Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

We quote and address CS Lewis, John Calvin, Charles Hodge, W.G.T Shedd, R. L. Dabney (Reformed Princeton Theologians), Phil Johnson (Grace to You) and JD Hall (Pulpit and Pen). Quotes below... The first half of the podcast deals with Limited Atonement: Particular versus Provisional  One can support he provisional view without denying Calvinism. Not really the most important point of the Calvinistic debate yet it gets most of the attention. The bigger points of contention have to do with Total Inability and Irresistible Grace. The second half of the podcast is my response to JD Hall's most recent podcast were we deal with the root cause for a regenerate man's choices. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." - CS Lewis No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. - John Calvin It is a gross misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches that Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine of any Church on earth, and never has been. What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all...We affirm with Dort that no man perishes for want of atonement… –Charles Hodge We reject the argument, If Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished… is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. –Dabney  "It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the Universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is, Because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner. -Shedd Join the discussion at www.soteriology101.com!  

Much of this podcast is me attempting to rephrase our point of contention.  JD continually moves the discussion to be about a non-regenerate man's need to become regenerate, when my contention was about the ability of an already regenerate to resist temptation. If a Christian sins is it because God has in any way failed or neglected to give His child what was needed to resist that temptation?  Or is the that believer simply free (contra-causally) to resist divine aid and fall into that temptation? Compatibilists, like John Hendryx and Phil Johnson, believe "we do not make choices seperately from God's meticulous providence." In otherwords, God decrees which choice men (even regenerate men) will make, not that they will be free to make it.    I'm not sure if JD would affirm this or not since he never went deep enough into our actual point of contention. Below is the blog post covering in more detail some of the other points in the broadcast: JD Hall responded to my podcast entitled “Is Calvinism Practical?” Maybe when I have more time I can sift through the entire discourse and podcast a rebuttal, but for now I simply want to reply to some key points JD addressed: 1. Dump on Stewie:  JD begins by “poo pooing” on the Stewie character in my podcast and addressing him as if he is my co-host who agrees with me, which kind of misses the point.  I picked a condescending voice to play the part of someone who disagrees with me and reminds me regularly that I’m not all that bright, which is probably obvious without the character but nonetheless I find him delightfully humorous. I know little about the actual character on Family Guy and have never liked the whole “guilt by association,” or “you must condone it if you use it,” or “boycott everything that looks like what we disagree with” approach to life.  I doubt JD does either, but nevertheless he thinks my use of Stewie to lighten the mood makes me not worthy of “being taken seriously.”  I’m actually fine with that.  I don’t take myself all that seriously either. In short, the podcast begins with the irony of JD condescending my use of a blatantly condescending character. 2. Ad Hominem: This is a debate fallacy where instead of speaking to the issue one speaks “to the person,” or attacks the motives or character of the individual without real justification. JD speculates my podcast is meant to “make a name for myself,” he references that people in my church must not be holy given my views, and lumps me in with the easy believism crowd of the Joel Osteen types.  That would be tantamount me lumping him in with hypers and accusing him of just trying to make an name for himself on his program.  Not necessary nor helpful. I hope any further dialogue, if it were to continue beyond this point, would rise above this level of discourse. 3. Blaming God for Evil: In my podcast, I argued that this culture naturally blames God and runs to sin, instead of blaming sin and running to God. Then I asked if the deterministic conclusions of SOME Calvinistic teachers helps to bolster that false view. JD agrees this is what the culture naturally does, points to Adam blaming God for giving him Eve, and then takes a hard left turn into “Doesn’t Followsville” and asks me if Adam was a Calvinist, as if I had argued that this culture only blamed God for evil because of what Calvinism teaches.  WHAT?! Back up.  We agreed that man naturally blame God.  Adam is a good example of that.  When did I say that originated from being Calvinistic?  I didn’t.  I asked if the deterministic conclusions (i.e. “God decrees whatsoever comes to pass”) helps to BOLSTER that FALSE view or not.  JD ignored that question to “straw man my argument” and make me sound as if I was blaming his soteriology for the natural tendency of blaming of God for evil.  So, in the debate world that point would flow to my side.  (0-1: Stewie is keeping count, but I’m not.) 4. Helpless Deity: JD refers to my view of “god” as being a “terrible, wimpy, helpless, little, dumb, fragile, deaf deity.” JD sure better hope he is right about his view of God…WOW.  At least if I’m wrong I can rest in knowing God determined for me to be wrong, whereas if JD’s view of God is wrong, then he has just called God all those names by his own free will. Ouch! Now, this particular argument made by Calvinists is really just question begging because it presumes God didn’t choose for the world to be created in the way we are proposing but that it just “happened to Him” apart from His decision. As if “Arminians” all got together and imposed this world onto God, or God just accidentally got a world with free moral creatures and now He is a helpless divine victim trying to assist us when He can (see “straw man” again).  Allow me to quote from Tozer to give a better perspective of my view of true biblical sovereignty: “God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Attributes of God So, as I argue in my podcast over Tozer and Piper, the higher view of sovereignty, according to this perspective is the one in which God decides to grant moral freedom to others, not one where he has to “play both sides of the chess board to ensure His victory.” Our view of God is not some hapless boob that is caught off guard, as JD would like to paint Him out to be.  I think JD does this because its easier for him to dismiss us as heretical than to deal with what we are actually saying.  In our view, as in JDs, God is WORKING OUT EVIL FOR GOOD, which I think can and should be distinguished from God causing, determining, or in any way bringing about evil.  I can work out something that is evil without being the cause of that evil, so I suspect God can do the same though I may not know how all that perfectly works within the concepts of divine omniscience (an infinite matter we cannot even begin to grasp or speculate about). JD compares God giving the world over to evil and all its consequences to two dudes watching his kids drown and not doing something to save them, as if that would be equal to the guys holding them under the water themselves. One, I think it far worse had they held the kids heads under water than if they would have passively watched.  Two, God’s permitting sin and its consequences is better illustrated by the prodigal’s father granting him the inheritance (i.e. to go drown in his sin, so to speak), than the passive unloving jerks watching two innocent kiddos fall into a lake. 5. God’s hate for sin: In my podcast I argue that I don’t believe God determines sinful desires and thus choices (in the manner proposed by Compatibilism) and I reference God’s hatred for sin as one of the reasons.  JD accused me of suggesting Calvinists believe God delights in sin, which once again I did not say (see straw man again).  My argument was that God’s expression of hatred for sin strongly implies that he wouldn’t cause it…not even compatibilistically. (James 1: He doesn’t even tempt men to sin) Now, JD argues, as do most Calvinists that God doesn’t “DIRECTLY” cause sin but then goes on to show how God causally determines it through secondary means, as if that doesn’t afford the exact same argument.  Face it, in that system God determined the nature which determined the desire which determined the choice of the evil agent. Plugging in a thousand deterministic causal links in that chain doesn’t make the argument magically disappear any more so than if I said, “I didn’t kill my boss. I hired someone who hired someone who hired someone else to kill him.”  Do determinists really think adding more links in their deterministic chain somehow relinquishes the truck to which the the chain is attached? “Why did you just use your truck to pull my tree out of my yard, sir?” “No I didn’t, not technically.  The chain did.” “Your chain?  The one you attached to my tree and your truck? How can you say you didn’t pull it up” “Oh, no, see I put this link here in the chain, so you really can’t blame me for that.” “Huh, you put the link there.  So, yes I can.  You pulled up the tree.” “Your aren’t quite smart enough to get it obviously, but because I added several links in the chain that have really hard to pronounce jargon as their titles, I’m not really to blame here. You can’t understand.  You’re too jejune. Just trust me, I didn’t cause it.  Now stop with the nonsensical questions!” 6. Examples of God Determining:  On this point I’ll refer people to my podcasts referencing Phil Johnson and James White as I cover this point more extensively there.  I will just say that JD, like other Calvinists, point to examples of God deterministically bringing about some things as proof that God likewise brings about all things.  And I remind everyone reading along that non-Calvinists, such as myself, may not believe God determines everything but that doesn’t mean we believe God determines nothing.  The crucifixion, the raising up of certain leaders for certain purposes (Joseph), the inspiration of scripture, the setting apart of authoritative messengers (Jonah, Paul) etc, etc, are all things we can agree that God purposed and determined to bring to pass within the course of human history. That is what makes those events uniquely DIVINE.  But, PLEASE NOTE THIS KEY POINT: Proof that God determines some divinely redemptive events throughout the course of human history is not proof that God determines all the evil that needs redeeming. I know, I know, God doesn’t “really determine the evil” because of all the links in this proverbial causal chain… But why!? Why do you need to create a chain that leads back to HIM!?  Why not lead the chain back to US and stop there? How about we appeal to mystery as to how we choose one thing over the other and not impugn the holiness of God by suggesting He is ultimately responsible for which options I choose at any given moment?  Do what Tozer did and hold to a view of God so high, so sovereign, that He is able to ensure His victory despite creaturely freedom, despite there being other powers and authorities in this world!  It’s the best of both worlds. 7. God is Passive in Condemnation: In my podcast I ask the question, “Who, if not God, determined for mankind to be born with total inability due to the fall.”  JD applauds the question and even replays it concluding that it is a great question and that yes God does indeed make this determination.  But then JD goes on to argue that God is passive in condemnation, as if God didn’t do anything to determined the disabled nature of man from birth. Which is it? He argues on the one hand that God must actively work to change the nature of the elect, but God is passively allowing the reprobate to be what he was born to be, but this ignores the question he earlier applauded by overlooking that God ACTIVELY decided to punish all mankind with the nature of total inability to begin with.  The same active decree that put man in their totally disabled condition is the same level of activity God uses to decree the rescue of man from that disability, but JD either misses that point or avoids it purposefully.  I’m not sure which… 8. Addictive Sins of Believers: I make an argument for the contra-casual freewill of believers suggesting that those already regenerated are able to refrain or not refrain from sinful actions (like libertarian free will).  Many, if not most, Compatibilists deny contra-causal freewill (LFW) in anyone (including pre-fallen Adam and believers), arguing that it is an “irrational causeless choice” unless it is ultimately causally determined by God.  Apparently JD is not familiar with this particular set of beliefs and thus misses the point all together.  It was good though because he made my case for me considering that we agree with each other on this point.  Too bad he didn’t know that while he was arguing it, otherwise it could have been an actual point of agreement for us. In summary, I’d say that JD and I aren’t really near as far apart as he seems to think we are in our views.  If he listened to my other podcasts he might see that.  He does not want to impugn God’s holiness or blame God for evil any more so than I do.  Our ways of describing those differences would likely appear semantical to most laypeople. I just think the Compatiblistic system fails to avoid the charge of impugning God’s holiness and maybe he disagrees, maybe he doesn’t–I’m not sure since he never gets beyond the surface of the argument. Unfortunately, most of his arguments don’t actually engage our points of contention but resort to strawmanning and hyperbole. For example, he said I deny the doctrine of regeneration and original sin, which I do not.  I deny the Calvinistic concepts of “pre-faith regeneration” and “total inability,” distinctions I make very clear in my podcasts, but he never actually addresses.  Hopefully JD will take another stab at engaging me but next time with a little less rancor and a little more substance.  I’d love to hear, for example, why he believes some Christians do sin at times.  Did God grant them what they needed to resist the temptation?  If so, then why did they fail?  Did God fail to grant them enough grace to resist, or where they just contra-causally free? Thanks for your time in engaging this discussion.  P.S. One more point.  I was also accused of being Pelagian, which I address in my third Podcast titled, “Am I a Pelagian…” It is the lazy man’s approach in debate to label and dismiss people as heretical instead of actually dealing with their point of view.  Ironically, no writing of Pelagius survived for much of the same reason: the desire of man to do away with anyone who disagrees with him.  I’m just thankful that today that it is “labeling and dismissing” instead of “labeling and burning at the stake.” Shew!

In today episode we: Continue the Phil Johnson debate over Twitter by reminding everyone that non-Calvinists, such as myself, may not believe God determines everything, but that doesn't mean we believe God determines nothing.  Calvinists, like Phil Johnson and James White point to examples of God's deterministic activity in the world as if its the smoking gun proving their deterministic premise.    If you witnessed me having to hold down my son in order to give him a shot for diabeties because he was afraid of needles, would you walk away and conclude that Leighton always uses brute stength to over power the will of his son, denying his child any freedom or personhood or independance?  Of course not, yet this is what deterministic Calvnists do with the scriptures.  They take examples of God's interaction within the course of human history and insist this is how God determines everything.  This does nothing except undermine the unique divine nature of such events recorded in scripture.   I quote John MacArthur as saying, "He [God] simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends." And Phil concluded that the concept of 'simple permission' was jejune yet failed to ever provide any real distinction between God's active role in determining, authoring or permitting evil. He did reference Hendryx who seems to be much more deterministic in his approach than MacArthur.   I play a clip from John Piper where he graciously explains that some won't be able to see God from the deterministic perspective as Holy, so if that is where they are they shouldn't accept it until they see it clearly taught in the text.   Lastly, I quote Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the Prince of Baptist Preachers, as he implores fellow believers to remain true to the text even if its inconsistent with their theological system. Here is that quote: Sermon on I Tim. 2:4 by Charles Haddon Spurgeon:"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —"Salvation By Knowing the Truth"   Now, if what some Calvinists say is true about all five points hanging or falling together, and to deny any one point makes one "not really a Calvinist," then they need to stop quoting Spurgeon as if he is Calvinistic because he is anything but consistent in the 5 point system being proclaimed by many today.    For those interested, here is a copy of the tweet I send in response to the article by John Hendryx: 1. Hendryx wrote: "God ordains all things that come to pass (Eph 1:11)" - Failing to define what he mean's by 'ordains' one must ask if the concept of divine "permission" applies or does he take the typical approach of convoluting the clear meaning of the word "permit" by suggesting God is somehow "permitting what he determined" (unnecessary redundancy)? Who knows?Eph 1:11 "In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will."Can someone point out where it teaches that God determines all things in this verse, because what I read is exactly what MacArthur wrote to us jejune common folk: "He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good."I find a significant difference in God "working out the evil for good" and God determining/decreeing/causing/ordaining evil, but maybe other less jejune folks don't?2. Hendryx wrote: "according to compatibilism, human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism" Can someone explain how this is different from animal instinct and why animals aren't likewise held morally accountable for their choices given that they are acting in accordance with their innate predetermined desires too?3. Hendryx wrote: "For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son"Ok, so God's active involvement in ensuring the redemption of sin on the cross is supposed to prove God is equally active in bringing about the sins that needed redemption? BTW, just so others know. Indeterminists, like myself, don't deny God's active role in hardening (blinding people from truth or giving them over to their sin) in order to ensure certain UNIQUE and SPECIAL events throughout human history come to pass. We just don't use such divinely ordained events as proof texts to suggest God is equally as active in every mundane happenstance in the entire world (i.e. universal determinism of all things is somehow proven by some events God determined). We don't believe God's role in ensuring the redemption of mankind somehow proves God likewise ensure the holocaust or Dahmer's heinous evil, for instance. We reference those divine events as supernatural or miraculous because of God's active and unique role in them, and suggesting God plays the same role in EVERY event only undermines that divine uniqueness. 

In this episode Stewie and Phil Johnson gang up on me and hurt my feelings. They are insisting my claim that God's sovereignty is more about his desire to reveal a world NOT under his complete control than it is about Him attempting to maintain deterministic control over every thing that happens is just plain 'stupid' and 'jejune.' What ever that means. It once again goes back to the Determinist's claim that God cannot create a rock to big for Him to move, but does that in any way prove that God cannot create a rock that He chooses NOT to move?  Phil Johnson, like James White, seems to think even the consideration of such a idea is irrational.  Who cares if it doesn't seem rational to our finite mind, I just want to know if its biblical.   These passages teach that there are "authorities" and "powers" which are yet to be destroyed, and that have been given dominion over God's creation. Isaiah 24:21 A time is coming when the Lord will punish the powers above and the rulers of the earth. Ephesians 6:12  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Colossians 2:20  You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. 1 Corinthians 15:24 GNT Then the end will come; Christ will overcome all spiritual rulers, authorities, and powers, and will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father. Don't misunderstand my point. I affirm that God is OVER these powers and authorities. He created them after all. Colossians 1:16: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. And one day God will strip them of that authority: Colossians 2:15  God stripped the spiritual rulers and powers of their authority. With the cross, he won the victory and showed the world that they were powerless. But, if God has chosen to allow created beings to have dominion and power over something, even for a time, how is His "sovereignty" (as defined by some being "complete and total deterministic over every single thing") not compromised? I appreciate Phil Johnson posting a link to his blog in our Twitter discussion. I think a fair summary is, "The difficulty of Human Responsibility and God's Sovereignty disappears when you accept that God ordains the means as well as the ends." Which to me seems tantamount to saying the difficulty goes away when you accept that God is responsible for both His own choices (the ends) and man's choices (the means). i.e. God determines the ends but also every little detail that brought that end to pass....so how is that different than plan ol' HARD DETERMINISM? It's not. Does Phil mean by "ordain" that God merely permits? If so, we agree...but isn't divine permission conceding the existence of human autonomy given that it there must be something outside God's will for which to give permission? Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin, right? Death...suffering...pain and all the bad things that happen came as a result of sin entering the universe (reference to Genesis 3:14-24) not as a result of God's decision, but decisions of his creatures. Doesn't that mean all those evil consequences of sin continue to work in the world and will be with us as long as sin is here even if God weren't involved at all (which I'm not saying he isn't...I'm just saying this came about because of sin, not God, and it would continue with or without God's being involved...its independent of Him, separate, in other words). God is certainly more powerful than any evil...he could stifle it at any moment with a word. I don't think anyone is denying that. And I think we all agree that there's a sense in which it is proper even to say that "evil is part of His eternal decree," (permissively I mean).   He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10), but isn't there a difference in working evil out for good and unchangeably determining evil yourself? It's one thing to help my child grow from being bullied, its another for me to hire the bully so as to make my child grow. See my point? Most say that God's role with regard to evil is never as its "author," but few define the distinction between predetermining/ ordaining/ decreeing and 'authoring.'  I posed this question to Phil via Twitter: "Tell me if I'm wrong here but it seems to me that God simply permits evil people to do their own evil, then God overrules or works out the evil for His own good END. Agree? Disagree?" We will get into his answer and much more in the next episode.  To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com    

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God Too many here think man's contra-causal freewill somehow violates divine sovereignty, which begs the question by presuming that God could not have chosen in His sovereignty to make mankind contra-causally free. Dare one argue that God's not powerful enough to create contra-causally free individuals? For if He could and did then by the very nature of HIS DOING IT does it not become an act of His Sovereign Will thus making human freedom fully inline with divine sovereignty? Must God control the choices/acts of every creature to be sovereign? Must he play both sides of the chess board to ensure victory? I think not. I believe God is much greater than that view of divine sovereignty. God is not scared of contra-causal freedom, He is more than capable of accomplishing His ultimate purposes in, through and DESPITE the free choices and actions of creation. He doesn't need to be the one determining the acts of Satan and Himself to make sure it all goes as he planned.  That appears to be a smaller view of God, not a greater view. Does it impress you when a computer programmer creates a world where every action of the avatars are programmed to have certain responses and reflexes?  Sure, it is really cool to see a vitual world that is similar to our own, but does it impress you to think that is how God has created our world?  One determined in the same cause/effect pre-programmed method as the guy in his mom's basement who created SIMS? I believe God's sovereignty is so much greater than the deterministic worldview proposes.  Could I be wrong?  Sure, but if I am isn't that what God determined?  So, either I'm right or I'm determined by God to be wrong.  Now, ironically you have to determine for yourself which view of God is really the HIGHER view. To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com    

Paul writes:  "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory." Remembering that the question Paul is answering in Romans 9 is: “Has God’s word failed in regard to God’s election of Israel?”  What is Paul’s intent in this passage?  Is Paul concluding that there are some people who are destined before time began to be objects of wrath and others destined to be objects of mercy, as Calvinists conclude?  If so, how does that really answer the question posed by the apostle?  How does that fit with Paul’s expression of unconditional love for these hardened, cut off, stumbling people of Israel in the beginning of this chapter?  How does this fit with the fact that Paul expresses God’s longsuffering patience to a people who He has held out his hands too for generations (Rm. 10:21, Matt. 23:37)?  How does this Calvinistic interpretation fit with the fact that those cut off in Romans 9 may be grafted back in, those hardened may be provoked by envy and saved, those stumbling haven’t stumbled beyond recovery, as recorded in Romans 11?  Is there more than one perspective here?  Could Paul be addressing the exact same argument that was addressed in Romans 3:1-8 where the Jewish people argued, “If my unrighteousness highlights God’s glory why am I to blame?” Isn’t it clear that God is speaking of Israel’s objections against being used to bring redemption to the world by being temporarily cut off, blinded and stumbled, and not of the reprobates objection to being rejected by God from before the creation of the world?  Let’s dive into the text and find the true intent of the author.  If you’d like to enter the discussion join us at www.soteriology101.com  

The Non-Calvinistic View of Romans 9: It begins, as before, with Paul agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to faith in Christ (vv. 1-5). He has to confront the Jewish objection that, if his gospel were correct, it would mean that God’s promises to the Jews had failed. His response is that God’s promises have not failed, but others are inheriting the promises, because not all of Israel is Israel: i.e., not all of Israel has followed Abraham in faith (v. 6). Ethnic descent from Abraham is not enough to be considered “Abraham’s children,” as the examples of Ishmael and Esau demonstrate; Israel has already been granted unmerited blessings as compared with other descendants of Abraham (vv. 7-13). Therefore God is not unjust if he now excludes those descendants of Jacob who do not come to faith, because anyone he blesses, even Moses, is a recipient of his mercy (vv. 14-16). God may choose to spare for a time even someone like Pharaoh, whom God has chosen to harden—knowing that he will harden himself in response to God’s challenge—in order for God to glorify himself through that person, who can be viewed as both an example of God’s mercy and hardening (vv. 17-18). The implication is therefore that the Jews have been given mercy in the past but are not guaranteed mercy in the future if they do not come to faith in Christ. The hypothetical questioner asks why God still blames the Jews, if He has hardened them (v. 19), refusing to recognize that the Jews are hardened just as Pharaoh was hardened, by their own stubborn refusal to repent. Paul therefore rebukes them, and uses the potter-clay illustration to point out that God has always dealt with Israel on the basis of its repentance, and it is only those who refuse to repent who argue back to God that he made them as they are (vv. 20-21). Paul then points out that God has to bear patiently the “objects of his wrath”—the unbelieving—in order to make his glory known to the “objects of his mercy”—those who come to faith, which he specifically identifies as having come not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24). The supporting quotations from Hosea and Isaiah make clear the point: that many of those whom the Jews had considered excluded from the covenant (the Gentiles) would in the end be included, while many whom the Jews had considered included in the covenant (themselves) would be excluded (vv. 25-29). The basis upon which Gentiles have been included and Jews excluded is made explicit in vv. 30-33: it is that the Gentiles are obtaining righteousness through faith, while the Jews have pursued it by works. In essence, Paul is telling ethnic Israel something very close to what Reformed interpreters see. He is telling them that God has the right to choose whomever he wills to be among his covenant people. But he is not telling them this because God has chosen not to elect most of them. He’s telling them this because the paradigm for inclusion in the covenant people has shifted, from national Israel following the Law to anyone who comes to faith in Christ. Israel feels betrayed by this paradigm shift, so Paul explains that God has no obligation to the physical descendants of Abraham; rather, Paul demonstrates from the Old Testament that his relationship to Israel has always depended upon repentance. Examples, such as God's hardening of Pharaoh's will, or God's hardening of Israel's hearts, or God using means to persuade Jonah, or Paul are all clearly redemptive. They are also often pointed to by Calvinists as examples of God's effectual control over the will of man. In this podcast we point out that these examples, like many others, show God intervening to change, alter, and override man's will are unique (not commonplace) and redemptive (not without a greater purpose).  What makes an event in history uniquely a 'work of God' in a more deterministic worldview?In other words, if all events, choices and acts are divinely brought to pass through His decisive conditioning of all things that occur (however you want to nuance it), then what is different about those things which God actively DOES and what he merely 'ORDAINS.' What I'm getting to is the point of proof texting as often done by those of the Reformed persuasion who point to the crucifixion of Christ or the inspiration of scripture as supporting a more deterministic worldview.The argument seems to go something like this: "If God predetermined and causally brought to pass the greatest evil of all time, in the crucifixion of his Son, then that proves God causally predetermines all morally evil events in like manner."But this argument seems to ignore the uniquely divine nature and purpose of this particular event in human history. To suggest that God has causally determine the shooting at the school, or Dahmer's crimes or other such heinous events in our history in the same 'active' and 'sovereign' predeterminate manner that he brought about redemption by laying down his own life seems to be quite a stretch. I believe God did blind Israel in their rebellion so as to ensure the crucifixion and the passover, just as he blinded Pharaoh to accomplish the first passover. He does actively intervene to ensure certain redemptive purposes are fulfilled, and our doctrine has always allowed for this divine conditioning and causality regarding the human will and the divine prerogative. But, do these examples of God's active working to ensure his redemptive plan in human history somehow prove that God likewise works to ensure all evil things by those same determinative means? Doesn't the even the suggestion of that undermine the unique nature of those divine works of redemption? Contrasted with...   The Calvinistic View of Romans 9: Paul begins by agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to salvation through faith in Christ (9:1-5). Paul’s solution is that not all of Israel is Israel; i.e., not all of Israel is elect (v. 6). Paul demonstrates God’s prerogative to elect whomever he wills by having elected Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau (vv. 7-13). God has mercy only on those whom he chooses to have mercy, and hardens the rest, as exemplified by Pharaoh (vv. 14-18). At this point, Paul hypothesizes a questioner who articulates the Arminian contention: if God has chosen to harden someone like Pharaoh, how can God then judge him for what he was predestined to do (v. 19)? Paul rebukes the questioner for impiety, and uses the potter-clay illustration to reiterate that God has the right to elect some and reprobate some as he deems fit (vv. 20-21). Paul then adds, as a supporting argument, the fact that when God chooses to reprobate someone like Pharaoh, he has to bear patiently their sin and arrogance, but does so, in order to demonstrate his glory to his elect, which turn out to be among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews (vv. 22-24). He thus brings the discussion back to the issue of Jewish unbelief in Christ, from which his discussion of election has been an excursus. From that point, the rest of the chapter is interpreted with regard to the Jew-Gentile question and salvation by faith, as opposed to works, without explicit reference to election (vv. 25-33).

Jacob I loved and Esau I hated: The term “hate” is sometimes an expression of choosing one over another, and does not literally mean “hatred.” For instance, Jesus told Peter, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). No commentator worth his salt would suggest the term “hate” in this passage is literal, otherwise he would be hard pressed to explain scripture’s other teachings about loving and honoring our parents. Instead, this passage is understood to mean that man must choose following God’s will over the will of even the most beloved in one’s life. Could the same hermeneutical principle be applied toward understanding God choice of Jacob over Esau? Certainly, it could. God clearly chose one over the other for a noble purpose, but can we be sure that was Paul’s intent in this passage? No, not entirely, we would have to speculate. However, do we have to speculate regarding why God expressed such hatred for Esau? God has a purpose for everything He does and though he is not obligated to explain Himself to any of us, He does typically reveal his motives through scripture. He wants his friends to be aware of His work and the purposes behind His decisions (John 15:15). So, what do we know about God’s motive for hating Esau? Is there a cause or a purpose behind this decision that is revealed in scripture? Does God arbitrarily decide to hate some people and love others? Is that Paul’s meaning in this text? The answer to these questions can be found by unpacking the scriptures Paul refers to in Romans 9. Let’s take a look at each one: Before Birth? A hasty reading of Romans 9 could lead some to think God always hated Esau leaving the impression God’s hatred has no evident cause. This is simply untrue. Verse 11 clearly states that God had a purpose for Israel before the twins were born, but not hatred for an unborn child. “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth” – Rom 9:11 Nowhere does it state that God hated Esau before he was born. God chose to keep his promise to Abraham through Jacob, not Esau, before they were born, but hatred is never spoken of as being present before their birth. That is presumed or read into the text by some, but it simply never states that. Also, God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was not kept as a part of “God’s secret counsel,” as many Calvinists teach regarding individual election. Calvinists argue that one of the reasons we must evangelize all men is because we do not know who God has individually selected, yet are we to believe God told the twins mother that He hated her son before he was were even born? God told Rebecca of his elective purpose in an audible voice (Gen. 25:22-23), but nothing is mentioned regarding God’s hating her son.  How horrible would that be? Imagine God telling you that he hated your son before he was even born! It is unthinkable. Upon reading the text carefully it is easily discerned that God only told her that the older will serve the younger: “when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” – Rom 9:10, Rom 9:12 Clearly, the prophecy was not about hatred or a curse, it was about God’s elective purpose for Israel. Like anyone else, if Esau had chosen to bless Jacob then he too would have been blessed (Gen. 12:3). When and Why Did God Hate Esau? Not only did God not express his hatred for Esau prior to his birth, He did not reveal this until after Esau was dead. Both of the twins were long gone before the house of Esau invoked God’s declaration of hate. The prophecy against Edom, known to be the house of Esau (Gen 36:1, 43), is found in the book of Obadiah. Here we find the true cause of God’s hatred toward these people: “For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.” – Obadiah 1:10 Malachi 1:2-3 is the passage Paul references in the hotly contested ninth chapter of Romans. The original passage states:  “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” – Mal 1:2-3 Malachi wrote his prophecy hundreds of years after Jacob and Esau lived on earth. Both prophets, Malachi and Obadiah, reflect on Edom’s attacks against Israel throughout their writings giving a very clear cause for God’s declared hatred for Esau and those he represented in Edom.  So, it is clear that in Romans 9 Paul was simply summarizing this historical account by first speaking of God’s prophecy for the twins and the nations they represent, and then revealing the final outcome of Edom’s rebellion and God’s subsequent declaration of hatred. Never once is God’s hatred expressed toward an unborn individual or even against someone who was still living. Please think about this honestly and compare it with what you have personally come to know about God. Is the concept of God hating people before they are born even reflective of the God revealed in scripture? Are we to believe that the God who calls us to love our enemies hates the unborn? I John 4:8 teaches, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” Does not your heart stir with righteous anger toward people like those from the Westboro Baptist Church who declares God’s hatred for others? Yet, how is that any different from making the claim that scripture teaches God hates an unborn baby and then deriving a theological system from such teachings which suggests He also hates most of humanity prior to their even being born? Does the spirit inside you resonate at all with such abhorrent claims?   Calvinists seem to think Paul's citation in verse 11 is made at the same time as verse 12, but they are two different references to two different passages...it's more of a Before and After. Verse 11-12 (ref to Gen): BEFORE they were born God declared the election of Jacob to carry the lineage of the Messiah, over the elder brother, but clearly had Esau or anyone else blessed Jacob they too would be blessed (Gen 12:3) Verse 13 (ref to Mal): AFTER ...in fact hundreds of years after both twins were long dead God declared his hatred of Esau in reference to Edom's attack on Israelite lands. Conclusion: God declared his elective choice of Israel before the twins birth to be fulfilled through Jacob, but his hatred for Esau is not declared until long after his death. It is only summarized together by Paul in this chapter leading Calvinists to wrongly think that God's elective purpose and hatred was declared at the same time, before they were born, which is FACTUALLY INACCURATE.   What Paul is demonstrating is that Israel is chosen to carry that promise. He does so in two ways - by demonstrating that Israel (not Esau or the Edomites) was chosen for this and that God's favor remained on them even to the time of the restoration from exile. God still protected and cared for Esau, giving him Mt. Seir as his inheritance. Paul is referencing two distinct historical events in Israel's history to prove his point. (He actually continues to do so throughout Romans 9, but that is another discussion.) He is leveraging the stories provided in his history to make his point. You need to look at the broader textual context of his quotes to understand what he is saying. Modern exegetes have recognized that when Scripture is quoted, the author is using this as a reference to a broader textual and cultural understanding of what is being said. You need to go back and look at the whole discourse.    

Many are Called, but Few are Chosen. Our calling is unconditional, but is our election?  In the illustration of the Wedding banquet (Matt. 22) the choice of those who enter is clearly conditioned upon their wearing the correct garments. We will unpack that parable today. We will also look at 1 Thess. 1:4 and 2 Thess. 2:13, which are used by Calvinists to prove their view of individual election to salvation. Join the discussion at www.soteriology101.com

After Stewie makes fun of the Professor for a host of reasons, the discussion picks up where it left off on John Piper's introduction to Calvinism as he speaks of its practicality in ministry. How teniable is the belief that all our choices are actually determined by God?  Does it really help us? In a culture that blames God and runs to sin rather than blaming sin and running to God, does the Calvinistic system help bolster the false notion that God is to blame for the evil, fallenness and all it consequences?   Do passages such as Eph. 6:10 which speak of other authorities and powers in this world and in heavenly places suggest that God has given over some measure of control? Does the Lord's prayer asking for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven suggest that what is happening on earth is not necessarily as God would determine it if He were in complete deterministic control over every thing that comes to pass? Join the discussion at www.soteriology101.com