The case of Pharaoh has some peculiarities to it, but it still can be seen paradigmatically.
1. The sequence of events is instructive: during the first 5 plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart without any help from God (Exodus 7.13,14,22; 8.15,19,32; 9.7). Then God does one (9.12), then Pharaoh and his officials do one together (9.34-35), then God does the rest.
2. The point of the hardening is given in a couple of passages (10.1; 11.10; 14.17) and is stated to be that God can perform these miracles/judgments (a curious reason, considering the contrary of 'he cant do them WITHOUT the hardening'--we will analyze this later).
3. The miracles/signs/judgments themselves had the end-goal:
so that the Egyptians would know that Yahweh was God (and therefore come into a positive relationship with him?)--14.4,17; and
so that the Israelites would know that YAHWEH had delivered them from their oppression with power, and was therefore a God they could depend on for their needs (10.1), and
so that the whole world would hear about God (presumably for the same reason?)--9.16...the end goal seems to be to wake everybody up concerning the true and living God.
4. It was apparently effective: Pharaoh admitted this off and on through the ordeal (9.27; 10.17), the officials did likewise (9.20; 10.17), the Israelites (the last to learn!) in 14.31 et. al, many Egyptians (12.38 ) went with the Israelites (and were saved during the Passover judgment/plague--12.48-49), and the Philistines in Canaan honored Israel's God and knew all about Pharaoh's folly (I Sam 4.8; 6.5-6).
5. The signs are of varied types: the first was the easy one-the staff that turned into a snake...Pharaoh did not respond to this (the process literally could have stopped here, had he responded to the authenticating sign) and so the next 9 plagues are of escalating severity. The first four are of an annoyance nature (water-to-blood, frogs, gnats, flies), followed by limited-impact disease (a cattle plague on those cattle 'in the field'--a small minority at this time of year, and boils on people/animals), followed then by serious stuff (hail, locusts), three days of darkness (aimed against the sun-god, no doubt), then the final one-the death of the firstborn. There was ample opportunity for Pharaoh to cease his persecution of the people (and he even confessed it twice), and answer the demands of God, but he didn't abort the cycle.
6. The plagues are specifically called 'judgments' (7.4). What that means to our discussion was that they were penal in character first, and revelatory second. God had judged Egypt in its treatment of Israel and started a punishment cycle. Had Egypt responded (like Assyria did in the Book of Jonah), the catastrophes would have been averted--there is always grace it seems.
7. The first signs WERE used to authenticate the messenger Moses...the latter ones were to shake the nation up to pay attention. Once at attention, the heart responded like it wanted to. This would mean that miracle-things COULD be used to 'get attention' to the message, but that response to the message would still be a matter of one's own heart--like the divided responses of Pharaoh's officials.
8. There is a motif that I didn't get to in those first points 1-12 on the interpretation issues, that is relevant here. God seems to deal with us (in many cases) in spirals...in other words, if I choose to reject his truth in my life in favor of a lie, he will resist me for a while, but eventually will 'turn me over' to what I want--to teach me a lesson. He is selective in this with me, since I am related to him by sonship as opposed to merely citizenship. (In biblical terms, all humans are citizens of his universal kingdom, but only those who have trusted his son are adopted into his royal family). In the citizenship model, God has a legal 'code' that would prescribe this punishment for citizens of his jurisdiction. But as any judge, he has some latitude in how exhaustive he invokes the code. So, to suit his Plans, he may exact a lessor sentence on some, whereas for others he might treat them as those who 'deliberately forget' (II Peter 3.5) and "they perish, because they REFUSED TO LOVE THE TRUTH and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie" (2 Thess 2.10f). This last verse (and related passages) convinces me of this spiral-character of our response: if we want to believe a lie, God will send us one! And, if we want to believe the truth, God will get it to us.
We know that God "sends hardness of heart" as a punishment from Lamentations 3:59ff:
O Lord, Thou hast seen my oppression;Judge my case. 60 Thou hast seen all their vengeance, All their schemes against me. 61 Thou hast heard their reproach, O Lord, All their schemes against me. 62 The lips of my assailants and their whispering Are against me all day long. 63 Look on their sitting and their rising; I am their mocking song. 64 Thou wilt recompense them, O Lord, According to the work of their hands. 65 Thou wilt give them hardness of heart, Thy curse will be on them.
What this means is that the judgments of God were not because of the later hardenings, but that the later hardenings were judgments themselves. (This motif also shows up in Joshua, where the kings who were being evicted from the land for atrocious crimes were 'hardened' so they would fight Israel. cf. Jos 11.19f.)
9. Even the biblical data on how the heart responds to God shows that this spiral issue is further complicated by a spectrum issue. At any given moment we have a mixture of trust/distrust, openness/closedness, hardening/sensitivity. The interaction between us and God is very dynamic. Consider the following passages, that touch upon situations and issues similar (e.g., opening of eyes, circumcising of hearts):
The Philistines asked, “What guilt offering should we send to him?”
They replied, “Five gold tumors and five gold rats, according to the number of the Philistine rulers, because the same plague has struck both you and your rulers. 5 Make models of the tumors and of the rats that are destroying the country, and pay honor to Israel's god. Perhaps he will lift his hand from you and your gods and your land. 6 Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When he treated them harshly, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way? (I Sam 6.4ff) [Notice how these pagan kings understodd the root cause of Pharaoh's problem to be HIS OWN hardening...]
Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. 12 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD his God and did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke the word of the LORD. 13 He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him take an oath in God's name. He became stiff-necked and hardened his heart and would not turn to the LORD, the God of Israel. (2 Chron 36.11f). [Notice that hardening is paralled to 'stiff necked'.]
Today, if you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the desert, (Ps 95.8 ) [Note: people can be commanded not to harden their heart]
Blessed is the man who always fears the LORD, but he who hardens his heart falls into trouble. (Prov 28.14) [Notice that it is the opposite to 'fearing the Lord', indicating some religious dimension]
Why, O LORD, do you make us stray from your ways and harden our heart, so that we do not fear you? Turn back for the sake of your servants, for the sake of the tribes that are your heritage. (Is 63.17) [Notice that one could be aware of this condition, and ask God to change it! Pharaoh could have done the same thing.]
O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor. 19 Because of the high position he gave him, all the peoples and nations and men of every language dreaded and feared him. Those the king wanted to put to death, he put to death; those he wanted to spare, he spared; those he wanted to promote, he promoted; and those he wanted to humble, he humbled. 20 But when his heart became arrogant and hardened with pride, he was deposed from his royal throne and stripped of his glory. (Dan 5.20) [Note the means of self- hardening was pride and arrogance! In this case, God punished the ruler with deposition, rather than additional hardening.]]
If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; 8 but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.(Deut 15.6) [Notice that here hardening has to do with sensitivity to the needs and rights of others, and is something that can be controlled.]
When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. (Deut 30.1-6) [Notice that God will circumcise their hearts (v.6) AFTER they return to Him (v.2)! The priority of the human action is clear indicated here.]
Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Thy law.(Ps 119.17) [Notice that the writer can see well enough to know he needs 'more visibility']
Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. (Deut 10.17) [Notice that they can control this, and they are told to STOP being that--they were apparently in that state and could STILL be enjoined to 'soften up'.]
May the LORD our God be with us as he was with our fathers; may he never leave us nor forsake us. 58 May he turn our hearts to him, to walk in all his ways and to keep the commands, decrees and regulations he gave our fathers. (1 Kings 8.57) [Notice that one can ask God to turn our hearts!]
O LORD, God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Israel, keep this desire in the hearts of your people forever, and keep their hearts loyal to you. 19 And give my son Solomon the wholehearted devotion to keep your commands, requirements and decrees (I Chron 29.18 ) [Again, notice that these things can be prayed for.]
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done— burn with no one to quench it. (Jer 4.4) [Notice again that this is controllable]
Pay them back what they deserve, O LORD, for what their hands have done. 65 Put a veil over their hearts, and may your curse be on them! 66 Pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the heavens of the LORD. (Lam 3.64) [Notice that the 'veil' was a punishment for sin!]
Immediately the boy's father cried out and began saying, “I do believe; help my unbelief.” (Mark 9.24) [Here is a great example of the spiral and spectrum. This person expressed faith (at one point on the spectrum) and asked to be given more faith (to a farther point on the spectrum). We know when we need 'unhardening' or 'renewal'...]
10. It looks like this was more of a permissive act (judging by the language), than a directive act:
"On the distinction between the three Hebrew words used for hardening, see Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 252-56. The verb used here is chazakh (hazaq "to strengthen, confirm"). Bush (Exodus 1:65) argued that "the language implies simply [and he cites usage that agrees in Judg 9:24; 2 Chron 26:8; Isa 35:3; 41:7; and Jer 23:14] that the course of events should be so ordered that, without any positive divine influence exerted upon him, the haughty king should take occasion to confirm himself in the disregard of the counsels of the Most High.... This God is said to have done because he permitted it to be done " (emphasis his)." (EBC, Ex 4.21, notes)
In pharaoh's case, it is clear from the first 4-5 self-hardenings, that what Pharaoh wanted was 'a hard heart' toward the claims of the God of the Universe (remember, the Pharaoh was God himself in Egyptian religion of those days). In this case, God granted this in spades--but USED THAT to get the message of God out to masses and masses of people. It is in this vein that I am working on the relationship of man's responsibility toward God and God's sovereignty.
The above article is by Glenn Miller. To see the full article go to http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hharden.html
SoaringEagle
Pharoah and his Hardened Heart
-
SoaringEagle
- Familiar Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:09 pm
-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
Re: Pharoah and his Hardened Heart
I can't support with scripture the idea that "Pharaoh hardened his own heart without any help from God (Exodus 7.13,14,22; 8.15,19,32; 9.7)." In fact, the scriptures teach just the opposite. (Exodus 7:3-4). I also notice that the author failed to address Romans 9:14-21.
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
This passage, when taken for what it says, is the death blow to Arminianism. You also may be interested in John Owen's "The Idol of Free Will".
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
This passage, when taken for what it says, is the death blow to Arminianism. You also may be interested in John Owen's "The Idol of Free Will".
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
-
B. W.
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 8355
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
- Christian: Yes
- Location: Colorado
Re: Pharoah and his Hardened Heart
Soaring Eagle, I deleted my former post and added to it - hope it helps more than the past one did:
PL describes why I do not like to use the term free will as it denotes that a sovereign God is a slave to human choices. However, I do use the term because others do and it is a good reference point for anyone discussing the subject. I use the term 'Autonomy of Reason' instead of 'free will' because God is in the business of engaging human reason as Isaiah 1:18 states.
In Romans 8 29-30 “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren; Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” NKJV
In Romans 8:30 the five links of a theological chain are given and all are interlocked together: foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified.
In order to grasp this topic, think of God calling, or declaring, something; for me, this helps me understand the subject of hardening hard hearts better.
God, being perfectly just, declared and called forth a plan of salvation, without the call, there could be no human choice in the matter. Without God's call, no one would choose God's salvation but instead remain lost, and will continue choosing anything but God. If God did not call out loud in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve, humanity would have remained lost.
It is God's call, His decree, His plan, His call of salvation that creates the choice. This choice engages our reason because God designed us to be able to reason freely. Too freely reason shows God's just and merciful nature as a sovereign. Without granting the ability to reason autonomously, God would be not be all-powerful, as being all-powerful is able to control all things justly, etc.
God knows everything, even the choices a person makes before the person is ever born. Since it is God's calling decree, He foreknows the choices made and can fashion each accordingly. Therefore, it is not human choices that God foresees that save a person, but rather it is God's Call, decree, alone that saves. It is God who wills salvations plans decrees. Without this decree, none could, or would have ever been saved.
Because of God's decree, our human reasoning intelligence can respond to His Call — freely — without any violation of justice or trust. God already knows everything about us before we were ever born. Since He does, he can place each person in the scheme of time according to His Will.
For example: God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than Esau to be Esau, and thus made Esau — Esau.
God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than Jacob to be Jacob, and thus made Jacob — Jacob.
All was based on God's Calling forth a plan in which salvation would come into the world at a particular time. Because God made the plan - choices can now be made. God foreknows who would best respond to His decree or not respond.
This is what is difficult to see — without God's call or decree to show mercy, salvation, etc... There could be no choice. Since God made the call according to His own will, He can have mercy on whom He wills. The Call is what makes the choice possible — without it — all would be damned.
A hard heart is a heart that refuses to respond. If a person hardens their own heart, and God foresees this hardness, God can make ones heart, harder than the person could ever do without any violation of justice or fairness.
God is perfect and fair. No doubt, God could change the heart of Pharaoh and make it good but since God is absolutely fair and just to do so would not be fair to any person bent on hardening their own heart against God's decree of salvation. That is how fair and just God is. If a person was foreseen to be so hard, it would be no violation if God made that person's heart even harder so that God's Glory and plan of salvation can shine on through all adversity.
Therefore: God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than Pharaoh to be, Pharaoh and thus made Pharaoh — Pharaoh.
Likewise, God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than you to be you, and thus made you — you: saved - born again — justified — sanctified — redeemed — and Glorified at the resurrection of the just!
Romans 8 6-7, 11 “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called…11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls).” NKJV
-
-
-
PL describes why I do not like to use the term free will as it denotes that a sovereign God is a slave to human choices. However, I do use the term because others do and it is a good reference point for anyone discussing the subject. I use the term 'Autonomy of Reason' instead of 'free will' because God is in the business of engaging human reason as Isaiah 1:18 states.
In Romans 8 29-30 “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren; Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” NKJV
In Romans 8:30 the five links of a theological chain are given and all are interlocked together: foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified.
In order to grasp this topic, think of God calling, or declaring, something; for me, this helps me understand the subject of hardening hard hearts better.
God, being perfectly just, declared and called forth a plan of salvation, without the call, there could be no human choice in the matter. Without God's call, no one would choose God's salvation but instead remain lost, and will continue choosing anything but God. If God did not call out loud in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve, humanity would have remained lost.
It is God's call, His decree, His plan, His call of salvation that creates the choice. This choice engages our reason because God designed us to be able to reason freely. Too freely reason shows God's just and merciful nature as a sovereign. Without granting the ability to reason autonomously, God would be not be all-powerful, as being all-powerful is able to control all things justly, etc.
God knows everything, even the choices a person makes before the person is ever born. Since it is God's calling decree, He foreknows the choices made and can fashion each accordingly. Therefore, it is not human choices that God foresees that save a person, but rather it is God's Call, decree, alone that saves. It is God who wills salvations plans decrees. Without this decree, none could, or would have ever been saved.
Because of God's decree, our human reasoning intelligence can respond to His Call — freely — without any violation of justice or trust. God already knows everything about us before we were ever born. Since He does, he can place each person in the scheme of time according to His Will.
For example: God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than Esau to be Esau, and thus made Esau — Esau.
God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than Jacob to be Jacob, and thus made Jacob — Jacob.
All was based on God's Calling forth a plan in which salvation would come into the world at a particular time. Because God made the plan - choices can now be made. God foreknows who would best respond to His decree or not respond.
This is what is difficult to see — without God's call or decree to show mercy, salvation, etc... There could be no choice. Since God made the call according to His own will, He can have mercy on whom He wills. The Call is what makes the choice possible — without it — all would be damned.
A hard heart is a heart that refuses to respond. If a person hardens their own heart, and God foresees this hardness, God can make ones heart, harder than the person could ever do without any violation of justice or fairness.
God is perfect and fair. No doubt, God could change the heart of Pharaoh and make it good but since God is absolutely fair and just to do so would not be fair to any person bent on hardening their own heart against God's decree of salvation. That is how fair and just God is. If a person was foreseen to be so hard, it would be no violation if God made that person's heart even harder so that God's Glory and plan of salvation can shine on through all adversity.
Therefore: God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than Pharaoh to be, Pharaoh and thus made Pharaoh — Pharaoh.
Likewise, God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than you to be you, and thus made you — you: saved - born again — justified — sanctified — redeemed — and Glorified at the resurrection of the just!
Romans 8 6-7, 11 “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called…11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls).” NKJV
-
-
-
-
SoaringEagle
- Familiar Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:09 pm
There are many theological questions involved in this passage, but only a couple of them touch on your question.
As I understand your question/objection, it is basically that:
Free choice (concerning one's eternal destiny) is contradicted by the examples of Pharoah's 'hardening' and Paul's "vessel" argument (in Romans 9).
You mention the word "predestination" (which appears in chapter 8, but not in the chapter under discussion here--chapter 9). In chapter 8, it is clearly linked to 'foreknowledge' but its meaning in the passage has little to do with 'free choice'--it is rather a statement of guarantee, that believers will eventually conformed to the image of the Son...a different meaning than that commonly give to it in popular usage.
In popular usage, 'predestination' is often used to mean something more like 'election' or 'selection' (more to the point).
The issue of election/predestination per se has several layers of issues:
philosophical (e.g., how 'free' does will have to be, in order to be called 'free'? can free will even exist?)
systematic theology (e.g., could an absolutely sovereign, initial Ultimacy 'grant' freedom to another agent--and how do they 'interact' in time)
biblical theology (e.g., God chooses the 'poor/weak of the world to be rich in faith'--how "open" is this category? are only classes elected?)
exegetical (e.g, does a specific passage support a particular theological/philosophical view of freedom/election?)
YOUR question deals with an exegetical issue--does Romans 9 teach that some people are pre-selected and 'forced' to go to heaven or to hell?
By itself, I personally (following many others of a conservative 'bent') do not believe that Romans 9 has anything at all to do with eternal destiny of individuals---that it only deals with matters within history and/or service to God. (I have been thinking about this passage for 30+ years, but am still not 'finished'...smile). A summary of my understanding of this passage, in its context, would include the following major elements:
First of all, the passage doesn't deal with eternal destiny at all:
"We bring another assumption to this text which skews our hearing of it in a particular direction. Because of certain inherited theological traditions, we tend to hear this text in terms of predestination and eternal destiny. This theological tradition holds that our eternal destiny has been predetermined. The inevitable question to such a view is the one which Paul's hypothetical reader asks: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" (Rom 9:19)...This question has validity only if Paul is in fact concerned here with the matter of individuals' eternal destiny. On close reading of the passage, however, it becomes clear that he is not speaking about salvation and eternal destiny, but about God's calling of individuals to service, and God's use of events and persons in the accomplishment of his redemptive purposes, namely the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles" [HSOBX:559f]
"Neither in Malachi (1.2-3) nor in Paul's use of it (in Romans 9.13-15) is there then any warrant for the idea that God has determined in advance the eternal destinies of either the people of Israel or the people of Edom. The historical situations of the two nations, their 'election' or 'rejection', are but temporary evidences of God's sovereign freedom with which he moves history toward his redemptive purposes. "God so loved the world' (Jn 3:16), including Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom, Jew and Gentile." [HSOBX:561]
"From this brief look at these crucial chapters (Rom 9-11), one point emerges clearly. Paul's focus is upon God's selection of the nation Israel in its historic role, not upon specific individuals for eternal salvation. Even the choice of individuals like Jacob was for their tasks in God's historic program with his people, not their personal salvation." [TH:NCP:76]
"When he discusses the Egyptian pharaoh, Paul's concern is not his personal salvation....Whether or not they (for example, the pharaoh) receive salvation is an issue separate from their selection for a task" [TH:NCP:198]
Secondly, even if the passage were dealing with eternal destinies, the main focus on the passage is on groups, not individuals:
"We should not act, however, as if this were Paul's only word on predestination and the hardening of people. Here he is making a point about how God has worked with broad groups of people, the Jews as a whole and the Gentiles as a whole. He is also pointing out that Jewish prophets knew about this plan of God long before it tool place. Yet Paul goes on to underline in the following chapter (10) that all of this happened through human choices. God chose to make his salvation available, not on the basis of the Jewish law, but on the basis of the grace of Christ. This was proclaimed to Jew as well as Gentile, so God did not coerce the Jews into hardening themselves. Yet, as God predicted, this good news was largely rejected the Jews and often accepted by the Gentiles." [HSOBX:562]
"Paul affirms (in Romans 9:11) that God purposed to select Jacob above Esau. As God had named or counted Abraham's see through Isaac (9:7), so now the line would run through Jacob, not Esau. This choice of Israel's lineage was a sovereign divine act, and not motivated by any specific acts or responses from the twins. This was God's sovereign choice of an individual, though we hasten to add that the issue here is not his personal salvation. In reality, God made a corporate choice: he chose Jacob and his offspring to be his people rather than Esau and his descendants. As we noted above in our discussion of foreknowledge, in the section Ro 9-11 Paul struggles with the perplexing question, Has God rejected his people? God specifically chose Jacob, but not as an individual in isolation, nor for his personal salvation. Rather, Jacob became instrumental in tracing the ancestry of the people of Israel" [TH:NCP:173, italics his, bold mine]
"Paul here (9.19-21) uses the language of Isaiah 29:16, 45:9 and 64:8, which the Dead Sea Scrolls often used in prayers. The point is that God made people, and God can therefore do with them as he wills. In the context this means that he can choose either Jews or Gentiles, not that his predestination is arbitrary." [BBC, in.loc.]
"This verse (9.13) parallels what we have just observed...Paul quotes Mal 1:2-3 to confirm the point he has been making in this section--God has chosen Jacob over against Esau. Is this the election of Jacob to salvation? in Mal 1:2-3 the prophet's point is not salvation, but rather God's choice of the nation Israel over Edom. Thus, Jacob and Esau represent their progeny. In Malachi the nations Israel and Edom are mentioned specifically." [TH:NCP:173]
Thirdly, even if the passage were dealing with eternal destinies, the categories/groups in the passage are not 'fixed' and 'closed' and 'inescapable':
The "vessels of wrath" in 9.22 are not locked into that group, for the Christians of Ephesians 2 were once "children of wrath" themselves
Paul teaches us how to move from being in the group of "common vessels" to being in the group of "noble vessels" in 2 Tim 2.21--by responding to God in obedience.
The 'hardened' and 'cut off' Jews can be 'grafted back in' if they accept their Messiah (Romans 11.23), and the believers can be 'cut off' from the locus of God's in-history service (11.21).
"We get no teaching here that God has chosen specific individuals to whom to show mercy or to harden. In the context of Ro 9, as we will continue to see, Paul's concern is the elect people of God, a corporate entity. God has willed to show mercy to his people, to provide salvation; people cannot effect or procure their own salvation. Cranfield's important reminder confirms this analysis: 'The assumption that Paul is here thinking of the ultimate destiny of the individual, of his final salvation or final ruin, is not justified by the text.' We discover the criterion for obtaining mercy later in Ro 9 and 10: faith. God calls those who come to him in faith, 'my people.' Conversely, he hardens those who reject him by hardening their hearts against him. He destines the first group for glory, the other for destruction. " [TH:NCP:166f]
"Paul bases God's wrath (in 9.22) upon his will. Paul's point is not that God wills (or chooses) certain ones to suffer his wrath. Rather he confirms that God wills to display his wrath, either upon certain 'vessels' (people) or through certain 'instruments'. Later in this section Paul details why some experience God's wrath. To fail to believe puts one outside God's mercy. Romans 11:23 highlights the role of faith--Jews may reenter the people of God is they put away their unbelief. Paul teaches no rigid predestinarianism, but presents an open door to enter the body of believers. Hanson says, 'We do not need to conclude that God previously chose them to be objects of his wrath; by their unbelief they chose themselves.'" [TH:NCP:167]
Fourth, even some of the word choices and language indicates in-history action (as opposed to some pre-history-action):
The "raising up" of Pharaoh to power--as opposed to 'creating' or 'making' or 'predestining' or 'designing'--is clearly in-time.
[Although note that the passage quoted here--Exodus 9.13ff--actually points out that God 'spared' Pharaoh, so that BOTH Pharaoh AND all the earth would know of God's power...He used a stubborn, arrogant ruler to get the word out to everyone under Egypt's domination at the time...]
The contrast between "prepared" (for destruction) and "prepared in advance" (for glory) shows that the action on the former is NOT some "pre-something"--a deliberate contrast is drawn in the text (i.e., non-symmetrical action).
Even the "in advance" phrase--which is the closest word we have to some 'pre-action' is ambiguous. It could very easily mean "prepared NOW for future glory" (while the "prepared for destruction" would mean "being prepared for in-time destruction/judgment"--like Pharaoh).
Fifth, the general tenor of election passages have to do with broad typologies of people, differentiated by their 'humble' status:
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. (1 Cor 1.26ff)
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. (Matt 11.25)
Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? (Jas 2.5)
There are other issues involved in the passage that I would need to address more fully (e.g, what is 'glory' mean in the passage), but the above data should show that the text simply does not surface the kinds of problems we are discussing in this question.
The in-history character of this, and its limited scope should be very obvious from the other similar, immediate-context cases. For example, a preceding generation has the 'election' promise ONLY going through Isaac--with Ishmael NOT being 'chosen'--but God EXPLICITLY blesses Ishmael at Genesis 17:20 (using a double-word emphatic construction--a clear case of 'blessing without election'!). And the later example of Manasseh and Ephraim, in which the 'lessor is chosen' over the first-born, still has a blessing placed squarely on Manasseh. Election to priviledge/responsibility is no indication whatsoever of lack of God's blessing and/or favor (at least in the context of Romans 9 and the Promises to the Fathers). This is in the general theme of God's chosing the 'non-elite' over the 'legally elite' (in these cases, the younger over the older).
And that this doesn't involve 'cursing' or 'abandonment' of Esau specifically can be seen from Deut 2.5:
and command the people, saying, “You will pass through the territory of your brothers the sons of Esau who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful; 5 do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, even as little as a footstep because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.
Notice how the Lord would not let the 'chosen people' take a foot of ground from 'unchosen Esau'. God had blessed (and protected) this descendent of Abraham also--He just didn't use HIS lineage for creating the nation of Israel.
[I have dealt with the issue of Pharaoh's hardening elsewhere (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutr ... tml#harden and http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hharden.html) but he would also be a good case of our first point above--that of one's choices restricting one's own future choices via community response (in this case, God as benefactor/protector of Israel).]
Now, let's be sure we understand that God clearly over-rides us in some situations, just as we over-ride one another's freedom sometimes. In God's case, most of it seems associated with judgment-after-patience, but He does nonetheless have a presence in our history and governance roles in our universe. But these 'special cases' (such as Pharaoh) are [1] not out-of-line with His moral stance (e.g., they are often after-patience judgments, and in-line with what we would do 'on a good day'...), [2] nor wholesale infringements of a person's entire range of free choice (including the choices relative to response to God), [3] nor ends-in-themselves (they always "serve" the expansion of mercy and freedom);
So, I think the Romans 9 passage shouldn't create a free-will (relative to individual, pre-time, eternal destinations) problem for us.
[Needless to say, there are many, many more issues and passages that need to be discussed relative to the broader questions of election, etc., but as far as this question goes, I have to agree with the various commentators cited above, that Romans 9 is focused on other issues than those.]
Hope this helps some...and thanks for such a open-minded approach to these issues,
Warmly,
Glenn Miller
As I understand your question/objection, it is basically that:
Free choice (concerning one's eternal destiny) is contradicted by the examples of Pharoah's 'hardening' and Paul's "vessel" argument (in Romans 9).
You mention the word "predestination" (which appears in chapter 8, but not in the chapter under discussion here--chapter 9). In chapter 8, it is clearly linked to 'foreknowledge' but its meaning in the passage has little to do with 'free choice'--it is rather a statement of guarantee, that believers will eventually conformed to the image of the Son...a different meaning than that commonly give to it in popular usage.
In popular usage, 'predestination' is often used to mean something more like 'election' or 'selection' (more to the point).
The issue of election/predestination per se has several layers of issues:
philosophical (e.g., how 'free' does will have to be, in order to be called 'free'? can free will even exist?)
systematic theology (e.g., could an absolutely sovereign, initial Ultimacy 'grant' freedom to another agent--and how do they 'interact' in time)
biblical theology (e.g., God chooses the 'poor/weak of the world to be rich in faith'--how "open" is this category? are only classes elected?)
exegetical (e.g, does a specific passage support a particular theological/philosophical view of freedom/election?)
YOUR question deals with an exegetical issue--does Romans 9 teach that some people are pre-selected and 'forced' to go to heaven or to hell?
By itself, I personally (following many others of a conservative 'bent') do not believe that Romans 9 has anything at all to do with eternal destiny of individuals---that it only deals with matters within history and/or service to God. (I have been thinking about this passage for 30+ years, but am still not 'finished'...smile). A summary of my understanding of this passage, in its context, would include the following major elements:
First of all, the passage doesn't deal with eternal destiny at all:
"We bring another assumption to this text which skews our hearing of it in a particular direction. Because of certain inherited theological traditions, we tend to hear this text in terms of predestination and eternal destiny. This theological tradition holds that our eternal destiny has been predetermined. The inevitable question to such a view is the one which Paul's hypothetical reader asks: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" (Rom 9:19)...This question has validity only if Paul is in fact concerned here with the matter of individuals' eternal destiny. On close reading of the passage, however, it becomes clear that he is not speaking about salvation and eternal destiny, but about God's calling of individuals to service, and God's use of events and persons in the accomplishment of his redemptive purposes, namely the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles" [HSOBX:559f]
"Neither in Malachi (1.2-3) nor in Paul's use of it (in Romans 9.13-15) is there then any warrant for the idea that God has determined in advance the eternal destinies of either the people of Israel or the people of Edom. The historical situations of the two nations, their 'election' or 'rejection', are but temporary evidences of God's sovereign freedom with which he moves history toward his redemptive purposes. "God so loved the world' (Jn 3:16), including Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom, Jew and Gentile." [HSOBX:561]
"From this brief look at these crucial chapters (Rom 9-11), one point emerges clearly. Paul's focus is upon God's selection of the nation Israel in its historic role, not upon specific individuals for eternal salvation. Even the choice of individuals like Jacob was for their tasks in God's historic program with his people, not their personal salvation." [TH:NCP:76]
"When he discusses the Egyptian pharaoh, Paul's concern is not his personal salvation....Whether or not they (for example, the pharaoh) receive salvation is an issue separate from their selection for a task" [TH:NCP:198]
Secondly, even if the passage were dealing with eternal destinies, the main focus on the passage is on groups, not individuals:
"We should not act, however, as if this were Paul's only word on predestination and the hardening of people. Here he is making a point about how God has worked with broad groups of people, the Jews as a whole and the Gentiles as a whole. He is also pointing out that Jewish prophets knew about this plan of God long before it tool place. Yet Paul goes on to underline in the following chapter (10) that all of this happened through human choices. God chose to make his salvation available, not on the basis of the Jewish law, but on the basis of the grace of Christ. This was proclaimed to Jew as well as Gentile, so God did not coerce the Jews into hardening themselves. Yet, as God predicted, this good news was largely rejected the Jews and often accepted by the Gentiles." [HSOBX:562]
"Paul affirms (in Romans 9:11) that God purposed to select Jacob above Esau. As God had named or counted Abraham's see through Isaac (9:7), so now the line would run through Jacob, not Esau. This choice of Israel's lineage was a sovereign divine act, and not motivated by any specific acts or responses from the twins. This was God's sovereign choice of an individual, though we hasten to add that the issue here is not his personal salvation. In reality, God made a corporate choice: he chose Jacob and his offspring to be his people rather than Esau and his descendants. As we noted above in our discussion of foreknowledge, in the section Ro 9-11 Paul struggles with the perplexing question, Has God rejected his people? God specifically chose Jacob, but not as an individual in isolation, nor for his personal salvation. Rather, Jacob became instrumental in tracing the ancestry of the people of Israel" [TH:NCP:173, italics his, bold mine]
"Paul here (9.19-21) uses the language of Isaiah 29:16, 45:9 and 64:8, which the Dead Sea Scrolls often used in prayers. The point is that God made people, and God can therefore do with them as he wills. In the context this means that he can choose either Jews or Gentiles, not that his predestination is arbitrary." [BBC, in.loc.]
"This verse (9.13) parallels what we have just observed...Paul quotes Mal 1:2-3 to confirm the point he has been making in this section--God has chosen Jacob over against Esau. Is this the election of Jacob to salvation? in Mal 1:2-3 the prophet's point is not salvation, but rather God's choice of the nation Israel over Edom. Thus, Jacob and Esau represent their progeny. In Malachi the nations Israel and Edom are mentioned specifically." [TH:NCP:173]
Thirdly, even if the passage were dealing with eternal destinies, the categories/groups in the passage are not 'fixed' and 'closed' and 'inescapable':
The "vessels of wrath" in 9.22 are not locked into that group, for the Christians of Ephesians 2 were once "children of wrath" themselves
Paul teaches us how to move from being in the group of "common vessels" to being in the group of "noble vessels" in 2 Tim 2.21--by responding to God in obedience.
The 'hardened' and 'cut off' Jews can be 'grafted back in' if they accept their Messiah (Romans 11.23), and the believers can be 'cut off' from the locus of God's in-history service (11.21).
"We get no teaching here that God has chosen specific individuals to whom to show mercy or to harden. In the context of Ro 9, as we will continue to see, Paul's concern is the elect people of God, a corporate entity. God has willed to show mercy to his people, to provide salvation; people cannot effect or procure their own salvation. Cranfield's important reminder confirms this analysis: 'The assumption that Paul is here thinking of the ultimate destiny of the individual, of his final salvation or final ruin, is not justified by the text.' We discover the criterion for obtaining mercy later in Ro 9 and 10: faith. God calls those who come to him in faith, 'my people.' Conversely, he hardens those who reject him by hardening their hearts against him. He destines the first group for glory, the other for destruction. " [TH:NCP:166f]
"Paul bases God's wrath (in 9.22) upon his will. Paul's point is not that God wills (or chooses) certain ones to suffer his wrath. Rather he confirms that God wills to display his wrath, either upon certain 'vessels' (people) or through certain 'instruments'. Later in this section Paul details why some experience God's wrath. To fail to believe puts one outside God's mercy. Romans 11:23 highlights the role of faith--Jews may reenter the people of God is they put away their unbelief. Paul teaches no rigid predestinarianism, but presents an open door to enter the body of believers. Hanson says, 'We do not need to conclude that God previously chose them to be objects of his wrath; by their unbelief they chose themselves.'" [TH:NCP:167]
Fourth, even some of the word choices and language indicates in-history action (as opposed to some pre-history-action):
The "raising up" of Pharaoh to power--as opposed to 'creating' or 'making' or 'predestining' or 'designing'--is clearly in-time.
[Although note that the passage quoted here--Exodus 9.13ff--actually points out that God 'spared' Pharaoh, so that BOTH Pharaoh AND all the earth would know of God's power...He used a stubborn, arrogant ruler to get the word out to everyone under Egypt's domination at the time...]
The contrast between "prepared" (for destruction) and "prepared in advance" (for glory) shows that the action on the former is NOT some "pre-something"--a deliberate contrast is drawn in the text (i.e., non-symmetrical action).
Even the "in advance" phrase--which is the closest word we have to some 'pre-action' is ambiguous. It could very easily mean "prepared NOW for future glory" (while the "prepared for destruction" would mean "being prepared for in-time destruction/judgment"--like Pharaoh).
Fifth, the general tenor of election passages have to do with broad typologies of people, differentiated by their 'humble' status:
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. (1 Cor 1.26ff)
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. (Matt 11.25)
Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? (Jas 2.5)
There are other issues involved in the passage that I would need to address more fully (e.g, what is 'glory' mean in the passage), but the above data should show that the text simply does not surface the kinds of problems we are discussing in this question.
The in-history character of this, and its limited scope should be very obvious from the other similar, immediate-context cases. For example, a preceding generation has the 'election' promise ONLY going through Isaac--with Ishmael NOT being 'chosen'--but God EXPLICITLY blesses Ishmael at Genesis 17:20 (using a double-word emphatic construction--a clear case of 'blessing without election'!). And the later example of Manasseh and Ephraim, in which the 'lessor is chosen' over the first-born, still has a blessing placed squarely on Manasseh. Election to priviledge/responsibility is no indication whatsoever of lack of God's blessing and/or favor (at least in the context of Romans 9 and the Promises to the Fathers). This is in the general theme of God's chosing the 'non-elite' over the 'legally elite' (in these cases, the younger over the older).
And that this doesn't involve 'cursing' or 'abandonment' of Esau specifically can be seen from Deut 2.5:
and command the people, saying, “You will pass through the territory of your brothers the sons of Esau who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful; 5 do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, even as little as a footstep because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.
Notice how the Lord would not let the 'chosen people' take a foot of ground from 'unchosen Esau'. God had blessed (and protected) this descendent of Abraham also--He just didn't use HIS lineage for creating the nation of Israel.
[I have dealt with the issue of Pharaoh's hardening elsewhere (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutr ... tml#harden and http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hharden.html) but he would also be a good case of our first point above--that of one's choices restricting one's own future choices via community response (in this case, God as benefactor/protector of Israel).]
Now, let's be sure we understand that God clearly over-rides us in some situations, just as we over-ride one another's freedom sometimes. In God's case, most of it seems associated with judgment-after-patience, but He does nonetheless have a presence in our history and governance roles in our universe. But these 'special cases' (such as Pharaoh) are [1] not out-of-line with His moral stance (e.g., they are often after-patience judgments, and in-line with what we would do 'on a good day'...), [2] nor wholesale infringements of a person's entire range of free choice (including the choices relative to response to God), [3] nor ends-in-themselves (they always "serve" the expansion of mercy and freedom);
So, I think the Romans 9 passage shouldn't create a free-will (relative to individual, pre-time, eternal destinations) problem for us.
[Needless to say, there are many, many more issues and passages that need to be discussed relative to the broader questions of election, etc., but as far as this question goes, I have to agree with the various commentators cited above, that Romans 9 is focused on other issues than those.]
Hope this helps some...and thanks for such a open-minded approach to these issues,
Warmly,
Glenn Miller
-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
Hi Glenn,
I've dealt with this in detail, and would appreciate your comments. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1037
We like to think that we have "free will", but I hold that we are not truly free until the Son sets us free. Until then, we are slaves to sin.
I've dealt with this in detail, and would appreciate your comments. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1037
We like to think that we have "free will", but I hold that we are not truly free until the Son sets us free. Until then, we are slaves to sin.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
-
B. W.
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 8355
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
- Christian: Yes
- Location: Colorado
Soaring Eagle, I'll try to explain better how I undersatnd the topic and I hope it helps. Again, this is how I undersatnd the subject:
I believe in the total sovereignty of God. I had this pounded into to me the hard way — God is sovereign. What helped me the most to understand predestination and free will (autonomy of reason) was to see the five links of a chain. I think Sproul came up with the five chain illustration, but I can't remember clearly if it was he or someone else.
The links of this chain are as follows: foreknowing, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. The central link is the strongest link as it is the middle link that holds the chain together.
Without the middle link you would have a doctorial position based on: foreknowing, predestination, justification, and glorification verses another doctorial belief based on; predestination, foreknowing, justification, and glorification. These leave out the Sovereign will of God totally out of the picture.
God makes known His sovereign will by His calling. Without the calling — human beings would never freely choose God. The Calling provides the avenue for choices to be made just like He gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when He called out to them. They responded to His Call. If God would not have called, our first parents would have remained lost and forsaken.
The Callings of God declare His sovereign will to save, heal, justify, glorify, etc…
Without His callings — no one would be capable to choose God as no one could choose without the call issuing forth from God.
His call — engages our human reasoning to be able to freely make a choice. It is not our choice that saves us but rather God's call — which, without - no choice could be ever made.
God foreknows everything about us before we are ever born. He knows that without His call, all humankind would be lost and since He knows all things, He foreknows well in advance how people will respond to His call before they have ever done anything bad or good.
Next, He can predestine us according to His callings as He knows all things. Those that He knows will come to Him, will do so, and those that not, will not. He knows who will respond to His callings and who will not. It is His Calling, not our choice that determines the elect. Our choices are merely a response to His call. Without His call — there would be no choice possible.
Again, His callings determine the process of justification now and forever and the state glorification in the life to come. He knows well in advance who will acquiescence to the process of justification and who will not. He is sovereign.
What I mean by the process of justification is the Christian walk — being free from indwelling sin during our earthly sojourn, repentance, learning not to sin, God's discipline, the process of becoming sanctified, the process of justification that God declares over us and what we do to catch up to its full declarative meaning.
I hope this helps to understand the subject better.
-
-
-
I believe in the total sovereignty of God. I had this pounded into to me the hard way — God is sovereign. What helped me the most to understand predestination and free will (autonomy of reason) was to see the five links of a chain. I think Sproul came up with the five chain illustration, but I can't remember clearly if it was he or someone else.
The links of this chain are as follows: foreknowing, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. The central link is the strongest link as it is the middle link that holds the chain together.
Without the middle link you would have a doctorial position based on: foreknowing, predestination, justification, and glorification verses another doctorial belief based on; predestination, foreknowing, justification, and glorification. These leave out the Sovereign will of God totally out of the picture.
God makes known His sovereign will by His calling. Without the calling — human beings would never freely choose God. The Calling provides the avenue for choices to be made just like He gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when He called out to them. They responded to His Call. If God would not have called, our first parents would have remained lost and forsaken.
The Callings of God declare His sovereign will to save, heal, justify, glorify, etc…
Without His callings — no one would be capable to choose God as no one could choose without the call issuing forth from God.
His call — engages our human reasoning to be able to freely make a choice. It is not our choice that saves us but rather God's call — which, without - no choice could be ever made.
God foreknows everything about us before we are ever born. He knows that without His call, all humankind would be lost and since He knows all things, He foreknows well in advance how people will respond to His call before they have ever done anything bad or good.
Next, He can predestine us according to His callings as He knows all things. Those that He knows will come to Him, will do so, and those that not, will not. He knows who will respond to His callings and who will not. It is His Calling, not our choice that determines the elect. Our choices are merely a response to His call. Without His call — there would be no choice possible.
Again, His callings determine the process of justification now and forever and the state glorification in the life to come. He knows well in advance who will acquiescence to the process of justification and who will not. He is sovereign.
What I mean by the process of justification is the Christian walk — being free from indwelling sin during our earthly sojourn, repentance, learning not to sin, God's discipline, the process of becoming sanctified, the process of justification that God declares over us and what we do to catch up to its full declarative meaning.
I hope this helps to understand the subject better.
-
-
-
-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
Here is how David Chilton describes the Dctrine of Predestination.
Jesus Christ announces Himself as the First and the Last, a name for God taken from Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12. It is obvious from the contexts of those verses that the expression identifies God as the supreme Lord and Determiner of history, the Planner and Controller of all reality. The Biblical doctrine of predestination, when rightly understood, should not be a source of fear for the Christian; rather, it is a source of comfort and assurance.
The opposite of the doctrine of predestination is not freedom, but meaninglessness; if the smallest details of our lives are not part of the Plan of God, if they are not created facts with a divinely determined significance, then they can have no meaning at all. They cannot be "working together for good." But the Christian who understands the truth of God's sovereignty is assured thereby that nothing in his life is without meaning and purpose — that God has ordained all things for His glory and for our ultimate good. This means that even our sufferings are part of a consistent Plan; that when we are opposed, we need not fear that God has abandoned us. We can be secure in the knowledge that, since we have been "called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28), all things in our life are a necessary aspect of that purpose. Martin Luther said: "It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. . . . For the Christian's chief and only comfort in adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or impeded." - Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, trans. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1957), pp. 80, 84.
Jesus Christ announces Himself as the First and the Last, a name for God taken from Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12. It is obvious from the contexts of those verses that the expression identifies God as the supreme Lord and Determiner of history, the Planner and Controller of all reality. The Biblical doctrine of predestination, when rightly understood, should not be a source of fear for the Christian; rather, it is a source of comfort and assurance.
The opposite of the doctrine of predestination is not freedom, but meaninglessness; if the smallest details of our lives are not part of the Plan of God, if they are not created facts with a divinely determined significance, then they can have no meaning at all. They cannot be "working together for good." But the Christian who understands the truth of God's sovereignty is assured thereby that nothing in his life is without meaning and purpose — that God has ordained all things for His glory and for our ultimate good. This means that even our sufferings are part of a consistent Plan; that when we are opposed, we need not fear that God has abandoned us. We can be secure in the knowledge that, since we have been "called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28), all things in our life are a necessary aspect of that purpose. Martin Luther said: "It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. . . . For the Christian's chief and only comfort in adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or impeded." - Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, trans. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1957), pp. 80, 84.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/