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"
I would like to add that I am an Agnostic so the views of Paul are not my own.
So ladies please do not hate me.
But they are scriptural as Paul had just discussed the gifts of the Spirit exclusivly to men before his admonishment for woman to remain absolutly silant during these procedings.
This indicates his belief that they would not have anything usefull to add and infact with his belief that only Eve had been decieved and Adam unwittingly through her, That perhaps they would be succeptable to channeling evil spirits.
He then finishes with an admonishment to men to follow his suggestions.
If I was a woman I would have even more problems with Christianity than I already do.
Sorry. Got carried away again.
OCD for sure!
Cherylu,
Don’t be so pessimistic. Unity and understanding is often brought through such conversations. 🙂
Not to break Michael’s rules, but just to answer how these are compatible with Rom 9:
“However, I believe and have always been taught that the Gospel is offered to all men equally. Then folks do with it as they decide–give in to the drawing or reject it and turn away. Jesus did say in John 12, when referring to His death that He would draw ALL men unto Him when He was lifted up. And John 6 says that this drawing is what enables men to come to Him.”
I believe the same. We don’t know who is elect. It’s not for us to try and figure that out. We need to obey the Scripture and go and make disciples of all nations, and do so with great intent to save. We’re not God, so we don’t play as though we are.
The passage in John is difficult for the reason that it’s not the same drawing in John 6. The drawing may be speaking of both Jewish and Gentile elect, since in Johannine literature “all” and “world” often mean both Jew and Gentile elect rather than everyone without exception. But even if it did mean everyone, in what way is everyone being drawn to Christ? In order to have to make a decision, whether to accept or reject? Notice, either way, that the drawing in John 6 is accomplished by the Father, not the Son. Whereas, in this passage, the drawing is accomplished by the Son. They could be same, since the Son and the Father are one, but it may also refer to something else.
Rom 9, then, isn’t really in conflict here. In fact, Paul ends this conversation by saying that they will not hear and believe without a preacher, so we need to go preach the gospel. So I would whole-heartedly agree that we should always be doing that. As I said before, these passages come up when someone starts asking the questions, “Why do these believe?” and “Why do these not believe?” When someone answers, as a recent Sunday School I was in did with Rom 9, that it was because of what we do, then that’s when the Scripture pops up and says, No way!
John, just noticed your reply there. The willing in context is willing to be chosen by God. Esau was not chosen, Jacob was. It was not based on anything they had done because it was chosen for them before they were even born.
BTW, I think the “what if God” in context has to do with the reason why God might choose some and not others, not whether or not God is actually going to enact such a plan.
Hodge:
This where I think Calvinsim erroneously assumes that because God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants with His creation is that He chooses to. That is not in line with the prophecies throughout the the OT that He knows we will through all the generations choose differently, and not follow His instructions and has simply already made provision for it. To me that is the real mercy of unconditional election, by grace through faith. I don’t think this makes God any less sovereign, but more so, because He already knows how we are and what we will choose, and has chosen to give us His best choice anyway.
Romans 10, I believe, must be included with Romans 9 otherwise it seems to make the case for for a ‘double dipping kind of salvation. I.e., Israel and those of us Gentiles who happened to be grafted in, because we were pre-elected first, makes it seem that Christ died for only us misbehaving. To me unconditional election is just that, (and this according to scripture) that Christ died while we were yet sinners and once for for ALL. This is what scripture says. not that he died for us because we were already elect. That’s why I fail to see how limited atonement, as Calvinism preaches it, could be about God’s mercy toward those who accept Christ in faith, without previous knowledge that they are elected, could be an act of faith at all.
I do have a question for everyone who believes that God does not choose to elect one person over another:
What about the guy who never heard on an island somewhere in the Pacific in 30 B.C.? Does God choose to give that guy equal access to salvation in the same way that he does the apostle Peter, who He calls and spends time with and teaches daily? Why did God put this man on the island if he wants him to be saved as Peter is saved? Why not give him the same opportunity? Do you believe that God is really giving him the same fair shake? Or do you believe that God doesn’t choose where to put people on the earth? Or the life they will lead? Even an Arminian will have to admit what Paul here indicates in Rom 9, that God chooses some over others that affects their decisions concerning salvation/the gospel.
Michael,
I appreciate your view and the grace which you write with.
But I do not share your view (though I hope to share your grace).
Critique:
1. I think you have begun this discussion with an erroneous presupposition: “election/predestination” – I don’t believe the two are the same: “henceforth, election”.
2. There also seems to be some confusion regarding individual or corporate election. Arminians believe that this passage is dealing with corporate election, Calvinists, individual. I think you illustrate my point for me on several occasions: in your observation of the text you accurately use terms like “Israel” and “Church”, but in your interpretation you make the move to individual. I think this is a mistake.
3. I like that you endeaver to place this passage in its context (something I don’t read very often from Calvinists). I like that you mention “righteousness of God” as being one of Paul’s main points. I am disappointed that you did not stick as close to this part of Pauls reasoning as I believe the text calls for. Romans 9-11 is the climax of 1-8 (not just “8”) – so the main point is not “security”, but “the righteousness of God”.
4. You comment correctly that “It is only under the supposition of unconditional election that this makes sense” – I agree. But then you repeat the mistake I’ve already mentioned (in my opinion), namely the removal of the passage from a Jewish worldview and placing it in your own. You do this because you immediately comment: “I could see the objector cowering in the fierceness of the response. He is simply doing the same thing that I would do and have done upon reading this passage”. The Jewish worldview thought in terms of Israel/Gentile, you seem to think this passage is talking about individual salvation and electiont to heaven and hell.
I don’t know if I’m getting close to the “3000” mark, so I better end my critique.
In short, 1) I don’t think you have placed this passage deeply enough in it’s context. 2) I don’t think you have successfully placed this passage in its historical context. 3) A failure to take into consideration the corporate/individual element has resulted in a wayward interpretation (again, in my opinion). One more thought (lots more, but only time and space for one), like many (many) other biblical passages, a surface reading of the text results in a surface interpretation of the text. This is not always a bad thing, but often surface interpreations lead to erroneous interpretations. It’s as I always say: context, context, context. I’m to preaching (I could learn LOTS from you!). I just don’t think this passage demands to be read as it is in the Calvinist worldview, that it goes against the thrust of the rest of the book of Romans, and – again, only in my opinion – against the whole testimony of the O.T. and the N.T.
So as you have been persuaded in Unconditional Election, I have been persuaded, by the same Bible, in Conditional Election – i.e. “In Christ” “by Faith”.
mbaker,
It’s inconsistent with the OT? “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.”
I think you mean conditional election. You are arguing that it is based on our decision that God sees from eternity past, correct? How is it not based on the man’s will and based on the man’s will at the same time? John may be able to say that willing is different here in Rom 9, but the Apostle John makes it clear that the willing concerns believing to adoption and salvation. How does your view reconcile these passages together?
Me: “he can predicate it on nothing at all IF HE WANTS,”
Hodge: “This is why Michael asked you previously if you thought the passage was a subjunctive possibility.”
Actually Paul never said anything is predicated on nothing, and in fact no Calvinist I have talked to claimed it is predicated on nothing.
Perhaps the better way of saying it is that God can predicate it on _anything_ he wants, perhaps even something he keeps secret. But not all Paul’s examples are secret. The predication for Pharoah is not secret, but it was rather to “proclaim his name in all the world”. The point is, there is no reason to believe that what God has actually chosen in this New Covenant for Gentiles is anything other than faith. You can’t extrapolate Pharoah or Esau or anyone else to the Gentiles.
“The argument Paul is making is that God has done this, not that he could do it if He wanted.”
But what is “this”? My contention is that “this” is God setting any criteria for mercy that he wants, and v30 tells us what that is.
“I think that the argument that God’s decision is predicated on faith fails to consider the argument Paul is making where it is not predicated upon the man who wills or what he does, but upon God who wills.”
But the context of “willing” is the Jews willing to be in God’s family by the old covenant, being descendants of Abraham and what they interpret it to be which is by obedience to the law. Willing to be in God’s family on your own terms, or working to be in God’s family by your own terms does not consider that it is God’s will for who is in his family that counts, and that is not by willing or working to be in by the Jewish criteria.
If you want to try and make willing equivalent to faith, then Paul is saying that salvation is not by faith. Do you think he is really saying that? I think not.
“The willing in context is willing to be chosen by God. ”
Actually no, it is willing to choose the criteria for being in God’s family. Jews were saying it is Abraham’s descendants that are the criteria. Paul then talks about more specific criteria “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” (Romans 9:7 NAS95) and in this situation they were the “children of the promise” (v8).
The point is, if God chose Isaac’s descendants to be God’s children, you can’t will it to be something else if it isn’t so. Obviously it goes without saying that in this new covenant you can’t extrapolate Isaac to make the new covenant about natural descent or being a descendant of Isaac. That’s Paul’s point. The promise is nowdays to those with faith, and not all those other things: willing it to be descendants of Abraham or working to fulfill the law.
Hodge,
I think John has pretty much laid out the scriptural roadmap I go by, unless of course you are one who believes Israel is the church, instead of the New Covenant made by Christ to all believers. In which case, I would ask again, (for the umpteemth times it seems) why did Christ have to die for the already elect who misbehaved? Why not discipline the elect of the NT directly as God did with the Israelites in the OT?
Romans 9:15-17
15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[a] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
Mans desire or effort has nothing to do with it.
Christ had to die and be resurected in order to become the first member of the new covenant.
As a Jew he paid the penalty of death and was reserected able to embrace the new covenant as one free from the Law.
Believers through baptism and comunion cloth themselves in the body of the resurected Christ and enter as prospects for membership in the new covenant. This sacrifice of Christ gives them a one time cleansing from sins under the old covenant.
The elect recieve a further baptism of Spirit which transforms them into beings incapable of sinning? and renders them oficial members of the new covenant worthy of eternal life.
postroad,
Then by your own definition man would have to make no effort at all to believe? This seems more like the doctrine of fatalsim, i.e. what will be will be. The Bible specifically says we must believe in the work of Christ to be saved and to repent because we realize the great sacrifice He has made on our behalf to save us from our sins.
“What about the guy who never heard on an island somewhere in the Pacific in 30 B.C.?”
So are you saying God hates Pacific Islanders, or at least he did?
I think Romans 1 indicates to me that God judges according to what information we have.
“If you want to try and make willing equivalent to faith, then Paul is saying that salvation is not by faith. Do you think he is really saying that? I think not.”
The willing isn’t equivalent to faith, which is where I think your interpretation falls short. The willing is that which precedes faith. This is consistent with the rest of the passage and the rest of the NT. So what is based on the willing? The person’s faith. Who’s willing is it based upon? God’s. Hence, it faith is based on God’s mercy that He gives to whomever He wishes, and others are left without God’s will to give them that faith.
So as I said before: “The willing in context is willing to be chosen by God. ” It is willing to have faith in the first place.
“Actually no, it is willing to choose the criteria for being in God’s family. Jews were saying it is Abraham’s descendants that are the criteria. Paul then talks about more specific criteria “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” (Romans 9:7 NAS95) and in this situation they were the “children of the promise” (v8).”
Willing to choose the criteria for being in God’s family? Where does the text indicate that? That’s a neo-Pauline interpretation that I don’t think the text bears out. Paul’s point in saying that it’s not only the descendants of Israel who will be saved, but a specific group, is to introduce the topic of election that he goes into in the following verses. It’s not to argue that the Gentiles are of Isaac, with which I’m sure you agree. So Paul is arguing that God even chooses to accept and reject people who are descended from Abraham. Hence, he can accept and reject people (i.e., the bulk of the Jews at this time) according to His will, and we know that He did this (not just that He could do it) because the text is clear that the bulk of the Jews did not believe and were rejected, and the Gentiles were grafted in.
mbaker.
Belief in name may be somewhat a matter of choice.
But those that accept Christ as their savior and are not transformed by the Spirit into being of complete obediance to God’s perfection reveal themselves imediatly as those that are damned.
They damn themselves with the first act of sin if they state that they now belong to the new covenant.
There is no sacrifice for sin in the new covenant because it states that the members will be conformed to perfect obediance.
So says Paul
14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16″This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[b] 17Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[c] 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
It is the unpardonable sin of blasphemy of the Spirit.
mbaker,
“In which case, I would ask again, (for the umpteemth times it seems) why did Christ have to die for the already elect who misbehaved? Why not discipline the elect of the NT directly as God did with the Israelites in the OT?”
I’m sorry you’ve had to ask it for the umpteenth time, but I don’t understand the question. God works His election out through means, and He must provide a sacrifice in order to forgive us and remain just. So He must provide a sacrifice for both Old and New Covenant Saints. Is that not what you’re getting at here?
““What about the guy who never heard on an island somewhere in the Pacific in 30 B.C.?”
So are you saying God hates Pacific Islanders, or at least he did?
I think Romans 1 indicates to me that God judges according to what information we have.”
So are you saying that He gave the same opportunity to the Pacific Islander that he did to Peter?
And are you saying that people are saved apart from the Gospel? Rom 1 indicates that the people who have natural revelation given to them reject it. It says nothing of people accepting it. Instead, this poses a great problem to any idea that says God equally seeks the salvation of all through the gospel.
“So are you saying that He gave the same opportunity to the Pacific Islander that he did to Peter?”
Of course, a non-Calvinistic interpretation of Ro 9 does not necessarily imply equality for all. And equality of knowledge doesn’t necessarily equate to equality of opportunity to be saved.
“And are you saying that people are saved apart from the Gospel?”
What is the gospel if not “Abraham had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness”? I don’t know that Abraham knew much more than the Pacific Islanders.
” Rom 1 indicates that the people who have natural revelation given to them reject it.”
When Paul in Ro 1 talks about “they”, I don’t think he refers to every single individual. After all, did every single man with natural revelation “abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another” (Romans 1:27). Of course not.
“the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them”
(Romans 1:18–19 NAS95)
That the wrath is against men who suppress the truth implies to me that there are men who do not suppress the truth, and consequently, God’s wrath is not against them.
postroad,
On the one hand in comment # 156 you say:
“Mans desire or effort has nothing to do with it.”
Yet in comment # 161 you state:
“But those that accept Christ as their savior and are not transformed by the Spirit into being of complete obediance to God’s perfection reveal themselves imediatly as those that are damned.
‘They damn themselves with the first act of sin if they state that they now belong to the new covenant’.
“There is no sacrifice for sin in the new covenant because it states that the members will be conformed to perfect obediance.”
There’s a pretty radical difference in your two statements since even after we accept Christ, we as fallen humans go on sinning, despite ourselves, and our best efforts.
There is a difference between baptism in name which may be something that people have some input over.
Baptism in Spirit comes after and is a gift from God transforming the believer into perfect obediance as per Jerimiah’s description that Paul is referencing.
Many Christians believe this will happen after they die, in heaven.
Paul indicates otherwise.
Of cource they all believed that the end was iminant, so this concept appeared doable.
1 John 3:5-6
5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
Those clothed in the body of Christ do not sin.
If they do sin they are antichrists.
1 John 2:17-19 17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
1 John 3:7-9
7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
I had to LOL when I saw @CMP comment in #113:
“Folks, again, I am not able to engage in this any more. There have been 20 posts in the last hour!”
This is classic! It’s like, “What? My innocent little post generated all of this big ‘ol controversy? I am SHOCKED!”
Well played 🙂
Christians are always shocked at what being a new covenant believer actualy means.
Allen, not shocked at all! Very pleased with some of the conversation though. (Even if I cannot keep up!).
Postroad,
Wow for being an agnostic you sure are arguing for some pretty radical views as far as Biblical literalism is concerned. Sure you aren’t a Reformed Fundamentalist???
John,
“Of course, a non-Calvinistic interpretation of Ro 9 does not necessarily imply equality for all. And equality of knowledge doesn’t necessarily equate to equality of opportunity to be saved.”
Of course it does. What does the “knowledge of salvation” mean? Why is Paul always concerned about people coming to the “knowledge of the truth”? Knowledge has everything to do with it. Faith must have an object in which it is placed. There must be content to believe at the very least, and knowledge of the Person in whom you are believing.
“What is the gospel if not “Abraham had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness”? I don’t know that Abraham knew much more than the Pacific Islanders.”
John, Paul doesn’t say that Abraham believed the Gospel. It says that He believed God and it was considered as righteousness. Paul is making an analogy between what Abraham needed to do, i.e., have faith.
Now, if you are saying that post-Christ one can still just remain as Abraham, I would say to you that the golden chain of redemption in Rom 8:30 indicates that those who are predestined and justified must be “called.” The calling is the verbal message of the Gospel going out. So those who are predestined are the same ones who are called and those who are called are the same ones who are justified. There is no room for anyone beyond this. The Pacific Islanders worshiped idols and perished apart from the Gospel. Yet, you want to tell me that they have the same opportunity that the Apostle Peter had. I just don’t buy it; and to diminish the necessity of the Gospel in order to exalt your Arminian interpretation, I think, shows that all truth must bow to the priority of human autonomy.
In any case, the argument that God overlooked the times of ignorance in the past, and therefore still is, is negated by this contrast:
30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all [people] everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
BTW, Cherylu never answered my challenge that God chooses not to save people who He could otherwise save in the Arminian system as well. How would you answer this? In other words, even if you try and reinterpret this passage, the truth that God passes over those who are not saved when He could save them, still remains true. How do you explain this without limiting His omniscience and omnipotence, and exalting man’s instead?
John,
To add: Rom 1 indicates that those who are given general revelation reject it. You cannot just limit this to some people when no other group accepting it is mentioned. The sins that result as such are not just homosexual sins. I don’t really want to get into it here, since it’s not the subject of this post, but the sins are those of idolatry and sexual immorality in general, sins which every Gentile I know apart from God has engaged in. So, Yes, it is talking about all Gentiles. And that is Paul’s point in Rom 1-3: All Gentiles are under sin (Chapt 1), all Jews are under sin (Chapt 2). Therefore, all people are under sin (3:9). So the argument that says that these are only a portion rather than the whole of the Gentiles ignores the entire context by essentially arguing that only some Gentiles are under sin which negates the passage that argues otherwise.
Hodge:
Equality of knowledge must equal equality of opportunity of salvation?
That means I guess that the first disciples had a relatively poor opportunity for salvation compared to us in this day and age with theological libraries, computer based bible programs, and Christian book shops in every city.
Are you really going to make opportunity for salvation precisely proportional to theological knowledge?
“Paul doesn’t say that Abraham believed the Gospel.”
Ok, what is the Gospel then? Bearing in mind that Jesus preached it (e.g. Mt 4:23) before there was any talk of him dying on the cross.
“The calling is the verbal message of the Gospel going out.”
How do you know it is always that, and/or how do you know the Gospel is as detailed as you think? Hebrews 5:4 seems to say that calling of the OT and NT are the same kind of thing.
“to diminish the necessity of the Gospel in order to exalt your Arminian interpretation, I think, shows that all truth must bow to the priority of human autonomy.”
First let’s see what you think the Gospel is, and if your definition is biblical, before we can say if anyone is diminishing its necessity.
“In any case, the argument that God overlooked the times of ignorance in the past, and therefore still is, is negated by this contrast:
30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all [people] everywhere should repent”
Well hang on now. Had God already “declared to all everywhere they should repent”? Including Pacific Islanders? If he did literally with missionaries, this conversation is moot. If he did in some other more subtle way like the Ro 1 way, then you concede they have heard the Gospel. If you deny they have, then you agree that this verse is still getting played out in history, and therefore God is overlooking ignorance.
“Rom 1 indicates that those who are given general revelation reject it. You cannot just limit this to some people when no other group accepting it is mentioned. ”
Of course there is another group mentioned. Paul says that “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” have a problem. This is immediately after stating “the righteous live by faith”, and immediately prior to stating that “that which is known about God is evident”. QED, knowledge of God is available to all, some men suppress it, and others in righteousness live by faith.
“Therefore, all people are under sin”
Yes, all people are under sin. Even so “to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;”
(Romans 2:7 NAS95). It’s not contradictory to say that while all are under sin, there are a subset of those people who by perseverance in doing good seek immortality, get eternal life, and those are the people with faith.
And if you are thinking of saying there are no such people, then I throw Michael’s subjunctive accusation your way.
“Are you really going to make opportunity for salvation precisely proportional to theological knowledge?”
When it comes to the basic Gospel, Yes. The disciples knew less of Christ and His Gospel than we do post-pentacost?
“Ok, what is the Gospel then? Bearing in mind that Jesus preached it (e.g. Mt 4:23) before there was any talk of him dying on the cross.”
No, Jesus was preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God had come. There was more good news that later revealed itself how that would work out. So He is not preaching the Gospel in its fully revealed form. Paul tells us what the Gospel in its fully revealed form is post-pentacost:
1 Cor 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
“How do you know it is always that, and/or how do you know the Gospel is as detailed as you think? Hebrews 5:4 seems to say that calling of the OT and NT are the same kind of thing.”
By looking up all the uses of it in relation to the gospel and studying them. “Call” itself is always a verbal invitation. It is never something mystical, or a voice within. It is always a verbal, audible message that is heard (hence, how will they hear without a preacher–in your view they can bypass the preacher and simply believe anyway, which negates what Paul says in Rom 10).
The calling in Heb 5:4 is the verbal call a prophet received by God for a ministry. We receive a call to believe the gospel. I don’t make up the details of that message. It must, however, include the elements Paul mentions or it is not the gospel.
“Well hang on now. Had God already “declared to all everywhere they should repent”? Including Pacific Islanders? If he did literally with missionaries, this conversation is moot. If he did in some other more subtle way like the Ro 1 way, then you concede they have heard the Gospel. If you deny they have, then you agree that this verse is still getting played out in history, and therefore God is overlooking ignorance.”
It doesn’t say that. It says that God is now declaring (lit. “has given strict orders”) to men (most likely His apostles) that all men everywhere should repent. Hence, the apostle is arguing that the Greeks ought to repent because He has been given a message by God for them to do so. God doesn’t need to then work it out in history, since that would be odd while millions of people who have never heard of the gospel die in the mean time.
The doctrines of election have brought either pain or arrogance into many’s understanding. Pain to those who understand that if your name is not “on the list” the Gospel message will do nothing for you. It has driven many from believing in Christ and the “unfair and vindictive God of the Christians”. Arrogance, again, manifests with those who latch onto the doctrine to promote, for example, their White’s Supremacy theologies – we have a good lot of those here in South Africa where some promote the idea that the Afrikaner descends from the lost tribes of Israel and is the Biblical remnant (I’m White, and an Afrikaner, so this is not a racialist observation).
Sadly, I believe the doctrine’s are all wrong. To keep it short: the message of election in the NT has to do with an elect generation which was to be the generation through whom the transition from the OT Law (or Mosaic dispensation) to the NT dispensation would come. It was the generation of the apostles. Consider Mat. 24:34, for example, bearing in mind Paul’s principle of 1 Cor 4:6, not to read above/beyond what is written. When Paul writes about “us” and “we” in his letters, he is not referring to the people of 2010. There is a contextual position of his generation.
That generation of believers suffered with Christ, they were beheaded, crucified, thrown to the Lions, etc.
On Rom. 9:8 – it explains John 3 (born of water and Spirit), which has also been elevated into all sorts of traditions above what is written. A thought about this based on the Calvinist election doctrine – the so-called sinner’s prayer that is so commonly used in the charismatic and pentecostal environments is then not only a man-made ritual, but in essence nothing else than the practicing of deceit?
“Of course there is another group mentioned. Paul says that “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” have a problem. This is immediately after stating “the righteous live by faith”, and immediately prior to stating that “that which is known about God is evident”. QED, knowledge of God is available to all, some men suppress it, and others in righteousness live by faith.”
1. Paul is talking about man’s preconditions, not as they now stand before God. Some who rejected the natural revelation became believers later. “So were some of you…” The righteous living by faith is not in contrast to those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but rather the prologue to the book. You seem to be suggesting that because “men” have a qualifier “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” means that it’s only those men who do it, which is a Pelagian argument. The qualifier is talking about all Gentiles as opposed to Jews, so there is a group there, but you’re contrasting it with the wrong group and then thinking that Paul is just talking about some Gentiles rather than all. If that’s true, the Paul has not established that all people are under sin, as he said he did in Rom 3:9; but instead he has only established that some are under sin. Are you arguing with the apostle? Has he not just established that based on his argument preceding or are you going to argue with him that this is simply a new statement he is making that was not previously established?
“It’s not contradictory to say that while all are under sin, there are a subset of those people who by perseverance in doing good seek immortality, get eternal life, and those are the people with faith.”
I didn’t say it was contradictory. I said that that’s not what Paul says about what he previously argued. His point is that he just argued that all Gentiles, not just some of them, are under sin. Hence, all Gentiles are spoken of in Rom 1, not just a few. If that is true then all Gentiles reject natural revelation when it is given. Thus, God had to overlook their ignorance in times past, but now they need the gospel to be saved.
Gerrie,
The great news of the Bible is that God’s election is not based on race, but on His own desire to save whom He chooses. Black, white, Asian, Native-American, whatever ethnicity one may be. God has filled His kingdom full of all nations (something that would be difficult to do apart from election).
Hodge: “There was more good news that later revealed itself how that would work out.”
Good news = gospel. Sounds like you are saying there are more gospels.
“So He is not preaching the Gospel in its fully revealed form”.
So its the same gospel, just more fully expounded?
Which is it, multiple Gospels, or one Gospel more fully explained? If its the latter, I don’t see the problem. Still the same gospel.
“Call” itself is always a verbal invitation. It is never something mystical, or a voice within.”
So in this verse:
2Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you
Why would you have to make certain of your calling, if it is a verbal thing? I mean, you either heard that preacher punch out that Gospel message, or you didn’t, right?
Are you *sure* there is not a mystical aspect to calling?
“in your view they can bypass the preacher and simply believe anyway, which negates what Paul says in Rom 10”.
Well, clearly people did believe in God without a preacher in the old testament. And clearly people did believe in God because knowledge of God was obvious from what is made, says Paul in Ro 1. The specific context of Ro 10, “calling on the name of the Lord”, which in its original context was probably Yahweh, but in Paul’s thinking is probably Jesus, you can’t do without a preacher. But I don’t thinking calling on the Name is the full story here. Yes, calling on the name can get you saved, but trusting God is the more basic form of that plan.
“It says that God is now declaring to men (most likely His apostles) that all men everywhere should repent.”
You would have Paul talk about himself in the 3rd person? I don’t think it means that. Literally it says “God is now declaring to people all everywhere “repent”.
John,
Good news = gospel. Sounds like you are saying there are more gospels.
Is winning a million dollars good news? I guess there is more than one type of good news that carries with it different content. I think you’re getting hung up on the term “gospel.” What you need to ask yourself is whether the Bible can talk of good news in any other way than the gospel Paul defines for us. I, of course, believe that the coming of the kingdom is good news, but most during Christ’s day would have thought that He meant that He was restoring the physical nation of Israel. The full gospel was understood once it’s primary and necessary elements were revealed.
“2Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you
Why would you have to make certain of your calling, if it is a verbal thing? I mean, you either heard that preacher punch out that Gospel message, or you didn’t, right?”
The word bebaios doesn’t mean “make certain” I think in the sense that you are taking it. It means to “place trust in,” “become firm,” “well-founded in.” So they are not necessarily wondering if God has called them.
“So its the same gospel, just more fully expounded?
Which is it, multiple Gospels, or one Gospel more fully explained? If its the latter, I don’t see the problem. Still the same gospel.”
Both, because without the other elements, it’s misunderstood. Saying “God’s here” is good news too. It just isn’t all of it and therefore is different until all is revealed. Someone would not be saved today by trusting in the idea that “God’s here,” which can be interpreted in a thousand different idolatrous ways as well.
“Well, clearly people did believe in God without a preacher in the old testament. ”
What? Are you referring to the idea that perhaps people believed in YHWH from other nations who had never heard of Him? Are you suggesting that Israel didn’t need a preacher?
“And clearly people did believe in God because knowledge of God was obvious from what is made, says Paul in Ro 1.”
John, this is begging the question. Paul does not say that they did, so it not only is not clear, it isn’t according to what is revealed. The Bible says instead that people in other nations worshiped idols and didn’t follow God, but that God had to look over this time of ignorance for them. So they are in fact the people in Rom 1 who reject natural revelation and become idolaters.
Hodge: “You seem to be suggesting that because “men” have a qualifier “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” means that it’s only those men who do it, which is a Pelagian argument.”
It’s only a Pelagian argument in the same way as the trinity is a Pelagian argument. In other words, there is nothing distinctively Pelagian about it. A lot more would have to be added to make it Pelagian.
I don’t understand your argument. You admit freely there is a qualifier, but you are intent on disregarding it.
“Paul is talking about man’s preconditions, not as they now stand before God.”
Well, they are preconditions to repentance and ceasing to suppress the truth.
” The righteous living by faith is not in contrast to those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but rather the prologue to the book.”
Well, it is all one sentence. I don’t know if I’d call it a contrast, but I would say that Paul is saying that the righteousness of faith is the solution to those who are suppressing the truth. That is why there is the “For” between those statements.
“The qualifier is talking about all Gentiles as opposed to Jews”.
So no Jews suppress the truth? I don’t see a reason to assume that.
“If that’s true, the Paul has not established that all people are under sin”.
It’s not the role of Ro 1-2 to establish all are under sin. Rather he is establishing the moral ground under which people operate: for Jews the law, for Gentiles the general revelation. In Romans 3, Paul gets around to saying that all have fallen short of the perfection that their moral situation calls them to. But falling short of the perfection is not the same as saying there are none seeking to do good, which Paul has already claimed there are.
“The specific context of Ro 10, “calling on the name of the Lord”, which in its original context was probably Yahweh, but in Paul’s thinking is probably Jesus, you can’t do without a preacher. But I don’t thinking calling on the Name is the full story here. Yes, calling on the name can get you saved, but trusting God is the more basic form of that plan.”
Which is not only an argument from silence, but counters what Paul says in Acts 17 and Rom 1-3. All are under sin, now God requires all to repent and come to His Son, since there is now a remedy for this sin, and therefore, all must be shut up under sin so that they must come to him by faith. And faith’s object in Romans is defined as what? Faith in YHWH/Jesus, as you just indicated, and is clear by the rest of Chapter 3.
“It’s only a Pelagian argument in the same way as the trinity is a Pelagian argument. In other words, there is nothing distinctively Pelagian about it. A lot more would have to be added to make it Pelagian.”
Not really. It’s Pelagian because it assumes that there are two different groups of people: people who don’t seek God and are evil and people who do and are righteous. Paul’s argument here, I think, is clear. There are only those who don’t seek God and are evil. Hence, faith in the Gospel of Christ is needed by everyone. In the Pelagian scheme, the Gospel of Christ is only needed by some because some can find their way in the light of natural revelation.
“I don’t understand your argument. You admit freely there is a qualifier, but you are intent on disregarding it.”
John, here’s the problem: you seem to think that the qualifier limits the amount of people involved. The qualifier simply displays a quality of the group to which it refers. So if I say, “men who have lungs to breathe the air” that does not mean that I am referring to just a portion of men because I put a qualifier on the term. Do you see what I mean?
“Well, it is all one sentence. I don’t know if I’d call it a contrast, but I would say that Paul is saying that the righteousness of faith is the solution to those who are suppressing the truth. That is why there is the “For” between those statements.”
Oh that’s not my disagreement. That is what Paul is saying. It’s not all one sentence in the sense that it displays the contrast; but you[re right that it is the answer to what follows. The issue is that it is the prologue to the argument of the rest of the book that follows, so the argument begins with the gar “for” and hence should not be contrasted with the preceding, but instead seen as the argument supporting the preceding statements concerning faith. Therefore, there are not two groups: ones who have faith and ones who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but two groups who are under sin and need to live by faith in Christ instead: Jew and Gentile.
“So no Jews suppress the truth? I don’t see a reason to assume that.”
Well, even though I didn’t say that, No, they don’t. Suppressing the truth is about hiding it. The Jews can’t hide the truth because it’s in Scripture and the prophets/teachers that were always before them. They can disobey it and hate it, but they can’t hide it because it is written down before all to see. That’s why Paul says that they have an advantage due to the oracles given to them.
But it’s not necessary to believe one way or the other on that for what I’m arguing here.
Hodge,
I’m not sure if you understand my observation correctly – I fully agree that there are not divisions based on ethnicity in God’s heart. We are all equal. That was my point on the arrogance some find in the election doctrines.
But as to your statement on being saved, we also need to be sure: saved from what? What does the bible say? Gal 4:5, for example, refers to redemption of those under the law. Of course, it is impossible to debate the topic properly in a blog space. Heb. 9:15 also refers to redemption from transgressions under the first covenant.
John 3:16-18, which is reference to the whole of humanity, clearly has no hint of an election by God. It is man who elects to believe or not.
It is absolutely essential that we start out our understanding of the Letters by understanding who they were addressed to in the first place and why. Then we can understand the revelation and principles they hold for us, BUT, we cannot put ourselves into that addressee’s place. By doing exactly that, the institutional church of today, with its 38000 denominations, has produced the doctrines of bondage and confusion we have to navigate today. Election is one of them.
“It’s not the role of Ro 1-2 to establish all are under sin. Rather he is establishing the moral ground under which people operate: for Jews the law, for Gentiles the general revelation. In Romans 3, Paul gets around to saying that all have fallen short of the perfection that their moral situation calls them to.”
According to Paul, it is the role of what he previously said: “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged/established a case beforehand that both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin”
When did Paul establish the case that all Jews and Gentiles were under sin? Before. His quoting of OT verses in application to both groups is simply a re-establishing what he already argued.
“But falling short of the perfection is not the same as saying there are none seeking to do good, which Paul has already claimed there are.”
11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
According to Paul, that’s what he means by “fall short,” not that they almost make it but don’t get close enough. His point is that they don’t do anything at all toward pleasing God, but instead go the opposite way.
Hodge, just a thought on your statement that “God has filled His kingdom full of all nations (something that would be difficult to do apart from election)”. I would say that the Calvinist doctrine of election makes precisely the exclusion of some possible and not difficult.
Gerrie, my point is that, given the cultural influence of other religions and familial units, etc., it is unlikely that in man’s rebellion the gospel coming in from a foreign culture would persuade him (even if we didn’t bring up the sin issue, the cultural tendencies alone would cause him to reject it). That why, I believe, the NT speaks of God having to draw men to Himself and cause them to be born again.
BTW, you said before:
“John 3:16-18, which is reference to the whole of humanity, clearly has no hint of an election by God. It is man who elects to believe or not.”
I’m not going to go into John beyond this point, because it’s not part of the post here, but it does relate with Rom 9 in this passage I quoted before:
1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
How exactly does man elect to believe if in fact it his regeneration is not of his own will?
“I guess there is more than one type of good news that carries with it different content.”
I can’t see that there are multiple Christian Gospels. I mean, you are saying there is the Gospel Jesus preached, and then there is Paul’s Gospel, and of the two Paul’s is really better. But the one in the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark etc is actually Jesus’ one.
“What you need to ask yourself is whether the Bible can talk of good news in any other way than the gospel Paul defines for us.”
Except that Jesus was preaching THE Gospel, not just some random good news.
“2Pet. 1:10”
Well then, what about your golden chain? All who are called are justified. You are not going to claim all who receive verbal calling are justified, right? Isn’t there a mystical calling going on here?
“It just isn’t all of it and therefore is different until all is revealed. Someone would not be saved today by trusting in the idea that “God’s here,”
You are saying Jesus didn’t preach enough to be saved? Jesus didn’t preach the Christian Gospel? That’s certainly not the way Christianity has always understood things, which is that what Jesus preached is in fact the Christian message. What Jesus said was the ultimate authority for the early church.
“Not really. It’s Pelagian because it assumes that there are two different groups of people: people who don’t seek God and are evil and people who do and are righteous. ”
That’s not Pelagian, that’s Christianity. You’ve heard of Two Ways to Live perhaps?
“In the Pelagian scheme, the Gospel of Christ is only needed by some because some can find their way in the light of natural revelation.”
No, Pelagianism has nothing to do with the nature of revelation, rather it is a teaching that people are neutral moral agents. Nobody is claiming that here.
“The qualifier simply displays a quality of the group to which it refers.”
Except that not all men suppress the truth. That’s why we have Christians, right? This discussion of Paul continues right into Ro 2:5 “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart …” etc. But we know some repent, right? You’re not going to claim nobody repents, surely? And this leads directly into v7 where explicitly the category of those who are saved is mentioned.
” “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged/established a case beforehand that both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin”
This establishes that both major groups have a sin problem, but it doesn’t establish that all individuals have a sin problem. After all, a righteous Jew might want to claim he is OK, and a righteous Gentile might make the same claim. Not until Romans 3 does Paul debunk that possibility that anybody is without sin.
“His point is that they don’t do anything at all toward pleasing God, but instead go the opposite way.”
Yes, but that is Paul’s point about those pre-repentance. pre-faith. I hardly think Paul is going to claim that say he himself has “no fear of God” as that quote says.
“I can’t see that there are multiple Christian Gospels. I mean, you are saying there is the Gospel Jesus preached, and then there is Paul’s Gospel, and of the two Paul’s is really better. But the one in the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark etc is actually Jesus’ one.”
John “gospel” is a terminus technicus in parts of the NT, so I realize what I’m saying may be confusing, but “good news” can refer to anything. The question is whether Jesus is preaching the gospel as the terminus technicus that is later preached, or if the good news here is simply referring to something else or a portion, but not all of what the later term encompasses. If I say that you’ve been cured of cancer, that’s good news. That doesn’t mean I’m positing another Christian gospel.
“Except that Jesus was preaching THE Gospel, not just some random good news.”
That’s not what the context says. The context says that He was preaching the good news about the Kingdom (i.e., that it had come). Do you believe that people would have been saved just by believing that the kingdom had come, defined in whatever way they wished?
“Well then, what about your golden chain? All who are called are justified. You are not going to claim all who receive verbal calling are justified, right? Isn’t there a mystical calling going on here?”
No, because it’s all who are predestined and called who are justified and glorified, not just all who are called. Many are called, but few are chosen. There is no mystical call. The call is as it sounds: An invitation that is spoken from one’s mouth.
“You are saying Jesus didn’t preach enough to be saved? Jesus didn’t preach the Christian Gospel? That’s certainly not the way Christianity has always understood things, which is that what Jesus preached is in fact the Christian message. What Jesus said was the ultimate authority for the early church.”
Of course He did. But He didn’t do that here. He goes on to explain the gospel further by saying that the Son of Man has to die and be raised.
“That’s not Pelagian, that’s Christianity.”
Which is what Pelagius would have said.
“No, Pelagianism has nothing to do with the nature of revelation, rather it is a teaching that people are neutral moral agents. Nobody is claiming that here.”
OK, I disagree that it doesn’t assume it, and I think we could go on and on about it, but I don’t think it matters whether it is Pelagian or not. The Scriptural reading is untenable, as I showed before.
“Except that not all men suppress the truth. That’s why we have Christians, right?”
Talk about begging the question. I’m not arguing that Paul is saying that no one stops suppressing once they are regenerated by God and have faith unto eternal life. Paul’s argument is that apart from this, the Gentiles were shut up under sin, along with the Jews. Hence, both have to repent and believe. The Gentile situation in Rom 1 precedes faith, per Paul’s argument, and is therefore all inclusive, as Paul says in Rom 3.
“This establishes that both major groups have a sin problem, but it doesn’t establish that all individuals have a sin problem.”
You missed the ALL in the verse that I tried to emphasize. Paul has just established that ALL Jews and Gentiles are under sin. All Jews and Gentiles is everyone.
“Yes, but that is Paul’s point about those pre-repentance. pre-faith. I hardly think Paul is going to claim that say he himself has “no fear of God” as that quote says.”
Of course it is. My point wasn’t that these people don’t turn and have faith once God grants that to them. My point is that all Gentiles are being referred to in Rom 1. If that is true, then all Gentiles who receive only natural revelation reject it. Therefore, faith must come through some special revelation, the preaching of the gospel, the call, as Paul says later. And of course we know that faith in Rom is arguing for faith in Christ and His Gospel, not natural revelation anyway.
“You missed the ALL in the verse that I tried to emphasize.”
Maybe all means Jew and Gentile, but if you’ll disavow that interpretation for John 12:32, I’ll do the same 🙂
Actually, I’ll agree that Ro 1-2 discusses the sin of all in their pre-repentant state.
“My point is that all Gentiles are being referred to in Rom 1. If that is true, then all Gentiles who receive only natural revelation reject it.”
I don’t see how that follows. Again, Paul distinguishes those who repent with those who suppress the truth.
“And of course we know that faith in Rom is arguing for faith in Christ and His Gospel”
But not when he discusses Abraham, right?
CMP,
You said, “his desire for all people to be saved remains.”
Everytime I use that argument (I am decidedly NOT Calvinist) I am told something like, “Oh, that just means he desires all the ELECT to be saved.”
My problem is, that is not what the passage (2 Pe 3:9) says. I have always held that “all” means “all.”
Would you please offer some insight to that?
Michael.