I had to put the quote marks in the title, or it would look like Hamilton became one of the elect in Romans 9.
I will have to admit that Romans 9 sounded Calvinistic to me when I read it back in college. But then Romans 11:32 sounded universalistic to me, and still does.
I should point out that it seems to me to be a mistake to think of exegesis as an exact science, and an even bigger mistake to treat exegetical conclusions as having the same inspiration and authority as Scripture itself.
20 comments:
On of today's most respected theologians and exegetes, G.K. Beale, on the hardening of pharaohs heart
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/02-Exodus/Text/Articles/Beale-Hardening-TJ.pdf
Various papers on Romans 9
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Sermons-By-Book/Romans/By-Chapter/Chapter-09/
Papers on Romans 11
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Sermons-By-Book/Romans/By-Chapter/Chapter-11/
Highly respected Exegete Douglas Stuart (who even wrote one of the standard texts on Old Testament exegesis) on the hardening of pharaoh's heart here
http://books.google.com/books?id=gcK2X4dVjg4C&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=g.k.+beale+hardening+of+pharaoh's+heart&source=bl&ots=KT0D4vg64n&sig=gMyidZxSlh0nodRg-2DJ2sVDjgo&hl=en&ei=FJSISt_ZKIj-M5Sukc8E&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=Three%20different%20terms&f=false
does God manifest his glory in salvation through judgment?
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2006_57_1_04_Hamilton_GloryofGodCentre.pdf
Well, Victor, if you don't think exegesis is an exact science, then why do you quote passages like Jn 3:16 to disprove Calvinism?
The only pattern I see in your intermittent appeal to Scripture is that prooftexts for Arminianism or universalism or open theism are more scientifically exacting, while prooftexts for Calvinism lack scientific exactitude.
Not an exact science in the sense that it involves some judgment calls. Something along the lines of what goes on in theory choice in the sciences, where you never get a "crucial experiment" because it's always possible for the other guys to adjust their auxiliary hypotheses.
The argument based on John 3: 16 is an argument that the Calvinists have failed to meet the burden of proof with respect to their position, because there are certainly passages that are better accounted from an anti-Calvinist perspective.
Victor, but you don't apply the same kind of argument you use from John 3:16 to the Universalist debate. Somehow universalism can be highly plausible to you while doing to the words associated with hell what you say the Calvinists do to the words like love and world. The Calvinist rightly smells a double-standard.
Victor Reppert said...
"The argument based on John 3: 16 is an argument that the Calvinists have failed to meet the burden of proof with respect to their position..."
i) To the contrary, you have failed to meet your burden of proof by constantly citing Jn 3:16 as if no one had offered a counterargument. I've responded to your appeal in the past. You, however, never engage the counterargument. You simply repeat yourself.
ii) And, of course, your appeal to Scripture is, by your own admission, a charade since, when we do answer you, and you have no counterargument, you fall back on the claim that, if true, that's a reason to deny the inerrancy of Scripture. So you constantly play a double game.
Therefore, spare us your disingenuous verbiage about the burden of proof. If and when you actually shoulder your own burden of proof, we'll have something to talk about.
For example, take these verses
/////
Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; (Matthew 25:41)
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matthew 25:46)
/////
The Universalist doesn't exegete these verses as they might appear to a modern, Western reading of the text. Through his exegesis he argues that the verse is really talking about how God expresses his eternal love toward us, his eternal character and purposes in a special way. The eternality is more about the source of the punishment than the length of the punishment. Now, putting aside the question of whether this exegesis is correct, the Calvinist does similar things with passages like John 3:16. But Victor simply dismisses their reading because the prima facie reading is "obvious". However, when the Universalist does something similar to what the majority of people would say is the obvious implication and reading of the two above verses, Victor treats this in all seriousness and claims it is a respectable reading of the text.
This shows, therefore, that the textual arguments Victor uses against the Calvinist, despite what he tells himself that they are, are not textual arguments afterall; but, simply, re-statements of his assumption that God cannot be like the Calvinist says he is.
See, so long as a Universalist does to the text what the Calvinist does and comes out with a more quantitatively loving world, then the interpretations are fine. It's because the Calvinist's interpretations don't fit with what Victor has decided God has to be like that he faults them, not because of the alleged "damage" they do to the "ordinary meaning" of the text.
I am sure that even Victor is unaware of this bias (if not then he's been dishonest), but it is quite the damning criticism. Victor simply has no textual or exegetical complaints with Calvinism. Victor has a priori philosophical complaints. If Victor truly had textual complaints, then his textual argument (bad as it is) would also be an argument for him against Universalism. But it is not, ergo . . .
Hello Victor,
Had a really nice weekend busy doing all sorts of fun stuff. Just taking a quick glance at emails and some blogs including yours: nice to see you cite the paper on Romans 9 by a friend of mine (Bob Hamilton). Bob has a great website called "ARMINIAN THEOLOGICAL RESOURCES" (and you will find many of his writings on the Society of Evangelical Arminians website as well).
This particular paper on Romans 9 is one of the best available in my opinion presenting an Arminian view on Romans 9-11. He just nails so many things so well, just a great, great paper. Happy to see you citing it here on your blog. I like Bob's material because he is a missionary as well as a linguist and he interprets the biblical texts very well: and he gets it right.
Victor I had to laugh at something that you wrote. Not because it is funny but because it is so true and I have certain friends who love to remind me of this kind of thing. You wrote:
"Not an exact science in the sense that it involves some judgment calls. Something along the lines of what goes on in theory choice in the sciences, where you never get a "crucial experiment" because it's always possible for the other guys to adjust their auxiliary hypotheses."
This is a valid observation. Some of my friends are actual practicing scientists and they take the pronouncements of theologians and apologists of certain theologies with a big, big grain of salt because they see these folks as making dogmatic declarations that are based on their own interpretations of biblical texts reflecting the desires of a certain group of which they are a part (interpretations where there are competing experts and competing views and competing interpretations and competing “schools of thought” with no consensus).
In contrast they tell me, they can do a controlled experiment, present their findings and then have others do the same experiments in other parts of the world and come up with the same findings corroborating things in a very objective way (something virtually impossible for theologians again they tell me). So they with some amusement like to declare their efforts to be both verifiable and scientific while the efforts of the theologians and "fortress defenders" are much less precise and much more unsubstantiated opinion (and they are quite fond of reminding me of that! :-) ).
Did you notice how many **anonymous** calvinists are citing their authorities/experts who all **just happen to be calvinists** who of course are all completely objective in what they are arguing for and of course have no vested interests in what they are saying? :-)
And yet **none** of them even made any attempt to interact with Bob's paper. I hope none of my scientific friends see this, as this appears to be exactly what they like to fondly remind me of. :-)
Robert
PS - and your reference to sometimes “making judgment calls” when interpreting is absolutely true. It is also clear evidence of people having and making choices (i.e. having free will). Does anyone **really believe** that God necessitates all of these differing interpretations? There is a simple contrary explanation for all of these various interpretations and choices: the existence of free will!
It will be impossible to understand St. Paul without first understanding Moses. Contrary to those scholars who have maintained that a pervasive Hellenism exists throughout the Pauline epistles, I maintain that he is consistently, and thoroughly, Mosaic in his thought.
The most important lesson to be learned from Moses, which is a key feature in St. Paul's thinking, is the reality of alternate possibilities.
Listen to what Moses says of Israel:
"And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine." (Lev. 20:26)
But God's blessing to set Israel apart from all the other nations, also, came with a very specific condition:
"You shall, therefore, keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and perform them, that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out.....But I have said to you 'you shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey'". (Lev. 20:24,25)
And elsewhere, Moses wrote this also:
"Then, if you walk contrary to Me, and are not willing to obey Me, I will bring on you seven times more plagues (**i.e. this is a reference to Egypt), according to your sins.....And if by these things you are not reformed by Me....then I also will walk contrary to you, and I will punish you yet seven times for your sins." (Lev. 26:21,23,24)
However:
"But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers.....if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt--then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember." (Lev. 26:40-42)
"See, I have set before you today life and good, blessing and evil....I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life, that both you and your descendents may live." (Deut. 30:15,19)
So, now we can start to see the framework, of which, Paul is drawing his insights from.
Addressing the Pagans, he says:
"...although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful." (Rom. 1:21)
Conclusion:
"Therefore, God also gave them up to uncleaness.....God gave them up to vile passions." (Rom. 1:24,26)
In other words, God let them have what they wanted. Likewise, with the Jew (Rom. 2:1-16)
To underscore this idea of "choice", Paul also says:
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will, of the flesh, reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will, of the Spirit, reap everlasting life." ( Gal. 5:7,8 compare with Rom. 2:6-11)
I will conclude in the next post.
What St. Paul is really delving into, in Romans Chapter 9 through Chapter 11, is "why" Israel seems to be rejected by God. His conclusion, in Chapter 11, is that Israel is not fully rejected.
Paul's analysis, in Romans 10:21, is that "Israel" rejected God....over and over again. (see Hebrews 3:7-11, Hos. 11:7, Jer. 2:5-13, 2 Chr. 36:15-23, and Matt. 21:33-46)
So, Paul is drawing a historical parallel between Egypt and Israel, as an analogy to Israel's condition during the writing of the epistle to the Romans. Just as Pharoah hardened his heart against God, and would not relent--thus incurring their rejection by God--even so, Israel's hardening of their hearts away from God has resulted in God turning away from them also. St. Paul has already explained his principle in Rom. 2:5-11....which is the self-same teaching of Moses in the passages I have already cited above.
The importance of this, with respect to Calvinism, is simply that there is no such thing as "unconditional election" as far as Moses and Paul are concerned. Both men taught that "obedience" to God signals blessing and salvation, while "disobedience" to God results in Divine abandonment and being given over to sin (i.e. reprobation). Hence, Paul's warning:
"And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you....For, if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore, consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for our God is able to graft them in again." (Rom. 11:17-23)
That's why I say "God gives people what they want....and He respects our choices for no other reason than this: He respects His own image." If God makes "free", self-determined decisions Himself, then it follows that creatures bearing His image make "free", self-determined decisions too. That's what it means, in large part, to be created "Imago Dei".
God expects all men, everywhere, to repent and turn to Him (Acts 17:30). Because God demands all men to repent, it means that all men can repent. Therefore, failure to do so results in a just punishment. For those that love "sin" more than God, then they get to have "sin" forever and ever. It is their glory and their reward.
But for the Christian, "glory" is to be had in the hope of resurrection and the eternal fellowship with God, the Angels and the Saints. To be a "Christian" doesn't necessarily mean the immediate elimination of abiding sinfulness. But it does mean the growing awareness of personal "sin", which ought to result in greater humility before God and men. While God provides all the resources necessary for humbling us...yet, He cannot humble the unwilling. We must, at the end of the day, bow our hearts--even more than our heads--before God.
And, if someone believes that he/she is the "best" and "greatest" and what not, then that person had better be prepared for a rude awakening....because heaven will be filled with a lot of people who are better and brighter than they. If someone can't accept that...then heaven is going to be hell for such a person.
"Did you notice how many **anonymous** calvinists are citing their authorities/experts who all **just happen to be calvinists** who of course are all completely objective in what they are arguing for and of course have no vested interests in what they are saying? :-)"
Did you notice how many **anonymous** Arminians (like "Robert") are citing their authorities/experts who all **just happen to be Arminians** (e.g. "Bob has a great website called 'ARMINIAN THEOLOGICAL RESOURCES' and you will find many of his writings on the Society of Evangelical Arminians website as well") who of course are all completely objective in what they are arguing for and of course have no vested interests in what they are saying? :-)
Good Morning, Victor,
Re: Romans 11:32, though admittedly different interpretations exist, is it not possible to see God’s “shutting up” (enclosing) all unto disobedience as referring to God, by virtue of not changing His definitions of good and of bad, resulting naturally as concluding man unto sin? For example, when Cain murdered his brother Abel, God declares Cain’s murder a sin, but time (in its passing) also concludes Cain’s act a murder as God’s standards remain the same.
One other thought: by allowing for the subjunctive “may” (also translated this way by KJV and NASB) it seems that one may take the phrase (NASB) “so that He may show mercy to all” as meaning “with the result that He may show mercy to all.” This interpretation assumes that Gr. hina may at times (as perhaps here) mean “so that” (i.e., “with the result that”), not restrictively “in order that.” Some have argued that Gr. hina always means “in order that.” But since every “with the result that” has the element of ordered sequence, determinism can argue that Gr. hina always means “in order that.” In other words, if Gr. hina does at times mean “with the result that” (i.e. “so that”), how does one prove it? Hence the debate.
And yet it seems to me that to take Gr. hina in this instance as meaning "in order that" may not make a significant difference. That is, God, knowing he wishes to make salvation available, remains morally steadfast, in order that he might show mercy to all. (I would take the subjunctive to include the contingency of a man's belief.) At any rate, I think the the verse can be taken to implicitly mean that God’s standards have not changed, i.e., that what God has declared at the first to be sin is still sin (hence shutting up man unto disobedience), with the result that He may have mercy upon all.
Hmm, so this is where all the commentors went. I was wondering. {g}
JRP
You have to read JP Holding's commentary on Romans 9 and calvinism on tektonics.org
Its pretty good and he cited scholars like Malina, Pilch , Wilson ..etc to get insights into romans 9.
Steve Hays and James White tried to respond but were pwned by Holding's excellent scholarship.
"I had to put the quote marks in the title, or it would look like Hamilton became one of the elect in Romans 9."
I find the same thing is true of C. S. Lewis's "Miracles".
As for the "Potter's Freedom"....one has to read Jeremiah 18 to understand Paul's point. Notice, especially, verses 6-11:
"'O House of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?' says the Lord. 'Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O House of Israel?'
The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from it's evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.....Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now, every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.'" (Jer. 18:6-11 compare with Ezekiel 33)
God, of course, was speaking to the people in Jeremiah's day. But listen to what God, Himself, spoke to Israel in His day:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing." (Matt. 23:37)
"'Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,' says the Lord God. 'Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For, why should you die, O house of Israel? For, I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,' says the Lord God. 'Therefore, turn and live!'" (Ezekiel 18:30-32)
It is no different for us, today.
God's "way" is life, blessing and salvation. That is what the "potter" is trying to fashion in everyone. He tried to mold "Egypt", but they were not willing. He tried to mold "Israel" in the desert, but they were not willing. He tried to mold the Roman prefect and his household, but they beheaded St. John the Baptizer...because they, too, were not willing. He tried to mold the Sanhedrin, but they wanted to kill the Lord of glory....because they were not willing. He tried to mold His disciples, but one of them betrayed Him...because Judas was not willing. He tried to mold the "known world" through His Church, but the world martyred them....because they were not willing.
But there are always some people who are willing....and some people will choose to turn back to God. There is always a remnant. St. Paul is a glaring example. Paul even notes all this in his parenthetical excursus in Romans 9-11.
"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:1-4)
This is the heart, and purpose, of God. This is Theology 101, folks. Anathema to those who think and teach differently (Gal. 1:8,9).
Hello Gregory,
Great posts.
I enjoyed how you showed the clear and obvious presence of free will (i.e., having and making choices) in the bible, specifically in the history of Israel where their choices literally led to blessing or cursing, depending on how they freely chose.
You wrote:
“The importance of this, with respect to Calvinism, is simply that there is no such thing as "unconditional election" as far as Moses and Paul are concerned. Both men taught that "obedience" to God signals blessing and salvation, while "disobedience" to God results in Divine abandonment and being given over to sin (i.e. reprobation).”
So a lot really depends upon how we freely choose to respond to God and His Word. As you rightfully point out, this was true with Israel. It is also true with respect to Christians today. While Moses spoke of choices leading to either blessings or cursings for Israelites. Paul says to Christians that our choices can result in the fruit of the Spirit or the works of the flesh (again the contrast between good choices and bad choices). Paul says nothing about our choices as Christians being predetermined. Instead, he, like the other New Testament writers is constantly urging that we make the right choices rather than the wrong ones.
I also agree with you that the bible, both the Old and New Testaments does not teach **unconditional election**. Election of individuals to salvation is always conditioned upon faith on the part of that individual. While some actions of election on the part of God are unilateral (e.g. the choice of Israel as a chosen Nation, the choice of prophets) with respect to individual salvation the condition is always faith. This was true in both testaments. And this faith if genuine always manifests itself in obedience (again shown in both testaments, strongly emphasized in particular by the apostle James, e.g., “I will show you my faith by my works”).
You then cited Paul’s words in Romans 11 and wrote:
Hence, Paul's warning:
"And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you....For, if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore, consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for our God is able to graft them in again." (Rom. 11:17-23)
“That's why I say "God gives people what they want....and He respects our choices for no other reason than this: He respects His own image." If God makes "free", self-determined decisions Himself, then it follows that creatures bearing His image make "free", self-determined decisions too. That's what it means, in large part, to be created "Imago Dei".”
This principle of God giving people what they want and what they freely choose is also all over the bible. The apostle Paul in Romans 1 talks about God giving people over to the things they freely choose after they have knowingly and freely rejected Him.
Robert
Gregory = Robert = Henry = Sockpuppet
Post a Comment