or reject it and turn away. Jesus did say in John 12, when referring to His death that He would draw ALL men unto Him when He was lifted up. And John 6 says that this drawing is what enables men to come to Him.
So, how to reconcile that with God choosing some and not others as spoken of in Romans 9 becomes the problem.
CMT: “The unconditionality of all of this is built in from the very beginning to the very end. The whole point is that it does not depend upon man. “”It does not depend on the man who wills or runs, but God who has mercy…””
The question for me he is what does not depend on man. As far as I see, what doesn’t depend on man is the conditions for God having mercy. Willing or working isn’t going to cut it if you don’t fit God’s criteria for having mercy.
Remember the Jewish problem in “but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. “Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith” (Romans 9:31). So the Jews were willing to be God’s children, and running (doing works of the law) to be God’s children, but they did not arrive there because of God’s criteria of doing it by faith. Remember, the whole context is Ro 9:1 and following where the Jews do in fact will to be God’s children, but are objecting to Paul’s Gospel where they are no longer necessarily God’s children. That’s the context of what it means to “will”.
Hodge says:
“I am almost 100% positive that we will still have no agreement here! However, I believe and have always been taught that the Gospel is offered to all men equally. Then folks do with it as they decide–give in to the drawing or reject it and turn away. Jesus did say in John 12, when referring to His death that He would draw ALL men unto Him when He was lifted up. And John 6 says that this drawing is what enables men to come to Him.
So, how to reconcile that with God choosing some and not others as spoken of in Romans 9 becomes the problem.”
Only if you’re a Calvinist, lol.
mbaker, re # 33,
That was me that said that not Hodge! Obviously the Calvinist doesn’t believe the Gospel is offered equally to all as some are enabled to believe and others are not.
But if Jesus is going to draw ALL to Himself, and His drawing is what enables them to come….?? Sounds like a totally different picture to me. That is why I don’t see how Romans 9 can be just taken at face value for what it says without somehow trying to resolve the conflicts–or tensions as CMP calls them.
In my mind there are still down right contradictions here if Romans 9 is taken the way Calvinism sees it.
And I agree with those, I think you were one, that said the end of Romans 9 goes back again to putting the issue on faith–not election.
Sorry, Cheryl. I know what you meant,and I agree. I just addressed it to Hodge to give the obvious answer to the Calvinist dichotomy brought out by your comment that the rest of us who aren’t Calvinists can readily see as a big problem. I think it’s one we all wonder about, but no offense was or is intended to anyone. Just my Irish humor acting up again, lol.
mbaker,
Certainly no offence taken here! I just didn’t get what you were doing!
Hodge: “This is why the objector says, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?
The passage is clearly referring to people upon whom God would have mercy and people He hardens in order to demonstrate His mercy on some by demonstrating His wrath on others.”
The objector’s objection is not only pertinent to the case of election according to secret will. It is also pertinent to the case of God electing groups – those with faith, or those under the law. The objector is saying, well if God gets to just make up his mind that now faith is the criteria, and those under the law are out on their ears, then how is that fair that God’s capriciousness (seemingly) in setting the rules like that, can change who God’s people are? But Paul’s response is “WHAT IF GOD….” etc. He doesn’t say this is in fact God’s plan to simply make vessels for destruction, but rather he phrases it as a hypothetical to give a hyperbolic answer such that God could IF he wanted, do whatever he wants and be righteous. But it doesn’t actually say that is what he does.
unconditional prededination makes sence of the concept of heaven and hell.
Exodus 9:16
But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
Romans 9:17
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
Paul applies the concept in Romans to show why God would do this.
Romans 9:22-24
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
As the elect are really no more deserving than the damned they will have all the more reason to glorify God as they witniss the eternal suffering of those in hell.
Christ will be presiding over both.
Revelation 14:9-11
9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
And all of this was predetermined at the moment of creation.
Matthew 25:34
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love
Hebrews 4:4
And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.”
1 Peter 1:20
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
Revelation 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Revelation 17:8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
Also Paul narrowed his definition of the seed of Abraham done to one and not many.
Galatians 3:15-17
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
But this line of reasoning will get you banned at TheologyWeb as I have been.
Although I backed it up scripturaly.
Post, please keep it to the topic of Romans 9. Don’t want this things to get so broad.
Thanks.
cherylu, you said:
“However, I believe and have always been taught that the Gospel is offered to all men equally.”
What does “equally” mean? If it’s meant in the functional sense, as in “Each man receives the Gospel to a sufficiently resonant degree,” then we know this claim is false, since many people don’t believe. Is it “equal” for Christ to physically show his pierced hands to the unbelieving Thomas but not the unbelieving Bob?
God, at any time, can miraculously give ANY man enough for him to believe. But we know that he refrains from doing so, since many don’t believe. Every person is different — equal provision does not mean equal satisfaction.
Also Jesus does not draw everyone equally.
Perhaps everyone could believe in name under the right conditions, but Jesus still decides who will recieve the baptism of Spirit.
John 2:22-24
22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
23Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.[a] 24But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men.
Belief in name only does not lead to salvation.
Matthew 7:21-23
21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
There is a baptism in name followed by a baptism in Spirit for the true elect.
Acts 8:16
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
both men and women were baptised in name but Paul himself states that only men recieve the Holy Spirit directly.
1 Corinthians 11:3-10 (New International Version)
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
A woman is saved by her relation to a man in child bearing
1 Timothy 2:11-15 (New International Version)
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Corinthians 14:33-38 (New International Version)
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[a]
“Yes, Paul makes the argument that he can predicate it on anything he likes because he is God, and he can predicate it on nothing at all IF HE WANTS, but Paul’s final conclusion about the New Covenant is he predicates it on faith.”
This is why Michael asked you previously if you thought the passage was a subjunctive possibility. The argument Paul is making is that God has done this, not that he could do it if He wanted. I think that the argument that God’s decision is predicated on faith fails to consider the argument Paul is making where it is not predicated upon the man who wills or what he does, but upon God who wills. In other words, I think you have the cart before the horse. The argument is that salvation comes through faith. Hence, Gentiles can be considered Israel too; but that reason why ethnic Israel does not have faith and the Gentiles do is because God has chosen it to be so. That to me is the only logical sense of the passage. To say otherwise is to say it does depend upon the man who wills. If it is predicated upon the man’s faith then it is on his will (Note that Paul is contrasting them here, so the argument is that it ultimately turns on God’s desire not on the man’s, so one cannot merely make an argument that it is both).