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"
Hodge, I see what you mean – like the Ethiopian did when Philip explained the Gospel to him?
Sorry, just couldn’t resist that one (will be waiting for my T-shirt).
I’m afraid that as I read the current argumentation on this blog, I experience precisely what I experience with much of church doctrines – a simple message in Scripture is taken by theological argument and confused way beyond recognition.
So, blessings to all. I’ll just retreat to the Bible. It’s much easier to understand than theological argumentation.
CMP, in #12, you say:
“I don’t want to discuss the broader theological issues, because that just leads to proof texing.”
While, at the same time refusing to take the passage in question in the broader theological context so you can… use it as a proof text. Ironic, no?
As for an alternate explanation: IMHO, this specifically teaches that God knows, and purposes based on His knowledge, not that God has a bag of souls and tosses some to Himself, and some to Satan. I’ve never really considered this a mystery–I know what my kids are going to do before they do it (at least while they’re immature, but this is a human example of a divine point, and all such things fall at some point in their life). There’s no way I can outrun God. He knows what I’m going to do from the time I’m born.
And this is another part of the problem–for us, reading this today, the phrase “from the womb” means from the point of conception. I don’t think this is the way any decent Jewish Rabbi, like Paul, would read this. Instead, it would be read more like, “I’ve just come from the store.” In other words, I’ve just left there, and now I’m here. From the moment these two left the womb, in other words.
I don’t think this verse supports the Lordship/5 point Calvinist position (the same thing) at all, read in the context of the ENTIRE Scriptures–which is just what you don’t want us doing, is it?
Russ
CMP,
“Diatribes are representative conversations for the sake of clarity, not … dismissive conversational rhetoric.”
Not sure how Paul couldn’t be clarifying things and simultaneously dismissing an ignorant question; the two ideas don’t seem mutually exclusive, since it’s not exegetically improper to shift focus from an errant paradigm to the correct one. To the main point, without assuming the Calvinist distinctive that God hardening mens’ hearts (thus effectively crafting them into vessels of wrath) must be unconditional, nothing in Paul’s reply indicates such:
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”
The question here is based on the erroneous assumption that we have a right to call God into question for how He chooses to run the world. Paul answers appropriately,
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?'”
Given the foundational premise of such questions, it’s not particularly surprising that Paul doesn’t even attempt reason, but rather destroys its premise in reaffirming that man has no right to question God. Keep in mind that God being sovereign doesn’t imply specifically how God chooses to work.
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Without the Calvinist assumption I listed above, the analogy, ‘The Potter shapes the pots’ doesn’t amount to unconditional, exhaustive determinism. Some may infer that from the analogy, but that’s far from sufficient evidence. Argument by analogy is rather weak, since analogies by definition break down (e.g. people aren’t lifeless pots, clay doesn’t make decisions, it seems rather odd for the potter to craft pots specifically designed to talk back to him, etc…). The ‘lump’ spoken of indicates people as a whole; it’s quite a stretch to interpret it as some alllusion to complete and utter homogenity.
23-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory….
Which, if not interpreted through the lens of the Calvinist presupposition, likewise give no credence to unconditional election.
[QOUTE]Postroad,
Wow for being an agnostic you sure are arguing for some pretty radical views as far as Biblical literalism is concerned. Sure you aren’t a Reformed Fundamentalist???[/QUOTE]
No I am an agnostic but I grew up in a very conservative family and society..
I was forced to defend myself against constant condemnation from my peers.
Unfortunatly for them I was willing to spend the time. Thousands of hours of study to debate them.
I soon realised that they were for all intent and purpose Biblically iliterate.
Most Christians I know do not even know the process by which the new covenant was put into place.
That is if they even know what the new covenant is, or the old for that matter.
Or even what the Law was.
All they knew was that I was going to hell.
They did not like it when I showed them that the possibility existed that they would also be joining me there.
It was my way of forcing them to devote at least one tenth of the time to Bible study that I did.
I forced them to find the texts that held these concepts in tension.
Paul shows that God’s work had been complete since the creation of the world.
This would only indicate that things had been progressing in a predetermined manner ever since.
Paul shows that the elect will be entering his rest, that is to say God’s completed work.
Jesus indicates that no one but him had ever seen or known the Father.
Jesus also indicates that it was himself that appeared as the great I AM of the OT and not the Father.
It was Jesus and Satan who where doing the work as predetermined by the Father.
23-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory….
And yet it makes perfect sence from a Calvenist perspective and from the OT text that Paul uses as a preamble to these verses.
Exodus 9:15-17 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up ] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go.
Romans 9:17
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
Not only that, but God tell Moses what he will do.
Exodus 4:21-22
21 The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,
1) It is important to let all of scripture speak to this issue. There are plenty of scriptures that seem to contradict the interpretation of election understood as God’s choice alone. For example we are told that God is willing that none should perish, as well as that the preaching of the gospel is so that no man would be without excuse. There is even a case for conditional election, but it is beside the point I want to make here.
2) Perhaps we have been presented with a false choice. In other words, who says that God’s election and our choice are mutually exclusive ideas? Sure, God can harden and soften hearts, but this can be understood as either a confirmation of our own hardening/softening, or as something which God exercises selectively for His own purposes. (Not necessary that it is at all times.)
Another way in which this could be a false choice is that God’s choosing and our choosing do not need to be understood as one occurring before the other. Could this not be understood as both choosing each other, much as what happens when a man and woman choose each other in marriage? Particularly when we consider that God exists without regard to time, I think we have to consider this possibility.
Furthermore, the verses in Romans 8 and 9, taken by themselves, could lend themselves to the (erroneous) idea that people can be saved by some other way than by grace through faith. If God’s choice is entirely arbitrary, there is nothing to say that God would not save non-believers, or even save everyone in the end. This is why we cannot take these verses alone in coming up with a potential solution.
In fact, this list of scriptures make it quite difficult to believe that election is to be understood as God’s arbitrary choice alone:
http://www.biblehelp.org/biblesay.htm (I do not endorse everything on this site, but the list is handy.)
Perhaps we should conclude that we have a paradox, and that it is a mystery unsolvable this side of eternity.
Postroad,
I have responses for every verse you list that interpret them in a different or non-literal manner, however getting into this would be getting off-topic and I’ve already been warned once so I’ll respect CMP’s wishes. I do have one question for you though. Is it your belief that the Bible teaches this that causes you to not believe in Christianity?
CMP,
Thank you for a clear exposition of this passage. I don’t know that it trumps John Piper’s book, but it is certainly easier to fit into a Sunday School lesson!
As one who is a former Arminian, I have a less-than-common perspective on this issue, and I can both appreciate the emotion of those objecting to it, and at the same time have a clearer understanding of the truth of the unconditional-election argument than I might have had I not been Arminian for many years.
I’ve seen many references to “the whole counsel of God” in the responses to your blog; I will add that the whole counsel of God never really made coherent sense to me until I re-read scripture in light of the doctrines of grace. Now it does!
I know you said to keep the comments directed at the passage in romans 9 only but, why use this reference to GOD hardening Pharoah’s heart out of context to support one view when it can also be used for the other?!
First let me say that I do not believe that my salvation is the result of my works, but I do believe that “believing GOD is righteousness and I also believe see that it is obvious that choice plays a clear part as clearly expressed in scripture, as well as through spiritual revelation and through experience.
It is my goal to allow scripture to interpret scripture and everything else in life as well. Shouldn’t that always be the case, that scripture interprets scripture? Getting to the point I would like to make, in Exodus scripture clearly reads that Pharoah hardened his heart Ex 8:15;32 against GOD and his chosen people before it states that GOD hardened Pharoah’s heart. I would also like to say that I do not completely agree with either of the options as represented above.
I would never say that anyone could ever do anything of themselves resulting in righteousness or salvation anymore than I would say that GOD causes people to sin and sends them to hell. I do not believe that man was created by God to be sinful.
I believe we were created in the image of GOD and GOD is not sin. Man chose in the garden to believe something other than GOD in order to try to be like GOD the same as satan desired to be like GOD resulting in sin. Scripture says that sin is anything done without faith and scripture says every man is given a measure of faith so, I do not think it can be said that God doesn’t give us an opportunity to believe.
I believe faith is like a muscle that through exercise or the lack of becomes weaker or stonger depending. I do not believe that we are monkey puppets with no will. I believe those of us called believers have exercised the faith given (through mercy) to us by GOD to believe in him resulting in righteousness, salvation, obedience.
I am troubled my lack of understanding of the purpose to this post which seems to suggest that you can form your theology from fragments of scripture. Or are you just looking to raise an argument for the sake of arguing? Or is it as stated so many times, to raise tension. (I do not seek tension but rather PEACE and understanding. Which by the way, God says he will give to us by the HOLY SPIRIT) Should any scripture stand alone? Shouldn’t our goal be to examine the whole of scripture from beginning to end to form our understanding of HIM? Please correct me if I am wrong as I do not desire to be a fool.
Furthermore, LOVE (which I believe is GOD not just an attribute) the same as TRUTH is the person of Jesus Christ, is described in far more detail than most anything else in scripture as being self less as CHOOSING to deny your self for the sake of another. Without choice, where is there LOVE?
I recently read Jeremiah 18:1-10, which echoes the potter and clay concept. One salient point is the inclusion of a call to decision frequently found in the OT: “Repent and live, turn from God and die”.
In our New Covenant of grace, we do not please God by our efforts and constant study of scriptures, but through grace in Christ. And our faith (decision) in Christ is irrevocably imputed as righteousness. Notice the finality and security in the New Covenant which is missing in the old!
And yet a salient theme common to both involves individual human will; even in the Garden, before the fall, God placed a decision or obey or disobey. Perhaps a truly thorough exegesis of election will integrate this element of will and decision? And I think this is the irritant to many who balk at unconditional election: the subjective loss of control over one’s fate.
Derek wrote in comment 52 above,
2. There also seems to be some confusion regarding individual or corporate election. Arminians believe that this passage is dealing with corporate election, Calvinists, individual. I think you illustrate my point for me on several occasions: in your observation of the text you accurately use terms like “Israel” and “Church”, but in your interpretation you make the move to individual. I think this is a mistake.
Just for clarification, there is a wide range of interpretations on the Arminian side. Some do see this as primarily discussing individual election (though not necessarily every element). A good book that takes the conditional election perspective but interprets the passage in the framework of traditonal Arminian thought (individual election of believers) is F. Leroy Forlines’ “The Quest fir Truth” (He interacts a great deal with Calvinists, esp. Piper). Picirilli’s book “Grace, Faith, and Free Will” and his commentary on Romans are also very good. I personally hold to a corporate election view, but that is not necessarily the standard Arminian position on election in this passage or otherwise. BTW, your comments are excellent.
God Bless,
Ben
John,
“Maybe all means Jew and Gentile, but if you’ll disavow that interpretation for John 12:32, I’ll do the same :-)”
Unfortunately, that’s not how words work. That’s like saying “world” means the wicked mindset of fallen humanity in 1 Jn 2:15 and then someone arguing “Well, then it must mean that in John 3:16.” Not quite, but I know you were joking there. 🙂
“I don’t see how that follows. Again, Paul distinguishes those who repent with those who suppress the truth.”
Actually, it follows because if all that is said of group X is that they do Y with information Z, then the text indicates that whenever group X has Z they do Y with it. To say otherwise is to argue from silence. Instead, Paul argues that this is why they need the gospel of Christ.
“But not when he discusses Abraham, right?”
Actually, Yes and No. Abraham’s faith was not in the revealed Gospel, but he is applying what Abraham did (i.e., have faith in what was revealed) to the gospel that has now been revealed fully. So what is a person required to do? Have faith in Christ as Abraham had faith in the special revelation given to him. To not do this now is to not believe.
Now, if we get back to Rom 9 and the objection, I still have that question that I think flies over all of this anyway; and that is, How does God not choose some and not others if in fact, even in an Arminian system, He can save anyone He wants, but doesn’t? Can you answer this without limiting His omniscience and omnipotence and without exalting the world, the devil and the individual’s abilities over God’s?
Gerrie,
“Hodge, I see what you mean – like the Ethiopian did when Philip explained the Gospel to him?”
I’m not sure what you mean. My argument was arguing that people must have God draw them supernaturally because it is unlikely that someone in a foreign culture is going to respond positively to someone from another foreign culture in bringing a message that contradicts their cultural religion and heritage. Simply pointing out that someone from another culture believed when the gospel was spoken to him just shows that someone believes, not the source of his belief. Whenever that is discussed, the source is God, not the person believing.
[QUOTE]Postroad,
I have responses for every verse you list that interpret them in a different or non-literal manner, however getting into this would be getting off-topic and I’ve already been warned once so I’ll respect CMP’s wishes. I do have one question for you though. Is it your belief that the Bible teaches this that causes you to not believe in Christianity?[/QUOTE]
Bingo! And I am aware of all of them.
And that is why I am agnostic.
In fact the whole premice of Christianity is that The Jews were deliberatly decieved by a literal translation of their own Scripture.
That God knew in advance that they could not keep the Law to the letter and certainly not to the spirit.
That it was purposly designed to entrap them in sin and disobediance.
That the new covenant was the intended outcome and this would result in the inward transformation to perfect obediance through the intervention of the Spirit directly to the believers hearts and minds.
That no written code would be neccesary and believers from the greatest to the smallest would instinctivly follow God’s Law.
Imagine my suspicion at a new written code combined with its followers as much as white washed tombs as any Pharesee condemned by Christ.
The New Testement should not have been neccesary in a new covenant.
If the only choices are the two you posit, then you have chosen the right position. Are they the only two?
Also I did accept Christ as a young teen out of fear of hell. But to partake in water baptism and comunion, No way untill I was sure I really could live up to the standard of perfection demanded.
Paul says that such a person has died to sin and is clothed in the body of Christ.
To walk around claiming to be clothed in Christ and blasphemise his image by the behavior I was witnissing from Christians was more frightening than anything I could imagine.
I knew instinctivly that it was in fact the blasphemy of the Spirit, the unpardenable sin.
And I still know this with absolute certainty.
In fact I wish I could go back and not have accepted Christ as my Savior.
Even that may have sealed my fate.
All may be forgiven but not blasphey of the Spirit.
And that can only be comitted by someone who claims Christian.
BTW, if anyone thinks postroad’s ramblings sound a bit strange, you’re not alone. His double-spaced non-sequiturs and impenetrable resistance to contextual reading have netted him a ‘platinum screwball award’ nomination from TheologyWeb for such gems as,
“Perhaps the whole point of Scripture is deception of the human mind?”
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2862206
Back on topic, in the post, CMP postulated that [what he perceives as] the Arminian view of election could answer the objection, were it true,
Objector: ”If this is true, why does God still find fault in people. Who can resist His will?”
Paul: “Oh, you have misunderstood me. You think that I am saying that God’s will is the ultimate cause of our salvation, not ours. Let me clarify. God’s election is not based upon His sovereign unconditional decree, but upon your will to choose Him. Therefore, He finds fault in people who do not choose Him by their own natural freedom. Doesn’t this make perfect sense?”
He assumes that the objector would happily concede at that. But given the type of question asked, I don’t think our objector would be satisfied with this somewhat inaccurate answer. He’d likely respond to the non-sequitur with,
Objector: “What does God saving people based upon their compliance have to do with hardening other peoples’ hearts and then finding fault with them?”
Even answering that God hardens those who reject His grace (as I believe) won’t satisfy such a wordly mindset, since such a question presupposes that God has no right to harden peoples’ hearts to begin with. And hence, the correct answer is to it is to derail the notion that man has some right to question God, as Paul does.
It’s about TIME!
Every post here is based on the assumption that God’s involvement with man requires him to be limited by time, part of His own creation. God created timeand is thus unbound by time. Most everyone here would agree that God is unbound by time, yet we in every arguement tie God to time.
Examples:
1.God chooses man first so that this elect individual can be saved.
2.God looked forward in time and saw who would choose Him and thus he elects them first.
We see everything as the “now”. We also view the past and look forward to the future. But God (The alpha, omega, beginning and end, who was and is, and is to come) knows all three at the same time. Even this statement can limit God to His own creation of time. It is a concept that we cannot fully comprehend. If we could understand this then I am convinced we could understand election.
The mystery that inevitably bogs down this discussion is that of God being outside of time. Can He remain good, just, and fair by knowing everything. Being outside of time He can equip the unbeliver to choose to be saved or not. At what point in time does this equipping take place is the problem. More so we want to wrap “election” into a an issue of when does this equipping take place. Why? Because for us it’s about time, and when, and who chooses first, and we limit the whole discussion to time. God is not limited by time.
This is hardest to receive by the person who believes God elected the individual first. For the person who believes in free will it explains that (not how) God can equip and “dead man”.
Maybe most of us believe predominantly the same thing and are only allowing a misguided arguement to divide us, as it has done for a long time.
In Christ
correction:
God can equip a “dead man”.
Postroad,
I just have to respond to this because it is so ridiculous as to be laughable. If one had to be completely perfect following becoming a Christian and being baptized or whatever then no one, not even Paul and Peter are in heaven. Peter for instance sinned when he fell back in with the racism of the Judaizer’s and had to be rebuked by Paul besides the whole thing with denying Jesus. Paul goes on at length about the thorn in his side. Thomas refused to believe (hence the term doubting Thomas until he saw Jesus with his own eyes. The disciples themselves were ultimately a sinful bunch of misfits who were anything but perfect, yet still managed to be saved.
Your problems is that you want to read the Bible as if it were written as a 19th or 20th Century legal or historical textbook. It’s not. It uses a whole array of literary and linguistic tools to aid in communication including the most relevant to some of the texts you mention, hyperbole. Hyperbole is a literary tool that the ANE and the modern NE for that matter are quite fond of. If you ever go over to the Middle East and barter with someone don’t be surprised if they tell you that you are “spitting on their mother’s grave” when you quote too low of a price. It is the same in the Bible when Jesus tells you to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin. It’s a hyperbolic statement, not a literal one.
Just do yourself a favor and stop proof-texting verses out of the Bible. We can all do that and use it to prove whatever we want to. You must instead understand the whole counsel of the Bible in the context of it’s original intent and the literary tools and genres used. Ignoring this and just reading the words on the page is a very modernistic way of approaching a text and one in which the Bible was never intended to be read.
JC you are the white washed tomb otherwise known as JP Holding?
Where the Jews decieved purposely as Christianity claims?
To bring them to despair in their own human nature.
Their is even mention of Laws abandoned that God had allowed to exist to fill them with horror.
25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.’
Of cource I am aware that the Jewish Church and Paul where at odds over doctrine.
Why should this be so if they recieved the same Spirit.?
Paul himself states that their is only one correct Gosple
Is it such a far stretch to wonder if the Bible is meant to decieve the human mind concidering that the written Law was in fact designed to decieve the Jews.
Ernie,
Calvinists don’t base their arguments on chronological, but logical succession, even though for us, God has made the decision from before the foundation of the world. The argument is whether one believes because of what God has logically done first, or if what God does is caused by man believing first. It’s cause and effect, not necessarily chronological.
And by their own testimony Paul and the Disciples are not saved.
They have shown that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit could not transform them into perfect harmony.
The new covenant was to usher in a leval of perfection from the inward to the outward.
Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ ”
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people
.Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Hodge,
Review your whole statement. It binds everything within the limits of time. Cause and effect ARE chronological. “Before the foundation of the world” is our best understanding of God “outside of time” not “before” time. I’m not denying “election”. I’m saying that our understanding of it is wrong. I’m also saying that I cannot describe it completely because I, like everyone else, try to apply our concept of time to it.
But when election is placed within time constraints it is very logical to arrive at Nightraptors conclusion of God being the author and promoter of evil. (Note: To accuse Nightraptor of having the fallacy of humans in that we cannot understand good and evil, one must apply this same fallacy to one’s self and invalidate one’s own conclusions.)
In Christ,
By the way, I am convinced that Postroad doesn’t believe what he is spouting. He is just yanking your chain.
Michael,
I do appreciate your graceful attitude in your presentation on this difficult subject. How do you respond to the Molinist position, championed by William Lane Craig (among others)?
You are right Ernie that I am agnostic.
That is I admit that I do not know.
But can Christ be understood through knowledge.
Paul says no.
1 Corinthians 1:16-18 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
In fact he is hesitant to admitting that he baptised anyone.
Because if he baptised someone who in fact became an antichrist afterwards, that would be evidence of his own error.
By his own testimony he would then be a flawed witness of the body of Christ.
Jesus himself did not make such mistakes.
John 2:23-25 (New International Version)
23Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.
He knew who where his.
John 10:28-30
28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
Ernie,
It’s not necessarily chronological. For God, it could be at the moment we believe. I’m not saying it is, but my point is that it is more like my pulling back a trigger to a gun before it clicks the hammer. At that point, the moment I click the trigger the explosion takes place. It may still be chronological, but it is so virtually the same moment that to talk about it in chronological fashion seems out of place. But the trigger had to be clicked in order for the explosion to take place, so there is a cause and effect that is logical there.
I don’t see how God’s decisions entering into time have anything to do with Him being the author of evil.
“To accuse Nightraptor of having the fallacy of humans in that we cannot understand good and evil, one must apply this same fallacy to one’s self and invalidate one’s own conclusions.”
This would only be true if we did have the Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to understand it. Left to our own understanding, we don’t come to the truth, which is why I said we need to be concerned about what the Scripture says, not our gut feelings. The Holy Spirit is not leading us to understand that God is evil, and therefore, any extra-biblical comment that a Biblical passage interpreted in such and such a way makes God evil falls prey to what I said before.
Postroad
You are very good at distortion. But anyone who has spent time in Analytical Logistics would stop you at your base assumptions.
In Christ,
Also Ernie,
I think that your understanding of “before the foundations of the world” are mistaken. God is not describing His being outside of time. He’s describing the time when we did not yet exist. This is made evident by the way this language is used. For instance, God asks if Job was there when He laid the foundation of the world. Job is not there, so it is not talking about what God did in timeless eternity, but what God did in relation to us, i.e., those who live in time.
Hodge
We are more in agreement than this may sound, but look at your use of “virtually the same moment” and “in order”. Whether God is looking forward or looking backwards or just knowing, we still want God to click the trigger before the explosion. Or elected the individual before the salvation. If this is true then Ngihtraptors progression is valid.
I’m saying that there is NO chronological sequence in God’s election. He can equip the unbeliever to chose salvation whether the individual chooses life or rejects it.
Outside of the few noted exceptions in scripture we see a complete allowance of individuals to chose or reject God. For God to recieve the glory due him from mankind there has to be those who would chose him and those who would reject. God does know who will receive/reject him and can use both to bring himself glory. Thus we have our Rom 8 examples. But view this passage with an eye to a God not choosing before hand but interacting as one who can rewind/fast forward the tape of life(crude example with lots of flaws, so don’t pick it apart) according to his will.
It maybe can be understood if one could accept that God can answer prayer before it’s even asked. Not because He knew before hand but because He is outside of time.
And No I am not advocating any extra-biblical understanding or revelation of knowledge. I must daily submit to the leading of the HS so that I might understand and serve faithfully my God.
In Christ
Hodge
As for “foundations of the world” I think we have to look at foundations as the whole created existance. Time, Sound, Color, Physics, Space, Life, Death, Knowledge, Thought, Etc…
The use of “before” is God knowing that we could never comprehend “outside of this existance”.
So yes I do think that God was telling Job that in God’s timeless eternity, Job was not there.
In Christ
“I’m saying that there is NO chronological sequence in God’s election. He can equip the unbeliever to chose salvation whether the individual chooses life or rejects it.”
Do you mean with a prevenient grace? You said that He equips them to choose to accept or reject. Doesn’t God have to first equip someone so that they can then choose? How is that different from what I am saying? We may disagree about conditionality and how God knows what a human is going to do, but the “chronological” aspect seems the same in both.
As it says in John 6:37: “All that the Father has given to Me will come to Me.” Jesus is speaking in time that the Father has already given Him those who will come to Him, but all who were given have not yet come to Him. Now, you might still say that God knew their decision to accept Him, but that does not negate the idea that they believe in time, so His election precedes their belief. In other words, His giving precedes their coming. Do you not agree?
This is true of Rom 9 as well. What is their election based upon? Not the person’s desiring or running, but upon God’s will. So their decision to accept Him turns on His will.
Wow postroad, not even sure how to respond to that. You’ve made enough misrepresentations, distortions, taking passage out of context and most of all non-sequitars to make any analytics head explode. Not a single one of your conclusions followed from the passages or arguments you have made. Your arguments are akin to saying “the sky is blue and therefore it must be Monday”. To borrow from Billy Madison “what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Sorry for the ad hominem but your arguments are so ridiculous and irrational that it is impossible to even respond to. There just is no argument there to be talked about.
Hodge,
Think outside the box. Outside of Time. Your statements still are chronological. “first must equip” “preceds thier faith” Yes we are in time and everything WE DO is tied to time. God is not.
A God outside of time can intervene in time in ways that don’t invalidate His immutability AND respond to man’s request. An Omnipotent God can so configure existance that we have free will and still God’s will be done. Do I understand this, no.
In Christ
Ernie,
Are you a molinist? Your arguments sound very close to that of William Lane Craig’s.
Michael,
Not sure if I’m a Molinist. I am West Texas Baptist. lol. I looked up Molinist and captured the qoute below:
Molina maintained that the human faculties having been elevated by what might be called prevenient Grace, so as to make them capable of producing a supernatural act, the act itself is performed by the will co-operating with the impulse given by God. Man is, therefore, free, and at the same time dependent upon God in the performance of every good act. He is free, because the human will may or may not co-operate with the divine assistance, and he is dependent upon God, because it is only by being elevated by prevenient Grace freely given by God that the human will is capable of co-operating in the production of a supernatural act. It follows, too, that the efficaciousness of Grace arises not from the Grace itself but from the free co-operation of the will, and that a Grace in itself truly sufficient might not be efficacious through the failure of the will to co-operate with it. The omniscience of God is safeguarded, because, according to Molina, God sees infallibly man’s conduct by means of the scientia media or knowledge of future conditional events (so called because it stands midway between the knowledge of what is possible and the knowledge of what is actual).
To a large part I agree with this but it too has issues with God being bound by time constraints. It’s not “God’s knowledge of the future” but it is God’s knowledge and even control of time, and more so how He can interact with us who are bound by time.
In Christ
Ernie,
What’s your support for the notion that God is “outside of time” in the sense you understand it?
Ernie, the problem with your statement is it assumes that God is responding to our decision. The Bible tells us otherwise. So we are responding to God’s decision. However you want to view that is fine, but to say that God is really just working with our decision from a timeless standpoint, and then not be able to describe that 1. counters the Bible that says that election depends on God’s will, not ours (i.e. they’re in contrast, so they are not working together, otherwise it’s both of our wills), and 2. Says nothing, since you want to posit a third option but then say that you can’t describe how that works with our decision. If you can’t describe how that works out then what are you arguing?
“Says nothing, since you want to posit a third option but then say that you can’t describe how that works with our decision. If you can’t describe how that works out then what are you arguing?”
Not that I agree with Ernie necessarily but this doesn’t seem any worse then attributing things to a unrevealed mysterious second will of God which according to unknown criteria decides who to torture and who to accept.
What have I distorted?
New covenant is new covenant.
Jesus and Paul stated that it was in effect.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (New International Version)
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
Paul states that this means Jesus only as the one seed of Abraham and those Christ chooses to elect in his grace.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, ”
declares the LORD.
It will not be a written code impossible to faithfull follow in letter and spirit in mans fallen state.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
It will be an inward tranformation directly from God rendering the recipiant completly obediant to Gods saving qualifications.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
It will be instinctual to every recipiant regardless of age and intelect.
There will be no written code neccesary or any outside interpretation.
They will become sinless after God forgives them of all sins under the old covenant.
This is all in line with Pauls interpretation
Although I do have a problem with Paul so casually dumping the physical nation of Israel in favour of the one seed.
Although he states that their are Jews in the elect who will have their eyes opened when the full number of Gentiles are saved.
Which by the way indicates that there is a predetermined number of saved and that a Spiritual intervention is neccesary to unlock the mystery of salvation.
Romans 11:1-16
l
1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3″Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day.” 9And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Hodge: “Actually, it follows because if all that is said of group X is that they do Y with information Z, then the text indicates that whenever group X has Z they do Y with it. ”
I think the point is, we both acknowledge that some people do not suppress the truth (you can say it is after regeneration, or whatever conditions you like), and my point is that Paul refers to these people in Romans 1-2, specifically 1:17 and 2:7. If you deny that you are open to the subjunctive argument that Paul is not talking reality. I don’t see any reason to go down that road, since we both agree there are people who do not suppress the truth.
“Yes and No. Abraham’s faith was not in the revealed Gospel, but he is applying what Abraham did”
Well, that’s an assumption you have, but I’m not sure we need to go down that road.
“How does God not choose some and not others if in fact, even in an Arminian system, He can save anyone He wants, but doesn’t? ”
I don’t see the problem. The parable of the ungrateful son, who takes his inheritance early indicates that God gives us the freedom to go, but he wants us to come back on our own accord. I can’t see any other conclusion one could make from this parable.
“That’s not what the context says. The context says that He was preaching the good news about the Kingdom”
Sometimes it says that, but other times it is just “THE Gospel” (e.g. Mk 13:10 which must be preached to all nations!!! Isn’t that what Paul had to do?), other times it is the “Gospel of God” (Mk 1:14) compare to Ro 1:1 where Paul calls his Gospel the Gospel of God. Sometimes it is the Gospel of Jesus (Mk 1:1), compare Ro 15:19 “the Gospel of Christ”.
“Do you believe that people would have been saved just by believing that the kingdom had come, defined in whatever way they wished?”
I don’t think that is what Jesus was preaching. He was preaching repent and believe which is a bit different.
“No, because it’s all who are predestined and called who are justified and glorified, not just all who are called.”
Well, you’re departing from the whole Calvinist argument, and you’ve broken the chain. Maybe I need to help you brush up on Calvinist arguments 🙂 “these whom He predestined, He also called”
(Romans 8:30 NAS95). It doesn’t say he called a bunch of people, some of whom are predestined, or that those who are predestined AND called are justified. Rather it says those who are predestined are called.
And then it says “these whom He called, He also justified;”
(Romans 8:30 NAS95). Not “those predestined AND called”, rather those called are justified. That’s why they call it a “chain”. Your interpretation is not a chain.
But if you want to break Calvinism’s “Golden Chain”, go ahead. 🙂
This acusation of distortion is always leveled at me and I confess it drives me crazy.
For crying out loud, Paul puts it as plain as day just before he quotes the text of Jeremiah regarding the new covenant.
Hebrews 10:14
because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Doe not sound like
Because of the ability to crucify Christ repeatidly, believers can gain forgiveness for transgressions as they strive half heartidly to conform themselves into a semblance of perfection in order to enter the holy presence of the Father.
Romans 11:29
for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
No free will involved here.
But we can asume that there are conterfiet believers.
Hodge,
“In the beginning” God chose these words to show that He is (ask Moses what to call God) and everything else is created by Him, including time. This makes God outside of time. Timeless. However we want to describe it. But let me go further. God can do/create anything. He can create an existance for us that allows Him to accomplish His will even while responding to a relationship with man. He is not a God who does not respond. Without violating who He is OR His will, God responds. He spared the Isrealites in the wilderness. He gives Kings more years to live. He delivers from the oppressor. He sends angels to His prophets when they call to Him. ALL of this responding doesn’t take ANYTHING away from God or His will. For God to not respond to created man, who is given free will to choose God not only for salvation but in every aspect of his life, would mean that everything is just a puppet show. Has God entervened at times in the lives of individuals for His will to be done? Of Course. Romans 8. But God not responding goes completly contrary to the interactive God of scripture.
Let me be clear. I am in no way elevating man to a position of any simblance of equality. Without God man is deservedly dead in his sin. But God doesn’t leave it there. The HS draws and woos individuals to Him according to His will. That same will that desires for all men to be saved.
In Christ
The God of the OT was interactive.
Paul states that the Father had rested from his works since the seventh day of Creation.
postroad: “Romans 11:29
for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
No free will involved here.”
There is no freewill involved with these Jews Paul calls “enemies of the Gospel”?
It seems to me the general call of God to Israel is irrevocable, but clearly this is not about individuals, since they have rejected God’s call.
“Because of the ability to crucify Christ repeatidly, believers can gain forgiveness for transgressions…”
And you wonder why people accuse you of distortion? How about you tell us who claimed that, and we’ll see if being driven crazy by these accusations is natural justice.