 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 4:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
TGB
12/25/00 4:16 PM
Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-
The posts on Rm 9-11 seem to be tucked in pages away. Hope nobody minds my bringing them back out to the front.
Very interesting comments on Romans 9-11 by Greg and Lion-Lamb. I’ve read them many times. Without pretending to add to either’s knowledge of the issues, I did want to respond to the invitation to cast my vote. A few comments on Rm 9.1-13 should do for me.
Paul ponders the state of his people, the Jews. In spite of every possible advantage granted them by God, they have in fact rejected Christ and are cut off, while the Gentiles, total strangers to the covenants, have received Israel’s Messiah in droves. Paul’s question--What is to account for this? What is to account for widespread Jewish rejection of the gospel on the one hand, and widespread Gentile acceptance of the gospel on the other? Furthermore, is this state of affairs due to some change in God’s plan or character? Has he changed his mind regarding his promise to Abraham and his seed? If he has, then can even the Gentiles, who at present are entering the Kingdom in such great numbers, trust him?
God’s choice of Jacob over Esau is indeed irrespective of anything either good or bad in them. Lion-Lamb is right. But how are we to understand this choice of God? What does it demonstrate? Does it account for the state of affairs regarding which Paul inquires? Are we to understand simply that Israel’s rejection of Christ is nothing more than the playing out of God’s predetermined will for them? Hardly. Paul everywhere blames Israel for their plight. THEY are the reason they’re “out” (an essential point of these chapters). The blame for Israel’s debacle (something God is willing to remedy provided they believe) is placed squarely at their own feet.
So what’s the point of the Jacob/Esau episode if not to prove (as Lion-Lamb argues) that God predetermines each individual’s eternal destiny? As I see it the episode is brought into the play to demonstrate God’s right to set his own rules for determining who is and who is not a member of the covenant community. This ought to be understood in the light of the Jewish claim of inheritance based on physical descent and good works. Paul simply replies that God will not be prevailed upon by such claims. HE decides the rules that determine who inherits, who is blessed, who is rejected, etc. More importantly, he has NOT left us unaware regarding whom he has decided to bless and damn. The rule is clear. God’s rule is: “Faith in his Promise,” which when unfolded simply means “God has mercy on those who trust in him, not on those who trust in their religious works or physical lineage.”
The Jacob/Esau story demonstrates God’s right to set this rule, to choose freely those who he will bless. How has he in fact decided to choose people to be his “his people”? Simple: “Faith in the Promise.” That’s the unchanging rule which God reserves the right to make and which the Jacob/Esau episode demonstrates. It does not demonstrate God’s decision to choose WHO will have faith and who will not.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Lion-Lamb
12/26/00 12:04 PM
RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings TGB,
It seems to me that you say two contradictory things in your note.
On the one hand you say,
God’s choice of Jacob over Esau is indeed irrespective of anything either good or bad in them. Lion-Lamb is right.
Yet, on the other hand you say,
How has he in fact decided to choose people to be his “his people”? Simple: “Faith in the Promise.” That’s the unchanging rule which God reserves the right to make and which the Jacob/Esau episode demonstrates. It does not demonstrate God’s decision to choose WHO will have faith and who will not.
Do you not recognize that these two statements stand opposed to one another? If, in fact, God announced to Rebekah that he had chosen Jabob and rejected Esau irrespective of anything good and bad that they had done, since they had not yet been born, how then is it that God at the same time chose Jacob and rejected Esau on the basis of Jacob's faith in the promise? To say both things at the same time is a contradiction. God's choice of Jacob as a child of promise cannot be based on nothing Jacob would do and at the same time based on Jacob's foreseen faith.
I believe you have missed Paul's fundamental argument. God chose Jacob in order that Jacob might be a child of promise. God chose Jacob in order that Jacob would believe the God who promised.
Examine Paul's text, again. Check it out. See if I'm not correct. All I have done is paraphrase what Paul says.
It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7 and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, 12 not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written,
“I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau.”
14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
19 You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But 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?” 21 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? 22 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; 23 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— 24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/26/00 5:23 PM
RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGB writes: "...what’s the point of the Jacob/Esau episode if not to prove (as Lion-Lamb argues) that God predetermines each individual’s eternal destiny?...the episode is brought into the play to demonstrate God’s right to set his own rules for determining who is and who is not a member of the covenant community."
BINGO. BULLS EYE. OUT OF THE PARK. RIGHT ON BRO!!! In other words, I agree.
Paul establishes God's sovereign RIGHT to choose whomever he will with the Jacob/Esau choice (thereby also reminding the Jews that they didn't earn their vocational election... their forefather Jacob was simply chosen). He establishes what God's choice was later on (9:30f, nd throughout)when he tells us God has mercy on all who believe, but hardens Israel because they do not. [Hence, in response to Lion Lamb's objection, there is no contradiction between the groundlessness of the Jacob/Esau choice, and the fact that Paul mentions belief as the condition 4 times in chs 9-11].
To Jews who have always trusted in their own righteousness, this is shocking, arbitrary, unjust, and just plain NOT FAIR. What's worse, they find themselves in the unenviable position of being the vessells being prepared for destruction! THEY, the "righteous," are in the position of Pharoah. While Gentiles, those miserable dogs, are in the position of Moses -- just because they have faith! To THIS objection Paul responds, "Who are you to question God's choice."
To Lion Lamb, do you not see a contadiction between your insistance that God's choice MAKES one a believer or not, and Pauls insistance that God's choice is BASED ON whether one is a believer or not?
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/26/00 10:04 PM
RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Boyd asked,
To Lion Lamb, do you not see a contadiction between your insistance that God's choice MAKES one a believer or not, and Pauls insistance that God's choice is BASED ON whether one is a believer or not?
Greg, I'm sorry, but I do not see how anything I have said concerning Paul's Letter to the Romans contradicts anything Paul says. In particular, I do not understand the contradiction you allege. Please help me see it and understand it. Would you kindly expand upon the question you asked of me? Please demonstrate your case by expounding Paul's argument in Romans 9. Help me understand how I have contradicted what Paul says. I may be dull today. Perhaps its the heavy doses of decongestant I'm taking.
At any rate, your explanation would be helpful to show me the contradiction you see but I fail to see.
Thanks.
P.S. There is one correction I should note. I'm not sure where you derived the statement you seem to allege I have made: God's choice MAKES one a believer. I don't remember writing a statement like that. At least I would not, in moments of clear thinking, use such a phrase to describe my belief concerning Paul's teaching about God's electing grace. So, perhaps you would also show me where I said or suggested the words you seemed to cite as originating from me: God's choice MAKES one a believer. Thanks again.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/28/00 9:49 AM
RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
I was hoping for a reply from you that would clarify why you believe I have contradicted the Apostle Paul. Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/28/00 11:10 AM
RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb, Greg notes that "Paul mentions belief as the condition [for God's election] 4 times in chs 9-11." Your interpretation of the Jacob/Esau reference--in which you claim that God chooses who will be elect and who will be damned whether or not they believe--seems to contradict this theme. I think that Tom's interpretation at the beginning of this thread makes the best sense out of God's sovereignty and human responsibility to respond in faith. The fact that Paul holds the Jews responsible for their own lack of faith also suggests that it could have been otherwise. If their lack of faith is entirely God's doing, then how can they be blamed for it?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/28/00 11:13 AM
RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have yet to answer significant questions I have raised concerning your discussion of Romans 9 both in this thread and in the one called Does God create people specifically for hell?.
My most recent question, in this thread, was an attempt to seek a clarification from you concerning the following quotation from your note to TGB.
To Lion Lamb, do you not see a contradiction between your insistence that God's choice MAKES one a believer or not, and Paul’s insistence that God's choice is BASED ON whether one is a believer or not?
You have yet to respond to my inquiry how I have contradicted what Paul says. I’m feeling much better today, and I’m taking less decongestant medication. I believe your argument is becoming clearer to me, as I will address in this note. Yet, despite this, it seems to me that what I said in response to TGB accurately reflects and correctly represents what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 9.
Consider my argument with what TGB said as I place it adjacent to Paul’s words. Perhaps this will make it much more obvious that I have correctly understood and reflected Paul’s meaning.
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:10-13).
God’s choice of Jacob over Esau is indeed irrespective of anything either good or bad in them. Lion-Lamb is right (Lion-Lamb to TBG).
As indicated in the quote, immediately above, TGB agrees with me. What does it mean to say that God chose Jacob without any respect for anything good in Jacob? I take it that this means what Paul says: That God announced to Rebekah, before Jacob was born and before he had done anything good—including exercise belief, that he had chosen Jacob. For, on what warrant from Paul’s text can anyone argue that Paul’s use of anything good excludes faith? I find no warrant in the text for such an exclusion of faith from anything good. Yet, that is precisely what TGB and you have argued. You have both insisted that Paul’s use of the expression anything good, in Romans 9:11, cannot include faith, for you and TGB contend that faith is the basis upon which God chose those to whom he would be merciful. Yet, again I ask, “On what basis can you and TGB say that faith is not included within the anything good which Paul says was not the basis upon which God chose Jacob? This, of course, was my whole point to TGB when I argued that he contradicted himself by saying,
On the one hand
God’s choice of Jacob over Esau is indeed irrespective of anything either good or bad in them. Lion-Lamb is right.
Yet, on the other hand you say,
How has he in fact decided to choose people to be his “his people”? Simple: “Faith in the Promise.” That’s the unchanging rule which God reserves the right to make and which the Jacob/Esau episode demonstrates. It does not demonstrate God’s decision to choose WHO will have faith and who will not.
The only way that TGB and you or anyone else can affirm both statements quoted above is by excluding faith from being included in what Paul specifically calls anything good, which is not the basis upon which God chose Jacob. In other words, the only way TGB and you or anyone else can affirm both statements at the same time is by insisting that when Paul specifically excludes anything good that Jacob would do as the basis for God’s choice of him, the anything good could not include faith. Is this not correct?
Now I return to another significant question I raised earlier in the thread Does God create people specifically for hell?, which you have not yet answered. In that thread you argued concerning God’s election and reprobation, his choosing of Jacob and rejection of Esau,
Where we [Lion-Lamb & Greg Boyd] may differ is over this question: WHO is it that God has decided to have mercy on? And WHO has he decided to harden? I believe (and will show subsequently) God has mercy on “whosoever will believe” and he hardens “whoever will not believe.”
I alleged that this is not consistent with your open theist commitment to the belief that God does not know beforehand how his creatures will freely choose. Thus, God does not choose anyone on the basis of foreknown faith. It seems evident, at least to me, that you have contradicted your own open theist belief system by saying what I have quoted above. It seems transparent, at least to me, that you have lapsed back into a Classical Arminian view of God’s election or choosing of individuals. If you have not done so, please explain how you have not done so.
Furthermore, it seems readily apparent that you are much closer to Augustine in his explanation of Romans 9:10-13 than I am. Here is what Augustine says concerning this passage.
This moves some people to suppose that the apostle Paul had taken away the freedom of the will, by which we either please God by the good of faithfulness or offend him by the evil of unfaithfulness. These people say that God loved the one and hated the other before either one was born or could have done either good or evil. But we reply that God did this by foreknowledge, by which he knows what even the unborn will be like in the future. But let no one say God chose the works of the man whom he loved, although these works did not yet exist, because he knew in advance what they would be (Augustine on Romans).
Again, I quote your own words. When you explained the basis of God’s election, you said, I believe . . . God has mercy on “whosoever will believe” and he hardens “whoever will not believe.” How does your explanation of Romans 9:10-13 differ from Augustine’s explanation? Both of you believe that the basis of God’s election is faith to be exercised in the future. I have the same problem with Augustine’s comments on Romans 9:10-13 as I have with your comments and TGB’s comments. For, it seems transparent to me that Paul excludes faith also as the basis for God’s election, for faith is included in the anything good Paul mentions in Romans 9:11—“before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad.”
So, how do you reconcile your statements concerning God’s election and reprobation on the basis of “whoever will believe” and “who will not believe” with your commitment to the premise that God does not know the future free decisions of his creatures? How is this consistent with your basic open theist commitment?
What is your response?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/28/00 1:15 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
I'm still hoping that Greg responds to my questions. But since you responded, I will offer the courtesy of a reply. I quote your note in full and color code segments to which I will respond.
Lion-Lamb, Greg notes that "Paul mentions belief as the condition [for God's election] 4 times in chs 9-11." Your interpretation of the Jacob/Esau reference--in which you claim that God chooses who will be elect and who will be damned whether or not they believe--seems to contradict this theme. I think that Tom's interpretation at the beginning of this thread makes the best sense out of God's sovereignty and human responsibility to respond in faith. The fact that Paul holds the Jews responsible for their own lack of faith also suggests that it could have been otherwise. If their lack of faith is entirely God's doing, then how can they be blamed for it?
First, concerning the red segment of your note, you have not correctly understood what I have said. I have never claimed that God chooses who will be elect and who will be damned whether or not they believe. That is most definitely not what I have said in this forum nor anywhere else I have spoken or written on this subject. Rather, I have consistently insisted that the biblical evidence indicates that the only ones who will believe in the gospel and be saved are those whom God has chosen unto faith and salvation. So, only those who believe will be saved. And all who do not believe will be damned. That is what the gospel announces.
Second, you join all other open theists by simply assuming, without argumentation, the foundational assumption upon which your whole open theism rests, namely the open theist definition of freedom as the ultimate power of contrary choice. For you claim, The fact that Paul holds the Jews responsible for their own lack of faith also suggests that it could have been otherwise.
Third, you asked the very question of me that Paul claims an objector will raise against his argument (see Romans 9:19). You said, If their lack of faith is entirely God's doing, then how can they be blamed for it? Note carefully how your question is the very same question Paul said you would raise in objection his argument in Romans 9:6-18. Paul says, One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” Don’t you recognize that you have raised against me the very objection Paul said they would raise against his argument? Remember Paul’s response? But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” You must realize that I am convinced that all I am doing is reiterating what Paul teaches us in Romans 9. For Paul is the one who insists, “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (Romans 9:16). You raise against me the same objection Paul said would be raised against him. That confirms in my mind that I have accurately and faithfully represented Paul’s argument in Romans 9.
Finally, as I have demonstrated in my note to Greg Boyd (see the note immediately above), to insist as Greg and you are doing that faith is the condition for God’s election not only does not support your case for open theism; it is entirely counterproductive to your case for open theism. You quote Greg approvingly: "Paul mentions belief as the condition [for God's election] 4 times in chs 9-11." Yet, don’t you realize that you are arguing for the simple foreknowledge view of Classical Arminianism? If that is the way you want to argue, then why do you, at the same time, insist that you are an open theist. The fact that you argue, on the basis of Romans 9:10-13, that God chooses people on the basis of faith necessitates that you either abandon the claim that God does not know with certainty the future free decisions of his creatures or else you need to redefine what Paul means when he says,
Even before they 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) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau” (Romans 9:10-13).
However, since Paul insists that God told Rebekah his choice before they had been born or had done anything good or bad it is rather difficult to deny that Paul means that God made the choice before either Jacob or Esau could believe or not believe. Isn’t it?
What I find remarkable is how open theists complain that those who oppose open theism do not understand it, when in truth, these discussions make it obvious that open theists do not understand the beliefs of those who oppose open theism. I trust that understanding will increase on both sides. Perhaps the pursuit of understanding Scripture will bring all from both sides to believe, understand, and agree upon what Scripture teaches. Imagine such a world! Wouldn’t it be glorious?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/28/00 7:42 PM
RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Lion-Lamb. The contradiction I allege is between a) Paul's assertion that God hardened Israel "because of their unbelief" (4 times in Rom. 9 -11), b) Paul's assertion that Gentiles (and believing Jews) receive mercy because of their faith; and c) your assertion that God does not harden or have mercy on people because of their faith or lack of it. It seems to me that "c" stands in contradiction to "a" and "b".
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/28/00 7:55 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb: I wrote my earlier posting before reading your further responses to Ghost-Dog-Girl. Sorry I haven't responded earlier, but I have been quite tied up with the Christmas season and all. Some day I want to learn how you do all that fancy color stuff in your postings. WAY-COOL DUDE.
Now,onto the task at hand. As I read it there are two points that call for my response.
1) Do I (or GDG, or TGB) fall into classical Arminianism when we concede that God can "have mercy on whomever he chooses, and harden whomever he chooses?" If God chose specific individuals from eternity past, yes. But I don't see this in the text. What God decided was to have mercy on whoever believed.
2) Must we rule out "faith" as a good work, since God elected Jacob without any regard to any good work he did? No. I agree with you that God elected Jacob for his own providential reasons, without any consideration to his works (including faith). Paul cites this to show the self-righteous Jews that even their national election demonstrates that God has always chosen whomever he wanted. So they shouldn't freak out now that they find out (what they should have known all along) that God has mercy on ANYONE who simply believes.
Hope this helps. Wish I had more time.
Blessings my friend.
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/28/00 10:02 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
For all who are interested in learning HTML, which enables me to add the color and features to my posts, take a look at
Getting started with HTML. With a little practice, anyone can make great looking texts.
Perhaps our discussion of Romans 9 is close to an end. I’m certainly finding that as difficult as it is to engage meaningful discussion of Romans 9 face to face, this forum greatly magnifies the difficulties. I would suppose that you know what it is like to be speaking about a significant issue with colleagues or with students and have the sense that you’re talking past your auditors, though you believe you are speaking plainly and clearly. Well, that’s what it seems like I’m doing in this forum. It seems that when I compose my notes my words more or less scatter to the wind, for when I receive a reply, it seems the reply doesn’t address what I have said. I’ve taken part many on-line forums. It is rare that discussions do not fall apart, as I fear this one is. However, I am willing to keep at it a little longer, if you and others are.
I will briefly respond to your two points. I will quote your words in full to make sure I address exactly what you say.
Do I (or GDG, or TGB) fall into classical Arminianism when we concede that God can "have mercy on whomever he chooses, and harden whomever he chooses?" If God chose specific individuals from eternity past, yes. But I don't see this in the text. What God decided was to have mercy on whoever believed.
I’m sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood my argument. I did not suggest that you or Ghost-Dog-Girl lapse back into Classical Arminianism because you concede that God can “have mercy on whomever he chooses, and harden whomever he chooses.” Rather, I argued this: to insist as Greg and you [G-D-G] are doing that faith is the condition for God’s election [Ghost-Dog-Girl’s own words] not only does not support your case for open theism; it is entirely counterproductive to your case for open theism. This is what I have argued consistently in at least three notes. Both you and G-D-G have argued that God elected individuals on the basis of faith. As you and she have argued the matter in explaining Romans 9:10-13, such election must take place before the people elected have opportunity to act. That means that God chooses people on the basis of foreknown faith. This is simple foreknowledge, which is Classical Arminianism.
Now at last you have tipped your hand more plainly in this discussion. Before you kept talking about faith as the condition for election within the context of Romans 9:10-13 where Paul’s argument clearly has to do with God’s election of Jacob before he had done anything good or evil. But evidently the context of Romans 9:10-13 does not constrain you as it does me. For you have now moved away from speaking of Jacob and Esau as individuals. You have atomized Paul’s discussion of individuals into a discussion of no individuals but just a nameless, faceless, people-less category called whoever believes. There are enormous problems with such an attempt to explain Paul’s argument in Romans 9:10-13. I have time for only two.
Paul’s argument does not allow for atomizing Jacob and Esau into nameless, faceless, and people-less categories of national entities. Paul expressly speaks of two individuals, albeit unborn.
While attempting to protect against the alleged horrors of taking Paul’s argument at face-value, as I have done in all my presentations in this forum, you end up with a doctrine of election that offers little if any divine consolation for anyone who believes the gospel. Why? It is because, according to your teaching on God’s election, actual persons are not the objects of his election. Rather, your teaching on God’s election simply marks off an activity, namely the activity of belief, as the activity that qualifies people to be called God’s elect. I don’t find any consolation in that at all. Yet, open theism presents itself as the theology with soul and compassion for people. I find your doctrine of election utterly empty of any consolation or hope for anyone who comes to know how completely powerless one is to believe the gospel unless God grants us the gift of faith.
Secondly, you say,
Must we rule out "faith" as a good work, since God elected Jacob without any regard to any good work he did? No. I agree with you that God elected Jacob for his own providential reasons, without any consideration to his works (including faith). Paul cites this to show the self-righteous Jews that even their national election demonstrates that God has always chosen whomever he wanted. So they shouldn't freak out now that they find out (what they should have known all along) that God has mercy on ANYONE who simply believes.
For me your initial question and subsequent statement clarified one matter about which I asked. However, if you grant that God elected Jacob for his own providential reasons, without any consideration to his works (including faith), this raises at least two problems, as I see it.
Why are you unwilling to admit that Paul’s argument is from the way God chose Jacob to the way God elected all his children? Why not acknowledge that as God, apart from considering either Jacob’s works or faith, chose Jacob to be a child of promise, so God chose everyone whom he elects to be his children of promise? That is what Paul is arguing. Paul expects us who believe to acknowledge that it was not on account of our belief that God chose us, for he chose us the same way he chose Jacob, simply because he wanted to have mercy on us. Yet, while you admit that God chose Jacob without any consideration to his works (including faith), you try to make faith the basis of God’s mercy in your subsequent line of reasoning: So they shouldn't freak out now that they find out (what they should have known all along) that God has mercy on ANYONE who simply believes.
I fear that you have done what I commented upon in an earlier note in discussion thread Does God create people specifically for hell?. There I said,
I hope you don’t try to explain Romans 9:10-13 by suggesting that Jacob and Esau should be understood as corporate entities rather than as individuals, as you have done with Romans 8:29-30 (which I don’t believe works there, either)? For, I don’t think Paul could be clearer. He expressly refers to two individuals, but not just to two individuals but to two unborn individuals, to be named Jacob and Esau. Hence, God’s choice concerning these two unborn individuals cannot, by definition, be based upon their future actions, unless you adopt a view that would be essentially that of simple foreknowledge.
Yet, it seems that you have now slipped into treating Jacob and Esau, in Romans 9:10-13, when you say, Paul cites this to show the self-righteous Jews that even their national election demonstrates that God has always chosen whomever he wanted. Yet, the context of Romans 9:10-13 refuses to permit me to take seriously your nationalizing of Jacob and Esau here. As I stated above, Paul could hardly be clearer. He is not talking about national election. He is talking explicitly about two individual human beings.
So, after all this discussion of Romans 9, what shall be the conclusion? No one in this forum has yet touched my exposition of Romans 9 with anything close to a decisive response. No one has demonstrated any of my exposition to be flawed. No one has shown anything close to a detailed response that uncovers any weakness in my exposition. Yet, I have uncovered several inconsistencies and holes in the arguments of those who have responded to my work on Romans 9. Though Romans 9 appears to be the platform upon which our discussion has taken place, it has become clear to me that you and I have fundamentally different stances upon the platform of the biblical text. It’s as if I were speaking German and you were speaking Russian. We barely agree on anything after all the verbal exchange. So, perhaps we have come to the end of this exchange. I must say it was mentally and spiritually stimulating just to compose my exposition of the text. I had never written out any of this before. I pray that it will be as profitable to others as it has been to me.
Soli deo Gloria.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/28/00 11:19 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arminians hold that God foreknows the faith of those he elects, Open theists just say God elects those who have faith. I don't get your issue with this Lion Lamb.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/29/00 11:26 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso,
You say,
Arminians hold that God foreknows the faith of those he elects, Open theists just say God elects those who have faith. I don't get your issue with this Lion Lamb.
I have two brief responses.
First, it is not quite accurate to say, Arminians hold that God foreknows the faith of those he elects. Rather, Arminians believe that God elects people whom he foreknows will believe. The two statements are quite different. Think about it.
Second, the problem with saying that God elects those who have faith is really very simple. It does not agree with what Scripture says concerning God's election of his own people. It's that simple. For the object of God's act of choosing is people, not a nameless, faceless, people-less category called those who will believe. Furthermore, God chose people for salvation before he created anything, including any of us (Eph 1). That means God chose me unto salvation in Jesus Christ before he created anything, including my ancient father Adam.
Chosen in Christ before creation,
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/29/00 1:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Lion-Lamb, once again. Thanks for the tip on HTML. I tried it, but it didn't work. I'll go at it again later.
Three points of response:
1. Saying faith is the basis of election doesn't land Open Theist's in an Arminian camp unless they say that God elects INDIVIDUALS from ETERNITY PAST on the basis of his specific FOREKNOWLEDGE. We simply say God elects on the basis of faith.
2. You ask. "Why not acknowledge that as God, apart from considering either Jacob’s works or faith, chose Jacob to be a child of promise, so God chose everyone whom he elects to be his children of promise? "
I answer: Because Paul explicitly specifies faith as a condition for election later on, whereas he rules out faith and all other considerations in the case of Jacob. The point of the analogy is God's sovereign choice. All God's electing choices are his sovereign right. This applies to Jacob (hence the Jews national vocational election) and now to Gentiles who believe.
3. You say, "evidently the context of Romans 9:10-13 does not constrain you as it does me. For you have now moved away from speaking of Jacob and Esau as individuals."
I respond: I think I am as "constrained" by Rom. 9:10-13 as you are, Lion-Lamb. And I don't move away from speaking of individuals. But a) it is reasonable to ask, why does Paul use THESE two figures. Might it have something to do with Jacob being the father of the Jews, the
ones Paul is now combating because they think they are elect on the basis of their national identity? And b) nothing in this text indicates that Paul has salvation in mind in this electing. This
IS an example of sovereign electing... God does this all the time. But electing to salvation is just one type of electing. God elects (selects out of, chooses, etc.) nations for providential reasons
(e.g. Israel as priests to the world) and individuals to various vocations.
A final question: Do you believe that God has mercy on people BECAUSE of their faith and hardens people BECAUSE of their unbelief? If yes, how does this square with your using Rom. 9:10-13 as a paradigm for
election to salvation. If no, how do you explain Paul's repeated statements to this effect?
Predestined in Christ to be holy and blameless in his sight from the foundation of the world.
Blessings
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/30/00 8:52 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Jacob/Esau in Romans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
Keep experimenting with HTML. It may come to you slowly at first, but once you get the idea you’ll get proficient and create all kinds of beautiful texts with it.
I will itemize my responses as you numbered your comments.
You are right. Just saying faith is the basis of God’s election doesn’t deposit an open theist in an Arminian slot. I believe I acknowledged that in either my last or penultimate response. However, until you clarified otherwise, which you did in one of your very recent posts, I had to work on the assumption that your comments on God’s election on the basis of faith were continuing to explain Romans 9:10-13 as you began to comment in your initial note (Part I) on Romans 9 in the other discussion thread (Does God create people specifically for hell?). So, now that you have clarified the matter, I concede that your first point is accurately stated. Of course, that hardly means I concede that your first point is truthful. But then you undoubtedly didn’t expect that I would.
Now I turn to your response to my question. I asked, "Why not acknowledge that as God, apart from considering either Jacob’s works or faith, chose Jacob to be a child of promise, so God chose everyone whom he elects to be his children of promise?" You responded, Because Paul explicitly specifies faith as a condition for election later on, whereas he rules out faith and all other considerations in the case of Jacob. Hmmmmm! I’ve examined the text carefully. I can’t find where Paul explicitly specifies faith as a condition for election. I am looking for a passage where Paul uses a word such as chose, elected, foreknew, etc. in which he also uses the word faith or belief. I’m not having any success. Please, if you will, direct my eyes to the passage you had in mind where Paul explicitly specifies faith as a condition for election. Thanks.
Your third point consists of two subpoints.
You asked why Paul uses these two figures—Jacob and Esau. You suggested, Might it have something to do with Jacob’s being the father of the Jews, the one’s Paul is now combating because they think they are elect on the basis of their national identity? Paul’s reasoning goes far deeper than you have suggested. I will not reproduce my argument concerning this which others can trace in the other thread see (Does God create people specifically for hell?). Of course, Paul’s argument of Romans 9:10-13 develops upon his argument of Romans 9:6-9. Paul is explaining why ”not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants.” First, what does Paul mean by distinguishing the two groups—Israelites from Israel and Abraham’s children from Abraham’s true descendants? Paul distinguishes earthly people from heavenly people. He distinguishes natural-born Israelites from heaven-born Israelites. He distinguishes Abraham’s ethnic descendants from Abraham’s promise descendants. Put in Romans 2 lingo, Paul distinguishes people who think they are God’s people by virtue of having the Law and wearing the mark of circumcision in the body from those who are truly God’s people by virtue of having hearts circumcised by the Spirit of God.
So, Paul’s whole argument in Romans 9:6-9 is entirely consumed with the matter of salvation. Paul's whole argument in Romans 9:10-33 is entirely focused upon God's salvation. Otherwise, what does God's mercy mean? This, of course, is contrary to your claim that nothing in this text indicates that Paul has salvation in mind in this electing. I realize I’m contradicting you rather strongly here. However, the text of Romans 9:6-13 compels me to do so. For anyone who doubts me, it’s right there in the text Paul wrote. Check it out. Hey! If you doubt me, and you want to hear the voice of others on Romans 9, check out the great commentaries on Romans 9:6-13. [I'm aware that there are some odd-ball commentaries that will support anything anyone wants to argue. Such commentaries I do not regard to be great.] You’ll find that they agree with me. Paul, indeed, is speaking of salvation in Romans 9:6-13. Thus, the election of which he speaks in Romans 9:10-13 is election unto salvation. That, in fact, is Paul’s argument. He’s definitely not talking about Israel’s national election, as you suggested. Nor is Paul talking about a special kind of election of Jacob for an unusual vocational purpose, as you proposed. No. Paul is talking about God’s choosing of Jacob unto salvation and about God’s rejection of Esau unto perdition.
Finally, you asked: Do you believe that God has mercy on people BECAUSE of their faith and hardens people BECAUSE of their unbelief? If yes, how does this square with your using Rom. 9:10-13 as a paradigm for election to salvation? If no, how do you explain Paul's repeated statements to this effect? I will answer your first question in two parts followed by a response to your final question.
No, I do not believe that God has mercy on anyone BECAUSE of one’s faith. Though I may have more reasons, three should suffice.
First, the Bible nowhere says that God has mercy on anyone because of one’s faith. In fact, the Bible says just the opposite. In particular, Paul in Romans 9:10-13 is making just that point. God does not have mercy on anyone on account of one’s faith, for if he did, his salvation would be grounded in one’s works and not in his mercy. Paul's argument is really quite simple, if we will believe it. The Lord God says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” What does this mean? It means that nothing outside God moves him to have mercy on anyone. That is what the words I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" mean.
Second, the word mercy, as descriptive of God’s kindness, concerns not receiving what is justly due unto person. In other words, if God has mercy on me, it is strictly out of his kindness which is to say, God does not pour out upon me what is justly coming to me, namely his wrath.
Third, Paul does not argue that the Gentiles had faith and so God had mercy upon them. Rather, Paul insists that God had mercy upon the Gentiles and thus they believe the gospel. God had mercy upon the Gentiles and thus they receive his salvation. That’s Paul’s argument throughout Romans 9-11.
No, I do not believe that Paul, in Romans 9-11, argues that God hardens Pharaoh or Israel strictly because of unbelief. Unbelief is certainly present in those God hardens. However, Paul's argument in Romans 9-11 is far deeper than that. Paul does not address only human accountability, namely Pharaoh's and Israel's unbelief. He also addresses, throughout Romans 9-11, God's sovereign plan and purpose for hardening Pharaoh and Israel. In other words, throughout Romans 9-11, Paul's argument assumes the complete compatibility of God's sovereign plan and human accountability for unbelief. That is why Paul argues as he does in Romans 9:19-20 when he says, You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But 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?” So, Paul argues that God hardened Pharaoh to accomplish his greater purpose through Pharaoh, namely Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt (which was an earthly shadow of spiritual deliverance from slavery to sin). Paul argues in Romans 9-11 that God hardened Israel to accomplish his greater purpose through Israel, namely the salvation of Gentiles whom God makes fully Abraham’s children as much as he has made any Israelite Abraham's true descendant. Check it out. That’s Paul’s argument. See, e.g., Romans 9:24-33. Indeed, God requires us to believe in order to receive his salvation. However, the fact that the outworking of God's plan of salvation, namely salvation through his good news, is subject to the conditional requirement of faith does not mean that God's plan of salvation itself was conditioned. Yet, this is the mistake both you and Arminians continually make. You reason because God requires us to believe his good news, therefore God's plan of salvation itself was conditioned upon our belief, as if God subjects his plans to our wills (contrary to Romans 9:16). That is why you suppose that Romans 9:30-32 indicate that faith is the basis of God's election unto salvation. But you have a rather large problem when you read Romans 9:30-32 that way. Allow me to explain. First, Romans 9:30-32a does not speak of God's election but of God's holding humans accountable. Romans 9:30-32 say, What then are we to say? 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. However, Romans 9:30-32a are inextricably bound to the following words found in Romans 9:32b-33. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So, what does this mean? It means what I addressed long ago in the other thread (Does God create people specifically for hell?). Romans 9:30-33 portrays the compatibility between human accountability--God's requirement that humans believe--and divine sovereignty--the fact that God designed Christ Jesus to be the stone that caused Israel to stumble in unbelief. That is what Paul says. God brought about Israel’s stumbling over Christ, the stumbling stone, for the purpose of bringing salvation to the Gentiles. “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” See also Romans 10:19 where Paul cites Deuteronomy 32:21 which says, See Romans 11:7-10 where Paul cites more OT Scripture to make the same case that God foretold Israel that he would harden them for the purpose of bringing salvation to Gentiles. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a sluggish spirit,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”
And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and keep their backs forever bent.”
Your final question asks, If no, how do you explain Paul's repeated statements to this effect? I’m not completely clear on your question, but I believe you are asking how I would explain Paul’s insistence that having faith is the cause of receiving God’s mercy. Well, I trust that I have already explained that above. Faith is not the cause of receiving God’s mercy. Put another way, God does not show mercy to anyone because of one’s faith in him. Rather, faith in him is the result of God’s mercy. Mercy is completely undeserved; otherwise, by definition, it is not mercy. The gospel surely requires us to believe. But, the fact that the gospel requires recipients of salvation to believe the good news of God in Jesus Christ hardly suggests that the power to believe the good news is within any of us. Rather, the gospel is God’s power for salvation unto everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). God grants to us even our faith (Phil 1:29).
No one calls upon the Lord for salvation without believing. No one has faith in God apart from hearing the good news. No one hears the good news apart from someone preaching the good news. No one preaches the good news without someone being sent to preach the good news (Romans 10:13-15). The whole matter is of God, from beginning to end. Does the fact that it is all of God nullify the involvement of humans. No, not at all. God employs humans to carry his good news to those who have never heard. For God's power unto salvation is lodged in the good news, wherever it is preached by humans. God is not passive because he employs humans to carry his good news to his chosen ones. Nor are humans passive because God is actively working in and through those he redeems both to persevere in his grace and to bear the good news to others. May God be praised forever!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
01/01/01 12:46 PM
Faith as the Basis of Election in Rom. 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy New Year Lion-Lamb and all discussion listers.!
Computers are so frustating. I went to the HTML deal to try to learn how to type fancy faces, colors, etc. My HTML says type in this code. I do this and nothing happens. Moderator, someone, I need a course!!!
Okay, though I am grieviously disadvantaged because I don't have cute faces or color coded/bold letters, we must proceed.
In his last posting the LL master asks me, Where does Paul link election with FAITH and hardening with UNBELIEF? THIS, I believe, is the all important question we've been debating. Is election based on faith and hardening based on refusal to have faith... or is election just a reflection of God's (seemingly arbitrary, because groundless) will? Another way of asking this is to ask, is the point of Paul's illustration of God's apparently arbitrary election of Jacob over Esau to show us the character of all God's electing ways, as LL claims? Or is the point merely to remind the Jews of God's right to choose whoever he wants... so as to later argue his point that God has the sovereign right to choose to elect Gentile believers merely because they have faith?
I find references to faith and unbelief as the condition for salvation/election and hardening all over the place in Rom. 9-11. I'll give eight.
1) Perhaps most importantly, this condition is the bedrock of Paul's own summary of his argument throughout Romans 9, "What then are we to say?" (vs. 30), Paul asks. Paul DOESN'T say, as we would expect on LL's interpretation, "Well, God simply chose the Gentiles and rejected the Jews, the way he simply chose Jacob and rejected Esau." What he says is:
"Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have atained 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?" [Here we would expect Paul to say,' Because they were hardened by God, if LL's interpretation were correct. Instead, we find this] "Why not? Because they did NOT strive for it ON THE BASIS OF FAITH, but as if it were based on work" (Rom. 9: 30-32]. When people seek God ON THE BASIS OF FAITH, they receive mercy. When they refuse to, they are hardened. NOTE, they do not seek God on the basis of faith BECAUSE God had mercy on them, and they do not refuse to submit BECAUSE God has hardened them. Rather, God has mercy on them or hardens them ON THE BASIS of whether they came to him in faith, or not. It's a CHOICE.
2) The Jews were hardened because they "have not submitted to God's righteousness" but rather sought "to establish their own" (10:3). Don't put the cart before the horse. God has mercy or hardens IN RESPONSE to our faith or disobedience.
3) Becoming one of God's elect is profoundly simple, Paul continues. Give up your striving on the basis of works and trust in Jesus. "If you [note: IF YOU] confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe [note: If YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE] in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9). That is all it takes. Choose to believe. Unlike the standard jewish view of Paul's day, Paul says anyone, of any race, of any background, can enter into salvation -- IF If IF -- here's the basis -- they will "call upon the name of the Lord (10:13). The Gentiles are willing to receive this, but the Jews are resistant -- NOT BECAUSE God already hardened them, but because they WOULD NOT submit.
4) VERY IMPORTANT NOTE HERE. Following Isaish, Paul expresses expolicitly expresses GOD's attitude toward Israel in 10:21. "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" (10:21). This hardly sounds like the "hands" of one who intentionally fashioned them to be "vessells of dishonor." GOD wants to save all -- 2 pet 3:9 -- but people "resist God's purpose for themselves" (Lk 7:30). The Jews freely choose to be "disobedient" and "contrary" -- and it broke God's heart. He pleaded with them to change -- ALL DAY LONG. But to no avail. If they persist in this unbelief, they are good only to be hardened and fashioned for other purposes in the hands of the sovereign God.
5). All of this explains WHY "Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened" (11:6). WHY did Israel fail? No mysterious will of God's character or secret sovereign plan need be appealed to here. (God's will is clearly stated in 10:21 -- he WANTS them to come to him). The answer is, Israel "strove" by works, but Gentiles came by faith.
6) Just to be clear, Paul reiterates the point in even more explicit terms later in chapter 11. "They [Jews] were broken off BECAUSE OF THEIR UNBELIEF." (20).
7) God has kindness toward the Gentiles -- they are God's "elect" -- "provided [they] continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will becut off." (22). One must COME to God in faith and CONTINUE in faith to be God's elect. WE HAVE A CHOICE in this matter. Even Israel, though they are now hardened, COULD BECOME elect IF they would change. "Even those of Israel, IF they do not PERSIST in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again" (23). Further proof that God's mercy and hardening are responses to human's free actions.
8) The Gentiles are now given the opportunity to receive the Gospels "BECAUSE of their DISOBEDIENCE" ( 11:30). Why are Jews as a nation hardened? Easy. Because of their disobedience and disbelief. Why are Gentiles not receiving mercy. Easy. Because of their obedience and belief. Could anything be clearer?
Now, I frankly hold out little hope that Lion-Lamb will accept this argument or even enter into the framework enough to understand my argument. My experience with you, Lion, is that you hear all alternative interpretations to your own as attempts to skirt the clear and obvious meaning of the texts. (We are not as "constrained" by the text as much as you). As has happened at least three times now, I suspect Lion Lamb will again cite Rom 9:10-13, note that there are NO conditions specified here, insist that this should be used to interpret all the passages I just cited, and declare himself the winner.
But for all who are listening in, I think it comes down to this re: our understanding of Romans 9 (and 10-11). Do you dismiss (or I should say, somehow "reinterpret") all the passages where mercy and hardening are depicted as responses to faith or disobeidence in the light of Rom. 9:10-13 where God's election of Jacob is NOT based on either faith or works? This is LL's position., Or do you hold to the verses where mercy and hardening ARE based on faith and disobedience, and thus reject the idea that Rom. 9:10-13 gives us a paradigm for how God always elects individuals. It rather (on this reading) reminds the Jews that the calling of their own forefather reflected God's sovereignity... and hence THEY should not be shocked that God now is calling ANYONE who simply believes. THAT is his sovereign right.
I think we've run our course on this one.
Blessings
Predestined to be conformed to his image...
Greg Boyd
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/01/01 8:11 PM
RE: God's Unconditio nal Election & the Need to Persevere in God's Kindness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
I believe you are probably correct when you say, I think we've run our course on this one. I thought that some time ago, as I noted earlier in this thread. Unfortunately the discussion has come to an end on such a disappointing note. What do I mean? I mean your last note not only shows little understanding of what I have said and even less interaction with my last note, but also your note suggests you are irritated. Your ad hominem charges suggest to me that you are annoyed with this discussion and want to terminate it. You said,
Now, I frankly hold out little hope that Lion-Lamb will accept this argument or even enter into the framework enough to understand my argument. My experience with you, Lion, is that you hear all alternative interpretations to your own as attempts to skirt the clear and obvious meaning of the texts. (We are not as "constrained" by the text as much as you). As has happened at least three times now, I suspect Lion Lamb will again cite Rom 9:10-13, note that there are NO conditions specified here, insist that this should be used to interpret all the passages I just cited, and declare himself the winner.
Since the conversation on Romans 9 seems to have run its course, and you have invited me to end it, I will. Nevertheless, your note should not stand as the period on this discussion, for it needs considerable correction. I will strive to be brief rather than thorough. I will respond to each of the three sentences in the paragraph quoted above.
You are correct. I do not accept your argument as having biblical validity. However, you are also wrong to presume that I won’t even enter into the framework enough to understand your argument. I do understand your argument. I believe I have demonstrated that repeatedly. Furthermore, wherein I did not understand, I sought understanding. I explicitly conceded as much. Surely, one does not have to agree with an argument to understand it. You, however, have not understood my argument, and I will demonstrate that in the third point below.
Hmmmm! I’m disappointed that having such little experience in dialoging with Lion-Lamb you confidently think you know Lion-Lamb. Therefore, on what basis can you confidently say, you hear all alternative interpretations to your own as attempts to skirt the clear and obvious meaning of the texts? Do you know Lion-Lamb? Didn’t you just meet Lion-Lamb recently in this forum? However, more to the point, it seems that I have annoyed you by pressing you to deal with the Scriptures. Should I apologize for expecting you, a theologian, to expound the Scriptures plainly, forthrightly, and do so without imposing onto the biblical text your biases? From my vantage point, all I have done is call upon you to do what I have endeavored to do, namely handle carefully, precisely, thoughtfully the Scriptures Paul wrote to the Romans and to strive to do so without imposing upon Paul’s words our own theological biases.
I trust it is evident to readers of this forum who take time to ponder carefully the extended notes that have passed between us that I have dealt with Paul’s Letter to the Romans more closely than you have. I trust it is also obvious that I have taken Paul’s words, phrases, and expressions as my own, so that what I have written essentially paraphrases Paul’s words. This, of course, is not to imply that I regard myself as equal with Paul. No, I’m quite aware that, as you, I also must interpret Paul’s words. However, before God, I honestly and humbly believe I have more properly interpreted Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 than you have, and I believe my exposition demonstrates that. But why should I have to indulge in such foolish talk? It’s because you decided to turn to ad hominem arguments as you seek to terminate this discussion.
After I have carefully maintained a high level of exposition and civil discussion on a difficult biblical passage, in your final note you seem to indict me, and that with a rather snippety tone. First, you virtually allege that I equate myself with the Apostle Paul, as you indicate in words I quoted above in italics. Second, you presume to know my response before I even have opportunity to offer it. And third, you presume that this extended engagement in discussion is little more than a game for me, a game I must win. For you announced, As has happened at least three times now, I suspect Lion Lamb will again cite Rom 9:10-13, note that there are NO conditions specified here, insist that this should be used to interpret all the passages I just cited, and declare himself the winner. Think what you will, there is One who judges me, and I assure you that, concerning all you allege against me, my conscience is clear before humans and God.
Now I move to your third statement which concerns the bulk of your note. You said, As has happened at least three times now, I suspect Lion Lamb will again cite Rom 9:10-13, note that there are NO conditions specified here, insist that this should be used to interpret all the passages I just cited, and declare himself the winner. Here is where you demonstrate how you have either poorly read my notes or, if you have read them closely, how you have poorly understood my notes. Your first enumerated point illustrates your error. You claim,
"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?" [Here we would expect Paul to say,' Because they were hardened by God, if LL's interpretation were correct. . . .]
You are wrong. I will take these two quotes in reverse order. As a matter of fact, I commented on Romans 9:30-32 in my Part 2 in Does God create people specifically for hell?. I explicitly quoted the passage and commented upon it. I quote in full that portion. Check it out.
So, in Romans 9:30-33, Paul states,
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
Note carefully, Paul’s full integration of human accountability and divine provocation. Israel “pursued a Law of righteousness” and failed to attain it, because they did not pursue it by faith but rather as if it were by works. Thus, the larger part of Israel “stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone.’” Who was that stone of stumbling? The stone of stumbling is a person—Christ Jesus (Isa 8:13-15; Isa 28:16; Luke 2:34; 1 Peter 2:6-9). Who laid the stone of stumbling with the design that the majority of Israel should stumble over Jesus Christ? The text says, “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (Rom 9:33; Isa 28:16). So, who determined beforehand that the larger part of Israel should stumble over Jesus Christ? The Lord God did. If the Lord determined beforehand that Christ should cause the stumbling and destruction of so many Israelites, surely the Israelites themselves are not accountable for their unbelief and apostasy, are they? Indeed, they are fully accountable for their unbelief and hardened hearts. The Lord God who planned their stumbling through hardened hearts bears no culpability for their apostasy and destruction.
Did you not notice how I made every effort to preserve the proper biblical tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility? Did you not notice how I underscored the point that in Romans 9:30-33 Paul insists that human accountability for unbelief and God's provocation to unbelief are fully compatible? I did so by taking note of it when I said, Note carefully, Paul’s full integration of human accountability and divine provocation. I drew attention to it by pointing out how Israel was unbelieving and at the same time, Israel’s unbelief was provoked by God who placed before them the cause for stumbling, namely Jesus Christ. Notice, again, that Romans 9:30-33 has both elements within it—human accountability and divine sovereignty. Israel was unbelieving and stumbled over Christ Jesus. God placed Jesus Christ before them for the very purpose of provoking them to stumble in unbelief. It’s all right there in the text Paul wrote in Romans 9:30-33. So, you wrongly charge me with imposing God’s unconditional election upon passages such as Romans 9:30-32. Just because you don't understand how Paul or how I hold human accountability for unbelief and God's sovereign provocation to unbelief together hardly provides any warrant for your allegation that I would have Paul insert the words Because they were hardened by God as the explanation for Israel's failure to succeed in attaining their goal as they pursued the Law of righteousness (Romans 9:31). You have to realize that I do take Paul's words seriously. I take it exactly as he wrote it. The reason Israel failed to attain righteousness is that they did not pursue it by faith but they pursued righteousness as if it were grounded upon works. But, you also have to realize that I accept Paul's words in Romans 9:33 as the ultimate explanation for Israel's unbelief which justly condemns them in God's courtroom. Ultimately, Paul makes it clear, God provoked Israel unto unbelief. They stumbled over the stumbling stone God placed in their way, just as God had foretold he would do.
They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (Romans 9:32b-33).
So, Greg, again I say you are wrong in your prediction concerning what I will say. I have not done so anywhere in these discussions nor will I draw attention to the fact that there are no conditions for God’s election specified in Romans 9:10-13 and insist that this should be used to interpret all the passages you cited, including Romans 9:30-32, Romans 10:3, 9, 13-15, 21; 11:22-23. Trace my arguments in each of my notes. You will never find that I impose God’s sovereign election from passages such as Romans 9:10-13 upon passages that call upon humans to believe, to obey, to persevere in faith, such as Romans 11:17-22. I take great pains not to do that. In fact, if you knew me as my friends know me, you would realize that I have often been accused of being an Arminian because I take seriously all biblical warnings such as the one found in Romans 11:17-22. People frequently accuse me of not believing in the Perseverance of the Saints, or as some call it Eternal Security. Therefore, I find your allegation not only ironic but also far from the target, for I demonstrated in my second note (my Part 2 in Does God create people specifically for hell?) that I most assuredly do not smuggle God’s unconditioned election from Romans 9:11-13 into Romans 11:17-22 to explain God’s warnings to believing Gentiles. Below is the relevant portion of Part 2. First, is the principal statement of that segment followed by the third of three bullet points that support my argument.
Thirdly, throughout both of Greg’s two-part response on Romans 9 he has sneaked human decision and action—belief and unbelief—into Paul’s passages where he speaks expressly of God’s determination. Invariably, in Classic Arminian style, wherever Paul speaks of God’s action, not grounded in human choice, Greg smuggles into the context words and phrases Paul uses elsewhere to depict human accountability.
As I approach the end of Part 2, please bear with me as I illustrate, in reverse, what Greg has done as described in the bullet immediately above. I will go to another passage in Romans, one that Greg mentions—Romans 11:22. Greg, open theists, and Classical Arminians, I want you to know that I sympathize with you when you read many so-called Calvinists who comment on Romans 11:22. The text says, Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. Many so-called Calvinists explain Paul’s stern warning like this: The olive tree is not the spiritual church, which consists of only the elect who can never fall away and perish forever. Rather, the olive tree is simply the professing church that consists of both the elect and non-elect. So, when Paul admonishes us to persevere in God’s kindness, lest we be cut off, he means that anyone who does not remain in God’s kindness proves by being cut off that one never truly belonged to God. Plenty of so-called Calvinists smuggle Romans 8:29-39, for example, into Romans 11:17-22 and by doing so, at best mute the warning and at worst nullify the warning. I candidly reject such efforts by any Calvinist—whether John Calvin, John Owen, Wayne Grudem, or whomever—who smuggles divine election passages into divine admonition/warning passages and then explains the warnings as if they don’t really speak to God’s elect. This, I submit, is just the reverse of what you, open theists, and Classical Arminians have done with Romans 9:6-16. I trust it is obvious. It surely is obvious to me.
Perhaps I will only confuse you, but I need to reinforce the point I made in the argument I just cited above. I believe with all my heart that Paul’s warnings in Romans 11:17-22 are absolutely serious. I believe that if I fail to heed Paul’s warnings I shall perish forever and ever. I believe that if I do not continue in God’s kindness, I shall surely be cut off. This means that if I do not persevere in God’s kindness, I will be severed from the root and I will perish for eternity.
So, you see, I don’t hijack God’s unconditional election from one passage, such as Romans 9:10-13, and impose it upon Romans 9:30-32 or onto Romans 11:17-22 or upon any other passage that requires me to believe or to obey God’s call in the gospel. But you have done precisely the reverse of what you allege against me. And I demonstrated that in Part 2 as I have shown above. I’m truly sorry I have to be quite so blunt about the matter. I wish you hadn’t thrown down the gauntlet, as you did.
I suppose that our discussion of Romans 9 comes to an end. As I’ve said before, I have been mentally and spiritually strengthened by this exchange. However, I am saddened that you have misunderstood so much of my argument. I trust, however, that others have understood and more will come to this forum and read with understanding and be moved to embrace the truth of Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11.
At times Lion-Lamb bleats. Sometimes Lion-Lamb purrs. In this note Lion-Lamb comes somewhat close to a mild roar. I trust it suffices. I prefer to purrrrrrrrrr!
Lion-Lamb
P.S. Discerning readers will recognize that the remainder of your note, consisting of seven other points, has been addressed sufficiently in my previous notes. There are things I could expand upon, but lest Lion-Lamb roar too loudly, I leave it for another day, if it becomes necessary to address them.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
01/01/01 8:34 PM
RE: RE: God's Unconditio nal Election & the Need to Persevere in God's Kindness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay okay, I re-read my last posting, and I think I owe Lion-lamb something of an apology. My last paragraph came off as a bit (how did you describe it Lion-Lamb? "snippie"?) snippie. I apologize. I wanted to express something of my frustration... but I didn't mean for it to come across that way. Not good. Repent repent.
You once said that you suspected that you and I speak different languages, hence talk past each other. I'm inclined to agree, especially after your last posting. After all your interrogating of me about why I don't take the election of Jacob as normative of all election, you now seem to say its NOT normative. In this last positing it almost looked like you're willing to say God elects on the basis of faith and hardens on the basis of unbelief.
Actually , it almost looks to me like you're trying to say BOTH... viz. As with Jacob, God "has mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy and hardens whomever he wants to harden" -- WITHOUT consideration of their faith or works. AND, as with the Gentiles and Jews, God has mercy on some because of their faith and hardens others because of their disobedience. If this is what you've been arguing for all along, I apologize for missing it. But the reason I would have missed it is that (nothing ad hominem intended here) it seems so blatantly contradictory that I would instinctly assume you didn't mean this. Is this what you're saying, Lion-Lamb?
Again, I'm sorry I was grouchy in my previous note.
Respectfully yours
A brother with a different language
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/01/01 9:51 PM
RE: RE: RE: God's Unconditio nal Election & the Need to Persevere in God's Kindness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
Clearly, Lion-Lamb must purr once more. First, your apology is accepted. Purrrrrrr!
Second, I fear we do speak different languages, and I fear we are basically talking different languages tonight. However, I believe I know how to understand your language, even though it is foreign to me. I will try to explain myself once more.
First, no, I do not believe God elects anyone on the basis of faith. I cannot affirm such a belief, for I am convinced it is hostile to what Scripture says quite plainly in Romans 9:6-13. As I’ve indicated before, the reason I cannot and will not believe that God elects anyone on the basis of faith is that mercy would no longer be mercy and grace would no longer be grace. Rather, God’s mercy would be based upon some quality in the individual recipient. It seems obvious that Paul addresses this question plainly in Romans 11:5-6 where he says, So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. If God has mercy on a person because that person believes, how is God being merciful? In order for God’s mercy to be mercy, the person who receives his mercy cannot have any claim whatsoever upon God to constrain him to act with favor. My faith is not the cause of God’s mercy to be shown to me. Rather, God’s mercy is the cause of my faith in him.
Second, as I said in my note of 12/30/00 (above in this thread) God’s hardening of human hearts against his own commandments is not strictly because of unbelief nor is it strictly because of God’s choice to harden them. Earlier I said,
No, I do not believe that Paul, in Romans 9-11, argues that God hardens Pharaoh or Israel strictly because of unbelief. Unbelief is certainly present in those God hardens. However, Paul's argument in Romans 9-11 is far deeper than that. Paul does not address only human accountability, namely Pharaoh's and Israel's unbelief. He also addresses, throughout Romans 9-11, God's sovereign plan and purpose for hardening Pharaoh and Israel. In other words, throughout Romans 9-11, Paul's argument assumes the complete compatibility of God's sovereign plan and human accountability for unbelief.
God does not harden humans in precisely the same way God saves humans. In order for God to harden sinful humans he can simply withhold his saving grace from them while revealing his saving power in their presence, such as God did through Moses in Pharaoh’s presence. I believe that what Paul is convinced of when he wrote Romans 9:10-13 is that God planned the destinies of his fallen creatures. I am convinced that Paul believed that God conceived of Jacob and Esau as fallen creatures. Thus, in order for God’s purpose concerning Esau to come to fruition, God did not harden a spiritually neutral and malleable child. No, both Esau and Jacob were conceived as fallen infants. Both Esau and Jacob were born sinners. Both were sinful in their behavior as well. So, Esau stood justly condemned before God, for he was a sinner. Of course, Jacob also stood justly condemned before God, because he also was a sinner. God simply withheld his saving grace from Esau. However, in order for God’s saving purpose for Jacob to take fruition, he not only chose Jacob to be a child of promise (cf. Romans 9:8), but he also acted mercifully upon Jacob to bring him to believe the promise he had made with Abraham. So, I believe with all my heart that God’s election of Jacob is normative. It’s the way God elected all his children of promise. That is precisely Paul’s argument in Romans 9:6-13.
Third, you said,
Actually , it almost looks to me like you're trying to say BOTH... viz. As with Jacob, God "has mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy and hardens whomever he wants to harden" -- WITHOUT consideration of their faith or works. AND, as with the Gentiles and Jews, God has mercy on some because of their faith and hardens others because of their disobedience. But the reason I would have missed it is that (nothing ad hominem intended here) it seems so blatantly contradictory that I would instinctly assume you didn't mean this. Is this what you're saying, Lion-Lamb?
I’m glad you said it almost looks that way to you. You claim it seems so blatantly contradictory. I, on the other hand, insist that what I have consistently affirmed is entirely compatible. As you have presented it in the quote above, you are correct. It is blatantly contradictory. That is why I don’t believe as you have presented it above. What I believe is altogether different. Refer again to the point I just made above in bullets #1 and #2. God does not have mercy on anyone because one believes the promise. I have consistently argued, from Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11, that God must choose one to be a child of promise and make that one a child of promise in order for that one to believe the promise God made with Abraham. In other words, no one is capable of believing the promise for salvation apart from God’s initiative to make that one his own child of promise by God’s choosing that one and acting to save that one. What I am saying and have been saying consistently, from the beginning of our discussion, is altogether contrary to your summary quoted above.
Lion-Lamb purring again.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
01/02/01 2:09 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: God's Unconditio nal Election & the Need to Persevere in God's Kindness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for being gracious Lion Lamb.
I think I undestand your position now. Here's my summary (to myself). You clearly want to hold Romans 9:10-13 -- the election of Jacob -- up as the interpretative key to this whole passage (Rom. 9-11). You clearly want to deny that God elects people on the basis of their faith or works (you seem to equate the two in your treatment of 11:5). But you also want to stress that faith is a condition for election while also stressing that the election itself is unconditional. Faith accompanies election, but is not its basis. You also clearly want to say that God hardens people on the basis of their unbelief, but not ONLY on the basis of their unbelief: he also has his providential reasons. (This only stands to reason, since if God did it ONLY on the basis of unbelief, in your view we'd ALL be hardened. Hence, Tthe decisive variable in deciding who gets hardened and who doesn't is [I take it] God).
As I've mentioned before, the central exegetical problem I have with your interpretation of Rom. 9-11 as a whole is that I cannot bring myself to read Paul's statements about faith and unbelief the way you do. That is, I cannot read them as simply expressions of what accompanies salvation or hardening. As I read Paul, faith and lack of faith IS the BASIS upon which God elects or hardens people. I can't help but read Paul as teaching that God has mercy on people BECAUSE of their faith and hardens people BECAUSE of their lack of faith.
"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 work" (Rom. 9: 30-32]. The Jews were hardened because they "have not submitted to God's righteousness" but rather sought "to establish their own" (10:3). "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9). "Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened" (11:6). "They [Jews] were broken off BECAUSE OF THEIR UNBELIEF." (20). God has kindness toward the Gentiles "provided [they] continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will becut off." (22). "Even those of Israel, IF they do not PERSIST in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again" (23). To me, these passages tell us WHY some are elected and WHY others are hardened.
I don't think this "why" compromises in the least the fact that God's election is by grace. Grace is opposed to works, not faith. "Works" in Paul's context would mean primarily the works of the law as a means of gaining righteousness before God. Because of Paul's statements I see now need to suppose that God is the one who decides WHICH INDIVIDUALS will be elected and which individuals will be hardened. WHOEVER believes is elected. WHOWEVER does not is hardened. The passages you cite (e.g. 9:33) to show that its not ONLY the unbelief of people that leads to their hardening do not necessarily mean what you claim them to mean. Rom. 9:33 simply predicts that Christ will be a stone that will cause people to fall. Given the self-righteous obstinacy of most Jews throughout the Old Testament, this is not a surprising prediction. Christ shall be the rock that true believers build their lives on and the rock that false believers who trust in their own righteousness stumble over. The passage need not entail that God purposes hardens certain individuals, as it seems you take it to mean.
Our dialogue has been helpful. Your patience is admirable. Your work ethic incredible. But I wonder if we have any who are still following our dialogue here Lion. In any event, I will at this point let you have the last word between us on this topic and open it up for any others to comment.
Blessings comrad
Greg Boyd
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:29 PM (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 |
|
|