 |
| 
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/15/2003 11:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | For Tom, who said "if God restricts human freedom to guarantee some specific choice or outcome, the agent or agents in question are not morally responsible for the choice. " How do you explain Romans 9:10 and following?
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[6] 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."[7] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But 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?' " 21Does 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?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
In these verses someone said to Paul exactly what you said, how can someone be morally responsible if he had no choice? Paul just answers by saying, who are you to question God? Granted, not much of an answer, but it's hard to explain these verses away. I have always been bothered by "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated.'' Clearly, before they were even born, God had already decided that. How did Esau have a choice in the matter? He was hated from (before) day 1. He hardly was able to use his free will to do anything to change that fact.
Please help me figure this out...Thanks
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/15/2003 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey RD,
For a brief response, check this out:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=574
A more extensive response can be found on pp. 139-144 of Doc's "God of the Possible."
Hope this helps.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/15/2003 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | This is ridiculously long, unless one is really interested in Romans 9. Its an exert from my forthcoming book, Is God to Blame? It goes byeond what I argued in God of the Possible
On first glance, it may seem that the blueprint interpretation has a strong case. For in this passage Paul explicitly says that God "has mercy on whomever he chooses and he hardens whomever he chooses" (vs. 18). He then illustrates God’s sovereign election by referring to God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael (9:7-8) and of Jacob over Esau (9:10-13). Regarding this latter choice Paul writes:
Even before [Jacob and Esau] had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) [Rebecca] was told, "The elder shall serve the younger."
As it is written,
"I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau." (Rom. 9:11-13)
Without regard to anything Jacob or Esau did, God choose to "love" Jacob and "hate" Esau. Hence, Paul concludes, God’s choice of people "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy" (Rom. 9:16).
The support for the blueprint interpretation seems to grow even stronger as Paul goes on to depict God’s relationship to humans as a relationship between a potter and his clay. God has the right to fashions us, his clay, however he sees fit. And this is precisely what he does, according to Paul.
"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:21-23).
According to some blueprint theorists, Paul is teaching that God simply fashions some vessels for destruction in order to display his wrath and power and other vessels for mercy in order to display his mercy. He hardens the former and has mercy on the latter. And this hardening and granting mercy is not based on anything God finds in the vessel. It is simply based on God’s free decision. If this seems unfair, as it undoubtedly does, Paul’s response is simply to invalidate the sentiment: "[W]ho indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, "Why have you made me like this?" (Rom 9:20).
I shall call this interpretation of Romans 9 the "blueprint interpretation," for it holds that the process whereby some become hardened and others receive mercy follows God’s eternal blueprint. Unbelief as much as belief is part of God’s plan. And again, it is evident that if this interpretation of this passage is correct, the warfare worldview I’ve been defending in this book must be mistaken.
I do not believe this interpretation is correct, however. In what follows I offer six considerations that I believe demonstrates the incorrectness of this understanding of Romans 9.
1. The Absoluteness of Christ and the Universality of God’s Love
First, as we discussed in the previous chapter, the view that God unilaterally determines some to be forever outside his saving grace contradicts the absoluteness of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Indeed, it renders God’s self-revelation on Calvary pen-ultimate. The unconditional love and the judgment on sin manifested on the cross become qualified by a supposedly more foundational revelation of God’s eternal selection.
On this supposition, the revelation of God in Christ only tells half the story: the other half of the story tells of a dark streak in God whereby he arbitrarily fashions some people to be "objects of wrath made for destruction" and others to be "objects of mercy…prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:22-23). He then eternally punishes the objects of wrath for being the way he designed them to be in order to provide a contrast with his gracious treatment of the vessels of mercy.
If this is so, we can only conclude that Christ is not the one, absolute, definitive, sufficient revelation of God. We must conclude that he is not the one and only image, word and expression of God (Jn 1:1; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). We must conclude that he does not sum up everything about God to us and everything about us to God. We must rather conclude that there is a more fundamantal, sinister "word" of God concealed by the word God speaks in Christ. Behind the image of God dying on Calvary out of love for humanity is an image of God making many humans for the sole purpose of displaying his eternal wrath in them. The beautiful Good News of God’s outrageous love in Christ conceals the horrifying bad news of God’s equally outrageous hatred. If this is so, we must conclude that God so loved some of the world that he gave his only Son (Jn 3:16), while the rest he had been preparing for eternal wrath and destruction from the start.
If we rather resolve that Jesus is our definitive picture of God, to be placed alongside of or qualified by none other, then we must conclude that there is something amiss with the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9. For Christ reveals, and the biblical witness confirms, that God is love, his love is universal, his love is impartial, his love is kind, and his love desires all to be saved (e.g. I Jn 4:8; Duet 10:17-19; 2 Chron 19:7; Ezek 18:25; Mk 12:14; Jn 3:16; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:10-11; Eph 6:9; I Tim 2:4; I Pet 1:17; 2 Pet. 3:9).
2. Has God Broken Covenant?
Second, the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9 assumes that Paul’s is concerned with individual salvation in this chapter. But, in point of fact, this is not the issue Paul is addressing in this chapter. The expressed issue Paul is addressing is whether or not "the word of God had failed" (Rom 9:6). That is, has God’s promise to be God of the Jews and to have them as his covenant people been rescinded?
The question was a burning one for Paul, for to many Jews this shocking conclusion seemed to follow from what Paul was preaching. Most Jews of the day understood God’s covenantal faithfulness toward them to depend on two things: their nationality and their obedience to the law. If what Paul was preaching was true, however – that is, if salvation was available to anyone, including Gentiles, simply on the basis of their faith -- then neither a person’s Jewish nationality nor their obedience to the law counted for anything (cf. Gal 5:12). It seemed that the uniqueness of the Jewish identity and calling had been undermined.
Even worse, it now seemed to be working against them. Because they strove for righteousness based on the external observation of the law (works) instead of faith, they were now being hardened – as evidence by the fact that so few believed in Jesus.(Rom 9:31-32). This meant that, if Paul’s Gospel was true, the very ones whom God made covenant promises to were now being hardened. Hence it looked like "the word of God had failed."
This is the question Paul is addressing in Romans 9 (as well as 10 and 11). It’s a question of God’s fidelity to Israel as a nation and the basis by which God makes anyone a covenant partner. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how God elects individuals to salvation. We are misguided if we try to use this passage to answer this question.
3. Election to Vocation, Not Salvation
The way Paul answered this objection also shows that his concern was with God’s relationship to a nation, not with individual salvation. Paul refuted the idea that God’s covenantal promises had failed by showing that God’s covenantal promises were never based on a peoples’ nationality or external obedience to the law. Rather, Paul argued, God had always exercised his sovereign right to choose whoever he wanted to choose.
Paul illustrated his point by referring to God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, made without any consideration for their attributes or merits (9:8-13). Both examples underscore God’s right to choose whomever he wishes, for both choices were made ahead of time and both were wholly unexpected. Moreoever, both choices reversed the role of primogenitor, both concerned individuals who were not exemplar in their character, and most surprisingly – and telling -- Isaac was supernaturally conceived.
In offering these examples, Paul was defending God’s right to choose whoever he wants and to do so by any means he chooses. Hence, Paul is arguing, it shouldn’t be shocking to Jews if God now chooses to enter into a covenant with Gentiles simply on the basis of their faith. At the same time, it is important to remember that in using Isaac and Jacob to illustrate God’s prerogative to choose whoever he pleases, Paul was not concerning himself with the eternal destinies of people. His concern was solely to show God’s sovereignty in electing people to a historical vocation.
To underscore God’s sovereign prerogative, Paul emphasized the arbitrary way God brought about a chosen people through Isaac and Jacob whose mission was to serve God and the world by being a nation of priests (Isa 61:6) and a "light to all the nations" (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:3). They were to be the means by which all the nations of the world would be blessed by hearing about the one true God (e.g. Gen 12:2-3; 18:18; 22:18; Ps 67:1-2; Isa 2:2-4; 55:5; 61:9-11; 66:19-20; Jer 3:17; Rom 4:12-18). Their election as a nation was always primarily about service, not individual salvation.
Paul emphasized the arbitrariness of God’s choice of the Jews to unsettle those who thought God’s word had failed because he had rendered their nationality and external observation to the law obsolete in Christ. Throughout Romans 9 through 11 Paul was at pains to show that God’s goal all along had been to reach out beyond the borders of Israel and win the whole world (Rom 9:25-26, 33; 10:10-21; 11:11-12). Indeed, Paul insisted God was yet going to attain his goal. But since Israel as a nation had rejected the Messiah, Paul argued, God was now going to use their blindness rather than their obedience to achieve it (Rom. 11:11-32).
In any event, we are clearly reading too much into Romans 9 if we think that Paul was suggesting that Ishmael or Esau—or anyone else not chosen in the selection process by which God formed the Jewish nation (e.g. all of Joseph’s brothers?) -- were individually damned. Paul is simply not concerned in this chapter with individual destinies. Indeed, he uses the examples he does precisely because they represent more than individuals: they represent nations. In choosing Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, in other words, God was illustrating his choice of Israel (the descendents of Isaac and Jacob) over the Moabites (the descendents of Ishmael) and the Edomites (the descendents of Esau). Again, this didn’t mean that all Moabites or Edomites were eternally lost. It just means that these nations were not chosen for the priestly role in history God chose the Israelites for.
This national focus is emphasized in the fact that the Old Testament passage Paul cites to make his point about Esau (Malachi 1:2-3, "I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau" [Rom 9:13]) is explicitly about the country of Edom. Some might suppose that God’s pronouncement that he "loved" Jacob and "hated" Esau shows that he is speaking about their individual eternal destinies, but this is mistaken. In Hebraic thought, when "love" and "hate" are contrasted they usually are meant hyperbolically. The expression simply means to strongly prefer one person or thing over another.
So, for example, when Jesus said, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26), he was not saying we should literally hate these people. Elsewhere he taught people to love and respect our parents, as the Old Testament also taught (Mk 10:19). Indeed, he commanded us to love even our enemies (Mt 5:44)! What Jesus was saying was that he must be preferred above parents, spouses, children, siblings and even life itself. The meaning of Malachi’s phrase, then, is simply that God preferred Israel over Edom to be the people he wanted to work with to reach out to the world.
Hence, there is no justification for interpreting Romans 9 as though it were trying to teach us anything about how God saves or damns individuals.
4. Paul’s Summary and Free Will
A fourth argument that demonstrates the error of the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9 concerns Paul’s summary at the end of this chapter. Whenever we are struggling to understand a complex line of reasoning such as we find in Romans 9, it is crucial to pay close attention to the author’s own summary of his argument, if and when he provides one. By all accounts, Romans 9 is a difficult, complex and highly disputed passage. Fortunately, Paul provides us with very clear summary of his argument in this chapter (9:30-32). Unfortunately for the blueprint interpretation, it appeals to free will as the decisive factor in determining who "receives mercy" and who gets "hardened."
Paul begins his summary by asking, "What then shall we say" (vs. 30)? If the blueprint interpretation was correct, we would expect Paul to answer by saying something like, "The sovereign God has determined who will be elect and who will not, and no one has the right to question him." As a matter of fact, however, Paul doesn’t say anything like this. He rather summarizes his argument by saying:
Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works (vss. 30–32).
This is extremely significant. Paul explains everything he’s been talking about throughout Romans 9 by appealing to the morally responsible choices of the Israelites and Gentiles. The one thing God has always looked for in people is faith. The Jews did not "strive" by faith, though they should have (cf. 10:3). They rather choose to trust in their own works. The Gentiles, however, simply believed that God would justify them by faith. This theme recurs throughout chapters 9 through 11. As a nation, Paul says, the Jews "were broken off because of their unbelief…" (11:20). This is why they have been hardened (Rom. 11:7, 25) while the Gentiles who sought God by faith have been "grafted in" (11:23).
We see that God’s process of hardening some and having mercy on others is not arbitrary: God expresses "severity toward those who have fallen [the nation of Israel] but kindness toward you [believers] provided you continue in his kindness" (11:22). God has mercy on people and hardens people in response to their belief or unbelief. And he’s is willing to change his mind about both the hardening and the mercy, if people change. If Gentiles become arrogant and cease walking by faith alone, they will once again be "cut off." And if the Jews who are now hardened will not "persist in their unbelief," God will "graft them in again" (Rom. 11:22-23).
To the Jews who trusted in their national identity and/or external obedience to the law, this hardening seemed arbitrary. Hence Paul chides them by asking, "who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’" (Rom. 9:20). But, as Paul makes abundantly clear throughout Romans 9-11, the hardening was in fact not arbitrary. It was perfectly consistent with the criteria of faith God has always worked with. He gives mercy in response to faith and he hardens in response to unbelief. Only people who were convinced that their national identity and/or good works was the basis of God giving mercy would think that God was now being arbitrary in hardening the Jews as a nation and extending mercy to the Gentiles.
5. The Flexible Potter and Willing Clay
Fifth, if read in the light of its Old Testament background, Paul’s analogy of a potter working with clay doesn’t imply that the potter unilaterally decides everything, as the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9 suggests. Indeed, in the Old Testament passage that makes the most use of the potter-clay analogy, it has the exact opposite meaning.
In Jeremiah 18 the Lord showed Jeremiah a potter who was working on a vessel that didn’t turn out right. So the potter revised his plan and formed a different kind of pot out of it (Jere 18:1-4). In the same way, the Lord said, since he is the potter and Israel is the clay, he has the right and is willing to "change his mind" about his plans for Israel if they will simply repent (Jere. 18:4-11). Indeed, the Lord announced that whenever he’s going to judge a nation, he is willing to change his mind if the nation repents. Conversely, whenever God announces that he’s going to bless a nation, he will change his mind if that nation turns away from him. In other words, the point of the potter-clay analogy is not God’s unilateral control, but God’s willingness and right to change his plans in response to changing hearts.
The passage fits perfectly with the point Paul is making in Romans 9. While some individual Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, the nation as a whole had rejected Jesus, and thus rejected God’s purpose for themselves (cf. Lk 7:30). Hence, though God had previously blessed Israel, he was now changing his mind about them and was hardening them. Ironically, and shockingly, the Jews were finding themselves in the same position as their old nemesis Pharaoh. He had hardened his heart toward God, so God responded by hardening him further in order to raise him up to further his own sovereign purposes(Rom 9: 17). So too, Paul was arguing, God was now hardening the Jews in their self-chosen unbelief to further his sovereign purposes. He was going to use their rebellion to do what he had always hoped their obedience would do: namely, bring the non-Jewish world into a relationship with him (Rom 11:11-12).
Even here, however, the sovereign potter remains flexible. If the Jews will abandon their unbelief – clearly God’s hardening is not determinative or irrevocable – the potter will once again refashion his plan and graft them in. Conversely, if the Gentiles ever abandon their belief and become prideful – clearly God’s mercy is not determinative or irrevocable – the potter will once again refashion his plan for them and cut them off (Rom 11:12-25).
In any case, we see that the point of the potter analogy is the opposite of what the blueprint interpretation would have us believe. Paul’s point is that sovereign potter has the right to revise his plans in response to the clay, which is exactly what God was doing to the nation of Israel. And, however arbitrary his revisions may appear to Jews who trust in their nationality or good works, they are in fact perfectly wise and just revisions.
This sheds light on why Paul responds to the charge that God is unfair by quoting God as saying, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" (9:14, cf. 18). He is not suggesting that God gives mercy or hardens people without any consideration of the choices people make. To the contrary, as has always been the case, the people God chooses to have mercy on are those who have faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. And the people God chooses to harden are those who don’t "strive for [righteousness] on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works"(vs. 30–32). But to Jews who insist that God must choose people based on their nationality or works, God’s right to have mercy on whoever he wishes – even if they have nothing other than faith going for them – needed to be emphasized.
It is also significant to note the original context of the Old Testament quote Paul is giving. The Jews had just turned away from God to worship idols while Moses was receiving the ten commandments on Mt. Sinai – the terms of the covenant God was initiating with them (Ex 32:1-6). God responded by telling Moses he was planning on destroying them and starting over with Moses alone (Ex 32:9-10). Because of Moses’ intercession, however, the Lord changed his mind and gave those who were willing a chance to repent (Ex 32:14-35). The flexible potter refashioned his plan.
In a tender dialogue between God and Moses that followed this episode, the Lord allowed Moses to behold some of his glory, telling him "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" (Ex 33:19). The Lord was saying that, to people of faith like Moses, he gives mercy, while to people like the Jews who rebelled – and like Pharaoh – he gives judgment. By choosing to have faith or to rebel against God, individuals decide which they will receive. They determine whether God will fashion them into a vessel of mercy or a vessel prepared for destruction (Rom 9:21-23).
This also explains why Paul says that God "endured with much patience" the vessels he was preparing for destruction (Rom. 9: 22). Why would God have to "endure with much patience" rebellious people if he was the one making them rebellious in the first place? Why would he go on to say, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" (10:21, quoting Isa. 65:2) if he was the one molding them to be disobedient? And why would a God of love intentionally fashion people to rebel against him and bring destruction on themselves in the first place?
In point of fact, the potter endures with much people vessels that are being prepared for destruction because it was not his original will to fashion these people in this direction. He would love all "disobedient and contrary people" to come to him, and thus is patient with them. But so long as they persist in their unbelief, they are clay that is can only be fashioned into a vessel fit for destruction.
6. It’s About Wisdom, Not Power
This leads to our sixth and final point. When Paul responds to the charge of injustice by asking, "who… are you, a human being, to argue with God?" (vs. 20), he is not thereby appealing to the sheer power of the potter over the clay. He is rather appealing to the sovereign wisdom of the potter in refashioning clay in a manner that fits the kind of clay he has to work with. When "clay" yields to his influence and has faith, he fashions a vessel of honor. When "clay" becomes "spoiled" (Jere 18:4) and resists his will, he fashions a "vessel of ordinary use" that is being prepared for destruction.
Again, this fashioning looks arbitrary to Jews who believed that they were the "vessel of honor" by virtue of their national identity or good works – Jews who did not "strive for [God’s righteousness] on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works" (Rom 9:32). It is to these people, expressing this sentiment, that Paul sarcastically asks, "Who are you…?" In truth, God’s fashioning is not arbitrary at all. It is based on whether or not one is willing "to seek" after the righteousness of God that comes by faith, not works (9:30–32; 10:3–5, 12–13; 11:22–23).
Conclusion
On the basis of these six considerations I conclude that the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9 is as misguided as it is unfortunate. It is misguided not only because it misinterprets Paul, but because it fundamentally clashes with the supremacy of God’s self-revelation in Christ. And it is unfortunate because it tragically replaces the unsurpassably glorious picture of God as Jesus Christ dying on the cross for undeserving sinners with a picture of a deity who defies all moral sensibilities by arbitrarily fashioning certain people to be vessels fit for eternal destruction -- and then punishing them for being that way. It exchanges the picture of a beautiful God who reigns supreme with self-sacrificial love and flexible wisdom for a picture of a God who reigns by the arbitrary exercise of sheer power.
With Paul, those who embrace a biblical warfare worldview can unequivocally affirm that the sovereign God "has mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whomever he wants to harden." We would simply add, also along with Paul, that the "whomever" he has mercy on refers to "all who choose to believe" while the "whomever" he hardens refers to "all who refuse to believe." The passage demonstrates the wisdom of God’s loving flexibility, not the sheer determinism of God’s power.
In this chapter I have argued that the warfare worldview can readily handle that passage which is most frequently presented as the strongest support of the strong form of the blueprint worldview. In the final chapter I shall continue this strategy as we encounter nine more passages, or sets of passages, that many feel stand in tension with any view that would deny that God always gets his way.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/16/2003 4:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
God has the right to fashions us, his clay, however he sees fit. And this is precisely what he does, according to Paul.
 I have a question. I HOPE this doesn't throw the thread off at all...
When I explain the "WHY" question of life to people I tend to equate life like a card game. Each person is dealt a hand and that is the hand they must play. There is no rhyme nor reason to why some are born into poverty while others are born into prosperity. No explanation of why some suffer all their life while other people continue to reap blessing after blessing... So, for me, the best way to explain this is to say that we were dealt cards and must play the hand that we were dealt. In accord with the card game of life, "God's fashioning us" is basically the hand that God has dealt us. We must play the hand dealt but have CHOICES in how we will react to the hand we hold and how we CHOOSE to react to our hand.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS EXPLANATION?
I would appreciate feedback because I want to improve the analogy I use if needed. I didn't pick up anything from the six considerations presented. Did I miss it?
Thanks,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/16/2003 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
. I didn't pick up anything from the six considerations presented. Did I miss it?
Oh my gosh! I reread what I had asked and the quote above may have come out wrong. I didn't mean that I didn't learn anything from the six considerations that Doc posted ... What I meant or my purpose was to check if anyone thought my illustration of the card game analogy was off... regarding the Romans 9 reading? I hope this makes sense. 
Thanks,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/16/2003 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc-
You rock! Good stuff. Eh, when do you write these books? From 3 to 5 AM? Sheesh. You must sleep about 2 to 3 hours a night. Before it’s over you will have out-written Augustine dude!
But ya know, the quote trosie included could use some tweaking. "God has the right to fashion us, his clay, however he sees fit," could simply mean God determines everything about us. If Piper wrote it I'd take it one way. Given that you wrote it I know what you mean. But could it be made a little clearer?
ReasonableDoubt-
Here are some other discussions we had on Romans:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1585
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=970
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=962
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=959
Trosie-
Assuming our "cards" include everything that happens to us in life, good and evil, then I guess what I don't like about the analogy is that it assumes God is the only one dealing the cards. But Satan deals cards to us too. And other people deal cards to us as well. God's not the ONLY one responsible for what we have to deal with in life. So while it's true that we have to play the cards we're dealt (that is, we can't live our life OUT OF a set of circumstances other than that we actually life IN), some of those cards were dealt us by God, some by Satan, some by others, and some we deal to ourselves.
Make sense?
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/16/2003 7:32:39 PM
Edited by - TGB on 01/16/2003 7:34:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/16/2003 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc - thanks for your explanation. I don't agree with the analysis- but will tryto make this brief...
1. If you're saying that his text is only talking about nations, and not individuals, is it any more just for God to choose one nation and leave another? The nation of Israel was chosen by God in the person of Abraham- one individual. The election of a nation entails election of the units that make up the nation.
2. If we believe the OT is historical fact, it is true that God chose Jacob, and not Esau. He did not bless Esau. Neither did he show mercy to Esau even t hough Esau ostensibly repented.
3. It is a fact of life that people are not all in the same position. God chose some to be born here, others to be born in Africa, some are very intelligent, some retarded, some beautiful, some ugly, some born into royalty , others into extreme poverty.That's just a fact whether or not we agree with it.
4. You say that "God has mercy on who he will" really means "all those who choose to believe." I'm baffled how that can be gleaned from the text. It seems that Paul says that God's compassion comes not from man's desire or effort, but from mercy. I would say that "choosing to believe" involves desire for something to be true...Even if that is the case, doesn't that still imply divine foreknowledge in that God is choosing before birth on the basis of the fact that much later that person will choose to believe? That sounds Arminian to me.
5. Anyway, Jacob was chosen by God b/c of God's sovereign Grace. At Bethel, Jacob actually tried to bargain with God precisely b/c he did not have faith at that point, he wanted more assurances from God. This was AFTER God promised the land to Jacob.
6. The Reformed view is that God foresaw and foreplanned evil, he saw the fall, but did not compel man to fall, he withheld undeserved grace from some, and grants it to some. We are saved by GRACE through faith- not just by faith....therefore the argument is, anyone who is not chosen for election is not damned undeservingly. Although it is true that God is love, that is not his only attribute.He is also holy and just.
7. If we say that God foresaw evil but did not include it inhis plan, God is blind and how could we be expected to worship and respect such a god. If Jesus' crucifixion was part of the plan from before creation, it absolutely follows that God foreknew sin.
8. Finally, even if we granted the open view of God, he still bears ultimate responsibility for sin, b/c he could have refrained from creating the world and us. Certainly he knew what he was doing and what would entail from his creating the universe. Even if he did not foresee what would happen (b/c it wasn't possible to b/c the future was not actualized) he certainly knew every possible outcome, correct? And he took a big risk, a big enough risk to be responsible, in deciding to go ahead and create anyway
Anyway- enough! Sorry to keep rambling on.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -Edward R. Murrow | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/16/2003 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Although it is true that God is love, that is not his only attribute.He is also holy and just.
I think God is holy and just because God is love; and I think that holy and just aren't distinct characteristics, but results of God's unconditional love.
That sounds Arminian to me.
Yeah. We aren't at a calvinist message board.
it absolutely follows that God foreknew sin.
Yeah, to me this text has to be taken literally to believe that there was an original sin. I prefer this to be a better explanation. (The link I just gave you is the thought of a process theologian, so if you already don't agree with the premises, you probably won't agree with the conclusion. It might look bad for me to link to a process theologian with all of the negative attacks open theism has had with their so-called association with process thinkers, but I find this too informative to supress.)
Blessings,
Paul
"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/16/2003 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | The basic understanding of Romans 9 (and 9-11) that Doctor Boyd expounds is substantially the Arminian point of view. I find this view to be the most faithful to the context of Romans 9-11 as well as the entire book, the NT, and the Bible in general. Many Christian scholars (such as Arminius, Wesley, Adam Clarke) down through the centuries have come to the same basic conclusion about this passage as Doc has.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on Romans 9 is available online:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/romans9.htm
It can hardly be argued that Paul is in these chapters *not* dealing with the fact that he is now extending his covenant mercy and love to all mankind and not only Jews. (9:1-6a, 24-30, 10:1-4, etc.)
10:12-13 powerfully expresses the theme of God's inclusion of all nations and not just Jews: For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. 13 For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
And this Israel-in-general-rejected-the-Messiah-and-so-now-the-Gentiles-are-offered-salvation theme is further stated:
10:19 Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
“I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”
20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
“I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”
21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”
Paul goes on to show that God has not rejected Israel unconditionally or irrevocably:
11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
11:32 For God has imprisoned *all* (both Jews and Gentiles) in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (all scriptures NRSV)
I find that "to the Jew first, and then the Gentile," is a basic underlying theme of the whole book of Romans, and Paul is in Romans 9 simply replying to a an hypothetical rhetorical Jewish rebuttal against the gospel message of salvation being offered to all mankind, regardless of ethnicity.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Edited by - John Earp on 01/17/2003 12:00:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/17/2003 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | When I said - that sounds Arminian - I meant that there is a difference between Arminianism and open view theology. Arminianism, like Reformed tradition, holds to the traditional view of God as knowing the future. I was trying to say, what's the difference between the OV and Arminianism interpretations? It sounds pretty much the same.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -Edward R. Murrow | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/17/2003 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I am sorry if I sounded condescending or anything. Upon reading open theism, one comes to find that open view theology parallels arminianism in some ways, just like the open view parallels process theology. It sounds arminianesqe, because it probably is. 
Have you read any works on open theism?
Blessings,
Paul
"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught
Edited by - A_Theist on 01/17/2003 11:52:54 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/17/2003 7:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Reasonable,
1. If you're saying that his text is only talking about nations, and not individuals, is it any more just for God to choose one nation and leave another? The nation of Israel was chosen by God in the person of Abraham- one individual. The election of a nation entails election of the units that make up the nation.
We're talking here about God's choosing nations for bringing about salvation to the whole world, not about choosing who (be it person or nation) is going to heaven and who isnt. Big difference here.
2. If we believe the OT is historical fact, it is true that God chose Jacob, and not Esau. He did not bless Esau. Neither did he show mercy to Esau even t hough Esau ostensibly repented.
First, it's known well enough that the langauge of love and hate here is not about love: "Oh, I just love you so much," and hate: "Gads, I can't stand you." I HATE YOU." No, it's just a way of differentiating. God is simply saying, "I've chosen Jacob as the one I will love in regard to my purposes issues."
Second, again, the issue of choosing between these two--the context of Romans--is not about who's going to heaven and who's not. It's about God simply having the right to use whom He will and to use the procedures He chooses to bring about His plan. But that in no way negates the clear, clear teaching of Scripture when it comes to literal heaven-secured salvation; all may freely come.
3. It is a fact of life that people are not all in the same position. God chose some to be born here, others to be born in Africa, some are very intelligent, some retarded, some beautiful, some ugly, some born into royalty , others into extreme poverty.That's just a fact whether or not we agree with it.
It may be a fact of life that people are not all in the same position, but that doesn't make it a fact of life that God ordains all of this stuff. Yes, sometimes He does, and He has every right to do so. But who's to say that OUR choices--this looks to the heart of the open view--have not also had something to say about the retardation with which some are born. And if I move to Africa and have a child there, haven't I been part of the reason why that child was born in Africa?
4. You say that "God has mercy on who he will" really means "all those who choose to believe." I'm baffled how that can be gleaned from the text. It seems that Paul says that God's compassion comes not from man's desire or effort, but from mercy. I would say that "choosing to believe" involves desire for something to be true...Even if that is the case, doesn't that still imply divine foreknowledge in that God is choosing before birth on the basis of the fact that much later that person will choose to believe? That sounds Arminian to me.
Again, the text of Romans isn't dealing with God's wanting to send some to heaven and others to hell. That's not even the issue, BUT the issue of God's RIGHT to choose period IS the issue; and the language of hardening verses not hardening is simply a vehicle to communicate that issue--that God has the right to do as He pleases.
But let's not forget that the issue of Romans 9 in general is God's right to choose a nation for Himself (Israel) in regard to His purposes at the expense of other nations not getting that opportunity. This is not about God denying those nations (or the peoples of those nations) the opportunity to come into relationship with Him--remember Nineveh after Jonah preached to them?--but only that they are not to be His choice for working out His plans. And to that I say He has that right.
5. Anyway, Jacob was chosen by God b/c of God's sovereign Grace. At Bethel, Jacob actually tried to bargain with God precisely b/c he did not have faith at that point, he wanted more assurances from God. This was AFTER God promised the land to Jacob.
But let's not forget that BEFORE Jacob there was Abraham, to whom God credited righteousness BECAUSE of his faith. The promises to Abraham were regarding his decendants, that they would be blessed. Jacob was one of them. But even Jacob came to a place of relationship with God based on faith. He came to know something of this God with whom he walked. But that's still not the point. The real point of Jacob in Romans 9 is that God can choose an individual FOR WHATEVER REASONS God wants to for WHATEVER plans God has. It's not heaven or hell here.
6. The Reformed view is that God foresaw and foreplanned evil, he saw the fall, but did not compel man to fall, he withheld undeserved grace from some, and grants it to some. We are saved by GRACE through faith- not just by faith....therefore the argument is, anyone who is not chosen for election is not damned undeservingly. Although it is true that God is love, that is not his only attribute.He is also holy and just.
The Open View is that while God does not see into a future that does not yet exist, never the less He still knew it was possible that someone in the Adamic line could "fall". Either view--Reformed or Open View--it is by God's grace that we are saved.
7. If we say that God foresaw evil but did not include it inhis plan, God is blind and how could we be expected to worship and respect such a god. If Jesus' crucifixion was part of the plan from before creation, it absolutely follows that God foreknew sin.
If we say (as open theists say) that God knew that evil was possible--indeed, evil would have to be possible in order to obtain libertarian freedom--and mankind did in fact sin, God knew this was possible and was well prepared for it.
8. Finally, even if we granted the open view of God, he still bears ultimate responsibility for sin, b/c he could have refrained from creating the world and us. Certainly he knew what he was doing and what would entail from his creating the universe. Even if he did not foresee what would happen (b/c it wasn't possible to b/c the future was not actualized) he certainly knew every possible outcome, correct? And he took a big risk, a big enough risk to be responsible, in deciding to go ahead and create anyway
Then . . . remember that you, then, too are responsible for all evil your children will do. Oh, you may not know every possible bit of evil they could do down the road, but you know well enough the evil acts which people, including your children, can be capable of committing. Surely you do not believe yourself to be responsible for these acts your children may commit? For you are not repsonsible. But you knew well the horrors that could result from your own childrn. And obviously, if there were ever to be any chance of seeing the positive come from your children, you'd have to take the risk. And so did God.
Good conversation!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/17/2003 12:07:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/17/2003 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | ''Then . . . remember that you, then, too are responsible for all evil your children will do. Oh, you may not know every possible bit of evil they could do down the road, but you know well enough the evil acts which people, including your children, can be capable of committing. Surely you do not believe yourself to be responsible for these acts your children may commit? For you are not repsonsible. But you knew well the horrors that could result from your own childrn. And obviously, if there were ever to be any chance of seeing the positive come from your children, you'd have to take the risk. And so did God.''
I'd agree that to some extent, people ARE responsible for their kids. In fact there are laws in some states that make parents liable for children's infractions. Anyone choosing to have a child is taking a risk, and depending upon the situation, is responsible. A single mother with 5 kids by 5 different men who decides to have another child is irresponsible and is partially to blame for the actions of the resulting child. However, this is irrelevant b/c the scale of God creating the universe compared to a person having a child is so huge as to be on a different plane. The most a person could be responsible for would be for their own children. God would be responsible for billions of persons. A difference in risk, if you ask me.
I agree- I enjoy the conversation. And you make some great points. I have read about the OV and some of it does appeal to me. Although I have been arguing from a Reformed position for the most part, I am not sure what my position is.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -Edward R. Murrow | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/17/2003 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Reasonable,
You said, Although I have been arguing from a Reformed position for the most part, I am not sure what my position is.
THAT, my brother, is what makes it all worth it, ain't it. I mean, yeah, it's un-nerving as all get out to have to struggle with trying to find our position(s). But you're in great company here. We're all working through something, and it takes guts to both admit it and do it!
Carry on, my good fellow!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/17/2003 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Good dialogue folks. Only have time for a very brief word.
* Trosie, with Tom I think the analogy of "dealing cards" for how God interacts with us has serious limitations -- unless you believe that God is not the only "card dealer." (If so, you have to accept he dealt the card of child abuse, rape, all physical and mental ailments, etc.... But I know this is not your view). In my view, LIFE as a whole is the card dealer -- all the decisions and events etc... that collectively impact us in the here and now.
Yet, the card analogy is useful in terms of what responsibility we should take. We can't take responsibility for "the cards we are deal" (by whoevrer). But we CAN and MUST take responsibility for "how we play our hand."
* Per the Arminian/OV debate.... I don't see any difference in how these two schools of thought would handle Romans 9. The issue in the debate is CONTROL, not foreknowledge.
Blessings
Greg
ps. reasonable doubt, I don't have time right now to interact with your response to my posting, but thanks for making it. I would, however, simply say that I think you need to read it again carefully because most of the points you responded to weren't ones I made. Later.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/17/2003 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
THAT, my brother, is what makes it all worth it, ain't it. I mean, yeah, it's un-nerving as all get out to have to struggle with trying to find our position(s).
If you visit ReasonableDoubt's profile, you would see that her name is Gina Lombardo and she is an attorney. Therfore, she is a sister.
Just thought you would like to know that.
Peace,
Paul
"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/17/2003 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your response to my post, Tom and Doc! I have a follow up question regarding what has been discussed on this board.
I tend to agree here with ReasonableDoubt quote:
3. It is a fact of life that people are not all in the same position. God chose some to be born here, others to be born in Africa, some are very intelligent, some retarded, some beautiful, some ugly, some born into royalty , others into extreme poverty.That's just a fact whether or not we agree with it.
Tom quote:
Assuming our "cards" include everything that happens to us in life, good and evil, then I guess what I don't like about the analogy is that it assumes God is the only one dealing the cards. But Satan deals cards to us too. And other people deal cards to us as well. God's not the ONLY one responsible for what we have to deal with in life. So while it's true that we have to play the cards we're dealt (that is, we can't live our life OUT OF a set of circumstances other than that we actually life IN), some of those cards were dealt us by God, some by Satan, some by others, and some we deal to ourselves.
Make sense?
AND
Starkman quote:
It may be a fact of life that people are not all in the same position, but that doesn't make it a fact of life that God ordains all of this stuff. Yes, sometimes He does, and He has every right to do so. But who's to say that OUR choices--this looks to the heart of the open view--have not also had something to say about the retardation with which some are born. And if I move to Africa and have a child there, haven't I been part of the reason why that child was born in Africa?
AND
Doc quote:
* Trosie, with Tom I think the analogy of "dealing cards" for how God interacts with us has serious limitations -- unless you believe that God is not the only "card dealer." (If so, you have to accept he dealt the card of child abuse, rape, all physical and mental ailments, etc.... But I know this is not your view). In my view, LIFE as a whole is the card dealer -- all the decisions and events etc... that collectively impact us in the here and now.
My main premise is that in the end result of life and in "the card game of life" the analogy the ULTIMATE hand we hold is dealt by God. I'd like to give an example of how I presently see it and where I agree with ReasonableDoubt. Let's say there's a man and a woman dating. They are passionately engaged. Now, Satan enters into the scene and deals a card their way by planting a thought of "Hey, you desire each other so why don't you GO ALL THE WAY!"
This couple now has a choice thus the next card is in their hands. They make the decision on whether or not to have sex. Let's say they decide to do so. They also hold another card because they are not using any protection...
The card that follows is natures deal because the woman happens to be at that time in her cycle where she will most likely become pregnant hence she becomes impregnated.
BUT the ultimate card is in God's hand. He alone is the author of life. He is the one who creates the little being inside the woman's womb. Yes, nature and heredity have much to do with the make-up of this little person but God is the creator of life and God knows all the possible outcomes that might result for this baby. He knows the probabilities of each of these outcomes too... SO, God is ultimately the one who dictates which family each person will be born, where they will be born... But then again when you throw in the child abuse stuff... this does confuse my thinking! Now I'll have to ponder on this a while again.
My belief has been that Satan put the thought in Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the fruit. BUT God is the one who placed the forbidden fruit and tree in the middle of the garden.
Hmmm?
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 01/17/2003 5:09:58 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/17/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If you visit ReasonableDoubt's profile, you would see that her name is Gina Lombardo and she is an attorney. Therfore, she is a sister.
Peace,
Paul
That's funny. See, I almost never check profiles. I just talk to people. I pictured ReasonableDoubt as middle-aged, slightly balding, and slightly graying gentleman. Why? I have absolutely no idea!
Gina, Gina, Gina!
Much better.
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/18/2003 01:15:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/17/2003 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | trosie: The card that follows is natures deal because the woman happens to be at that time in her cycle where she will most likely become pregnant hence she becomes impregnated.
BUT the ultimate card is in God's hand. He alone is the author of life. He is the one who creates the little being inside the woman's womb. Yes, nature and heredity have much to do with the make-up of this little person but God is the creator of life and God knows all the possible outcomes that might result for this baby. He knows the probabilities of each of these outcomes too... SO, God is ultimately the one who dictates which family each person will be born, where they will be born...
Tom: Now how did you back yourself in this corner?
Let's see. If it's true that God knows the future births of babies, the abuse they experience, etc., as POSSIBILITIES (and you agree with this), and the probabilities too, then it cannot also be true that God eternally "dictates" these things. So, if nature dealth "pregnancy" to this girl (well, actually the girl and guy dealt it to each other--nature in this case was just the mechanism), then God DIDN'T deal the pregnancy to them. They dealt it. Let's assume God did what he could to convince them to avoid having unprotected sex. God's the author of life. He's responsible for the mechanisms that are behind how we procreate. But is each pregnancy an independant positive decree of God's like the decree to create the world? Maybe not. Maybe God created sex to work the way it does and "gave" it to us. So when it works as he designed it, that doesn't mean he dictated THAT this particular baby was to be born, say, to this particular crack-addicted mother.
Sex works! What can ya say? 
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/18/2003 3:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul (A_Theist) said,
If you visit ReasonableDoubt's profile, you would see that her name is Gina Lombardo and she is an attorney. Therfore, she is a sister.
I OBJECT! On the grounds that . . . I uh . . . well, I . . . and . . . and let that be a lesson to me!
Sorry Reasonable! I forgot to do what I try to never forget to: ALWAYS check the profiles...always, always, always! I mean, for pete's sake, I'm old enough to have caught the tail-end of the sixties--folks walking in front of you with long hair WEREN'T necessarily female!!! You'd think I'd remember to never assume, you know!)
I apologize again, my dear good...fellowess? (No, that doesn't work) . . . um . . . .Your Attorneyess??? (Yeah, I kind of like that one!)
My humble apologies, your Attorneyess.
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/18/2003 08:44:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/18/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | A couple of years ago, my wife's 15-year-old niece overdosed on Tylenol P.M. when she found out that her 18-year-old boyfriend was cheating on her with a "friend" of hers. After a few days in the hospital (where they were considering having to do a liver transplant, but thankfully did not have to), she was admitted to a psychiatric unit. There she revealed to her mother and to her social worker that she had been sexually active with this two- (or more-) timing jerk. Needless to say, when all this happened, the entire family was thrust directly into an emotional tornado.
My wife said to me in tears, "Pray that she's not pregnant!" To which I could only reply, "Well, honey, it's kinda late for that, unless you want to pray for God to kill the baby." As it turned out, she was not pregnant.
My point in all this was that it seems that we often try to pray for things that are just absolutely nonsensical to pray for. (I mean that in the nicest possible way, really). Kind of like a teenage girl who has sex with her boyfriend and then prays that she's not pregnant. HELLO!?! Am I the only one who sees this sort of stupidity? I am by no means denying the possibility of God working a miracle, but it seems to me that by working contrary to his *physical* laws (working a miracle), God is not in the business of helping people to violate his *moral* laws.
Plain and simple, we all make *responsible* choices that impact others, God, and ourselves. The sooner we realize that, the better off we will probably be.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20
| Posted 1/18/2003 1:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear GregBoyd,
In my opinion, you are working hard at rationalizing away what Paul plainly teaches. God shows mercy to the vessels of mercy and withholds mercy from the vessels of wrath. He doesn’t make the vessels of wrath evil – they are naturally evil, as are we all – but neither does He shower them with mercy through the influence of His Spirit to overcome their natural evil and to make them good, as He does for the vessels of mercy. In Romans 9-11, Paul is giving his explanation for the failure of most of Israel to respond to the Gospel. Paul’s message is that God is sovereign and beholding to no one. He applies His mercy as He sees fit. The degeneration of the wicked is a natural process that God neither started nor encourages. Like gravity, sin acts to pull all of us down. If God extends His hand, so to speak, into a downward stream of grain falling from a grain silo, God himself not being responsible for the downward fall of the grain, and if in this process He only manages to save some of the grain from being wasted below, should God be blamed for not saving the rest, even though He chose in His sovereignty in which part of the downward stream to hold His saving hand? Should God not still judge that which He did not save? Yes, He should; it is evil. God is not at fault. He is sovereign. The charge leveled by those who emphasize free will against those who emphasize divine sovereignty is sloth for not taking enough personal responsibility in what will be, and the charge leveled by those who emphasize divine sovereignty against those who emphasize free will is arrogance for wanting to be in charge and not respecting God’s sovereignty. Earlier, in Romans 3:27, Paul explains that one of the reasons salvation is of faith and not of works is so that no one can boast. In Romans 11:30-32, Paul explains that the reason the Gentiles are experiencing God’s mercy in full measure first whereas Israel will experience His mercy in full measure last is so that all (both the Gentiles and Israel) will ultimately receive the same mercy in the same condition of helplessness; hence, no advantage, no privilege, no boasting. Israel initially had advantage and privilege over the Gentiles, and Israel naturally boasted. In Romans 11:17-23, Paul warns the Gentile recipients of God’s mercy not to make the same mistake, lest they forfeit God’s mercy as well. In Matthew 20:1-16, Christ speaks to this same issue, stating that the last (the Gentiles) will be first and the first (Israel) will be last, all receiving the same payment (salvation): “they murmured … thou hast made them equal unto us … it is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? or is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last.” In my opinion, Paul’s entire analysis in Romans 9-11 can be condensed to Christ’s parable in Matthew 20:1-16. So, yes, God is sovereign. He desires a certain outcome, and in His sovereignty He assures that it will be so. As Paul says in Romans 4:16 (ASV), “For this cause [it is] of faith, that [it may be] according to grace; to the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."
Sincerely,
Jim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/18/2003 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom quote:
But is each pregnancy an independant positive decree of God's like the decree to create the world? Maybe not. Maybe God created sex to work the way it does and "gave" it to us. So when it works as he designed it, that doesn't mean he dictated THAT this particular baby was to be born, say, to this particular crack-addicted mother.
Sex works! What can ya say?
Gosh, I had never thought of the creation of life like this. My initial reaction is that it makes each of us seem less important (not special) I have always thought of each individual person as being a work of art molded in the potters hands (God's masterpiece) but the idea you suggest would somehow minimize this picture for me. However, it would help in my attempt to understand why/how God chooses where and into what type of environment a baby will be born.Hmmmm.
John Earp quote:
Plain and simple, we all make *responsible* choices that impact others, God, and ourselves. The sooner we realize that, the better off we will probably be
I agree but (as was suggested) God can and DOES intervene once in a while contrary to the laws of nature. I believe in my heart that prayer, even in the scenario of praying for a teenager to not be pregnant, CAN/DOES make a difference. Usually, however, I would agree that God doesn't tend to go against the choices/consequences we create but sometimes He makes exceptions. Miracles happen everyday!
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION:
As I personally have been reflecting on Romans 9 there has been a question playing in my mind. I have been wondering if the intention behind Romans 9 was to teach us the importance of "Accepting the things we cannot change". I keep thinking of the story of "The Prodigal Son" as I read this chapter. In that story the older brother was overcome by envy, jealousy, and self-pity over how the younger brother was treated upon his arrival back home. Perhaps the intention of Romans 9 is to encourage us to keep in mind that God's desire for us is to NOT be overcome with obsessing about what we are NOT dealt but rather God is interested in what we do (how our character plays out) in what we are dealt. Instead of worrying about God blessing who he chooses to bless... perhaps we must simply come to a humble place to "Accept the things we cannot change"? What do you think?
I don't know, perhaps I am way off from what everyone else thinks but this has been what keeps coming to my mind as I reflect on this particular chapter.
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 01/18/2003 10:04:37 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/23/2003 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Gosh, perhaps I was WAY OFF in my assessment of Romans 9??? I received NO response to my question regarding what was jumping out from the text at me when reading Romans 9. I'm sorry if I got off track.
This is not a new thing for me, however. Often times when my husband and myself lead a bible study for some residents at a nursing home I tend to TOTALLY throw the discussion off. For some reason (?) I find things jumping out from the text that no one else seems to understand. Sometimes I think I irritate those poor residents. Perhaps this has happened here too? Maybe that's why no one has responded to my question???
I will post my question again so that if ANYONE wants to respond they can do so but I will NOT be offended if I don't receive a response (I'm used to it from the bible study with the seniors )
Here's my question: Perhaps the intention of Romans 9 is to encourage us to keep in mind that God's desire for us is to NOT be overcome with obsessing about what we are NOT dealt. Perhaps rather God is interested in what we do and how our character plays out with what we are dealt. Instead of worrying about God blessing who he chooses to bless ... perhaps we must simply come to a humble place to "Accept the things we cannot change"? What do you think? This would fit with my card game of life analogy.
Please DO NOT feel under any pressure AT ALL to respond.
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 01/23/2003 09:11:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/23/2003 4:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi trosie,
I think the way of thinking you are advocating here is diametrically opposed to the way of thinking implied in the Open View, and that is perhaps why you have not received any feedback as yet.
While it is of course true that there are many things one cannot change and one should in fact learn to accept these things (i.e., one's race, family, life experiences, physical traits for the most part, etc.), it does not seem that Paul is speaking of unalterable things in Romans 9. Rather, it seems that Paul is simply and only dealing with the issue of salvation in Romans nine; specifically, God's inherent right to extend the blessings of the covenant to Gentiles--to "have mercy on whom He will (in this case, Gentiles), and to harden whom He will (in this case, most Jews)
I think that the issue you raise would probably receive many amens were this board a Calvinistic one, though.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Edited by - John Earp on 01/23/2003 09:23:16 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:56 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|