Paul, as we know, precluded objections in his epistles by addressing them before anyone could object.
Therefore, If Paul were not teaching unconditional election, why would he say the following in Romans 9:14 "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!" This is the same objection we here today about election. Why would Paul answer an objection about election immediately after verses 11-13 if he weren’t teaching predestination and election?
What do you think? Anyone got an answer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Paul could have said: "God foresaw that Jacob was going to respond and Esau was going to reject my salvation offer and therefore......"
But he didn't. He said what he said and then answered the objection that is still being asked today.......
bluejazzy(wayne)
Amen. It's essential that we come to grips with this awesome truth - and stop the wimpy "it's unknowable, people have been arguing about this for centuries" line of thinking. God is either sovereign in salvation or He is not... Romans 9 (and the rest of the Bible) makes it clear that He is.
And great new site, guys!
Paul begins chapter 9 by saying he would wish he could be condemned for the Jews, his brethern. And in the first verse of chapter 10 he says his most earnest desire is for Israel to be saved.
In between Paul expounds on how God is sovereign in this salvation he so greatly desires for Israel, and yet not all Israel is Israel, but Paul wishes they were.
That's how I pray for others, especially my family. I know God has mercy on whom He will, and He owes no one mercy, but owes us judgement for our sisns.
The non-reformed mind somehow can not understand both these truths, they struggle with God's not wnating to save all. They say God wills that all would be saved, that all would receive His mercy.
We say, God has mercy on whom He will, and He hardens whom He wills, and whether He hardens, or softens a callous heart, either way this is a perfect decision made by our sovereign Lord of heaven and earth.
doulos and don,
Good points. Grace is given to sinners that would not otherwise be interested. Once our hearts are changed then we willingly and gladly accept with true faith. God does it all in true free grace.
bluejazzy(Wayne)
Bluejazzy, I don't have time to get into a deep debate, but I would like to give a brief answer.
The Israelites felt that they should be saved simply because they were born of Abraham and because they kept the law and were upset because the Gentiles were being accepted by God. Paul was explaining that not all Israel is true Israel and that salvation is of faith and not of works or heritage. Election to salvation is conditioined upon faith (and always has been). Paul answers this by saying that God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy. God has mercy on BELIEVERS (i.e., those who do not reject the gospel).
Election (service or salvation) is ALWAYS on God's terms. Esau was the rightful heir to the blessing; however, God gave it to Jacob so that it would not be by the will of man or of the flesh, rather, it is all of grace.
But we disagree and always will since we do not hold the same hermeneutic.
This guy explains it much better than I do.
http://www.christopher-skinner.freeweb7.com/Romans9.pdf
Doulos, I agree. God IS sovereign in salvation. He chooses believers.
Donsands, you said, "And in the first verse of chapter 10 he says his most earnest desire is for Israel to be saved....That's how I pray for others, especially my family."
Why would Paul wish that ALL Israel would be saved if GOD doesn't wish all Israel would be saved? Are you and Paul more compassionate than God? Why would ANY of us wish ALL of our families to be saved if GOD doesn't wish ALL of our families to be saved?
Put it this way, do you want those not saved in your family to go to Hell? If not, are you more compassionate than God?
Donsands, you said, "The non-reformed mind somehow can not understand both these truths, they struggle with God's not wnating to save all. They say God wills that all would be saved, that all would receive His mercy."
It's not that we don't understand it, rather, we don't see it taught in scripture. We say that God loves everyone and died for everyone and isn't willing that any should perish and does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked because that is what the bible teaches. However, we know that not all will be saved because not all will receive and accept the gospel.
Donsands, you said, "We say, God has mercy on whom He will, and He hardens whom He wills, and whether He hardens, or softens a callous heart, either way this is a perfect decision made by our sovereign Lord of heaven and earth."
God's sovereign decision is that He will have mercy on those who believe and will harden those who do not. Though, His hardening is not necessarily permanent, but it can become that way if someone continually rejects the gospel.
Dawn,
Thanks for your visit and comment. Heritage and works may be in view but there is a third thing in view and that is human will. Esau and Jacob were twins and in the womb together when God chose Jacob. Their heritage was identical and v. 11 tells us that works were not a factor but that God’s calling and election was the cause. If it depended on free will faith unaided by God’s mercy then verses 14-16 make no sense since Paul says plainly it does not depend on human will (see John 1:13) but on God who has mercy on whom he chooses.
Romans 9:14-16 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
I will give that link you gave a look.
Bluejazzy(wayne)
Right, Wayne, human will does not save anyone. Faith does.
Dawn,
Yes it is faith and faith alone that saves.
In the link that you sent me to the author quoted Spurgeon on the last page of his article. It was from Spurgeon sermon #241 and I suppose your source thought that one paragraph from the sermon proved that Spurgeon did not hold to God's sovereign unconditional election in salvation. HE WAS WRONG! If you read the entire sermon you will see that unconditional election is affirmed along with man's responsibility. The following is also a paragraph from the same sermon he quoted:
The effectual call of grace is precisely similar; the sinner is dead in sin; he is not only in sin but dead in sin, without any power whatever to give to himself the life of grace. Nay, he is not only dead, but he is corrupt; his lusts, like the worms, have crept into him, a foul stench riseth up into the nostrils of justice, God abhorreth him, and justice crieth, "Bury the dead out of my sight, cast it into the fire, let it be consumed." Sovereign Mercy comes, and there lies this unconscious, lifeless mass of sin; Sovereign Grace cries, either by the minister, or else directly without any agency, by the Spirit of God, "come forth!" and that man lives. Does he contribute anything to his new life? Not he; his life is given solely by God. He was dead, absolutely dead, rotten in his sin; the life is given when the call comes, and, in obedience to the call, the sinner comes forth from the grave of his lust, begins to live a new life, even the life eternal, which Christ gives to his sheep.
I would encourage you to read this entire sermon.
bluejazzy...wayne
Looks great guys! I look forward to reading more. I am so thankful the Lord had Mercy on me.
Cristina
Wayne, I have never corresponded with the person who wrote the article, but I highly DOUBT that he thought that Spurgeon did not adhere to unconditional election, rather, he it may be that he thought the questions were relevant, which I think they are, OR he was using Spurgeon's words against him, which I think he should.
"Are you and Paul more compassionate than God?"
It's not more compassionate to want everyone saved, especially our loved ones. This is a human finite quality. God is nothing like us. Sure His mercy is great, and it brings great glory to God, but so, in the same magnitude, does His judging rebels, who are wicked, and worthy of His wrath, which we all are to one degree or the other.
God should condemn us all, don't you think?
I deserve hell. I don't deserve to be with God. And yet His sovereign grace saved me from my sin. He saves, and has mercy on filthy sinners who don't want Him.
The natural man doesn't understand the spiritual, neither can he. He hates the the truth, and hides in the darkness, and on top of that, the god of this world has us blinded.
A dead sinner would never believe, unless god's mercy came to him.
I appreciate your thoughtful challenge, but I suppose we shall have to leave it where it is.
I believe Scripture teaches that it's 100% grace, and that God has mercy, and God saves, and God quickens a dead sinner who has absolutely no way of believing the Gospel, unless he is one of God's elect.
Donsands, you said, "It's not more compassionate to want everyone saved, especially our loved ones. This is a human finite quality. God is nothing like us. Sure His mercy is great, and it brings great glory to God, but so, in the same magnitude, does His judging rebels, who are wicked, and worthy of His wrath, which we all are to one degree or the other."
I should have said compassionate and LOVING, but I think you understood my point. I agree that God is nothing like us; however, we ARE made in His image. We ARE to love our enemies and to do good to those who despitefully use us and persecute us. It is in that sense that we are to be like God who IS love and is all loving and loves the whole world, thus He sent His son to die for the world. We are finite, but God is not and His love is so much greater than ours could EVER be so surely if our finite minds want our loved ones to be in heaven then God's desire is MUCH greater than ours and He proved it by coming to earth to suffer for our sakes. He tasted death for EVERY MAN. That is why He doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked and wishes that all would come to the knowledge of the truth.
So you are saying that God's compassion is different to ours? It is more compassionate to send someone to Hell for no apparent reason?
If you guys believe that God chooses only some men for salvation for reasons unknown and before they are even born and have never sinned (i.e., unconditional election which, in turn, means that others are unconditionally NOT elected to salvation), how is it that sin is what puts a person in hell? Again, I thought it was God who decided one's eternal fate BEFORE anyone was even born or had ever sinned. How is sin not inconsequential in all this?
If God did not send His Son to die for everyone (i.e., Jesus died only for the elect), how is it that those who end up in Hell are in there because 1) they have sinned and 2) they have rejected the gospel and did not believe in the virgin birth, death, burial and resurrection which wasn't even for them anyway (according to Calvinism)? Again, this was supposedly all decided before the world came into existence.
Dawn,
Perhaps you misunderstand the condition that we all find ourselves in - our problem isn't just that we sin... it is that we ARE SINNERS by nature. We are born in sin as a result of Adam's fall and stand condemned by nature. God - in His amazing love and mercy - determined to save some from the beginning of time and, as we see in Romans 8:30,"...those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
If we see ourselves as sinful not just by action but by nature, we see our need of a Savior - and the fact that salvation is the work of God and Him alone is really, really good news.
"It is more compassionate to send someone to Hell for no apparent reason?"
All mankind is guilty and wicked before a holy God.
God would do a holy and great deed if He did send us all to hell. This is what we all deserve yesterday, and this would be right and good.
It's not compassionate when god judges. But it is His perfect will being done. And He could surely save everyone if He so desired, don't you think Dawn?
My point is that I want everyone to be saved, and yet I know not everyone shall be, but only those whom God wills to have His mercy upon.
Those others, who shall be judged, -first of all- deserve it. There's great reason for their judgment.
I want my family saved, but God may not save them. That's difficult to take in to the heart. But if He judges them, then that is right, good ,a nd just.
I pray for God's mercy upon them. And God doesn't take pleasure in judging the wicked, but when He does, it is perfect glorifying justice from a loving and merciful God.
Dawn,
I was wondering if you could walk us through this scripturally - How does one, of whom it is written, who doesn't understand, doesn't seek God, has turned aside, doesn't fear God (which is the beginning of wisdom) come to a place where they suddenly understand their need to trust the Savior?
Also
From among these - adultry, fornication, uncleaness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkeness, revelries (these are the only things the sons of Adam bring to the table)- from which of these does the awareness of one's need for the Savior arise? Keeping in mind, the Reformed don't see anywhere in the Bible where it teaches "prevenient grace".
Now remember, your answer must be scriptural, not human reasoning like you used above. If you have any hope of persuading a Reformed person of the error of his ways you must use solid, air-tight, biblical exegesis. I'm going to be a stickler here, I'm affraid.
Mark
In other words, I won't let you off the hook until you have satisfied me with your answers. So please go ahead and convince me of my error. I'm going to be tougher on you here than I was on your own blog.
I'm going to be away most of today. Hopefully I can be back tomorrow. Lots of screwed up paperwork that has to be fixed with my dad's medicade application.
Donsands, I agree that we all deserve Hell. I misspoke and should have stated, "Is it more compassionate to choose only some for salvation and not others when we are all in the same boat, sinfully speaking?" No. And God doesn't think so either, else He wouldn't wish that all would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth or not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.
I don't believe what I believe because of human reasoning, rather, I believe what I believe because it is what God teaches.
Mark, I've already answered you at my blog. We do not naturally seek God, but when God seeks us through His grace (prevenient...which you reject) thus enabling us to seek Him and UNDERSTAND our need for a savior. So it would be a waste of time to rehash it all.
Feel free to be YOU at my blog and hold me as accountable there as you would here.
Donsands, I forgot to say that Jesus' death was not limited. He died for EVERY MAN. If He died for EVERY MAN then EVERY MAN has an opportunity to be saved by the grace of God. The good news was/is that man CAN be saved if He will but believe.
But we will never see eye to eye.
God Bless You.
I forgot to address this from you, Mark. You said, "Now remember, your answer must be scriptural, not human reasoning like you used above."
I wasn't using just human reasoning. My reasoning comes from what is taught in the bible. God loves everyone and wishes everyone to be saved. He's taught us in His word how we should love others, even our enemies. If God charges us with this type of love, how much more should HIS love be equal to ALL in matters of salvation, which I will remind you that He doesn't wish anyone to go to Hell, but wishes that ALL would repent and be saved. However, He has a condition and that condition is FAITH which is the responsibility of man.
Like I stated on my blog. God has said that there would be animals in heaven. You want us to believe that God loves ANIMALS more than He loves some PEOPLE.
My reasoning is scriptural.
Romans 9 clearly teaches unconditional election - Jacob was chosen over Esau BEFORE either did any good or evil. If we read Romans 9 as it actually appears, not as your system would have it read - election to service due to the fact that the Arminians would have us believe that Paul would want us to have the OT dictate to us the context of Romans 9, thereby muting the voice of an APOSTLE. Paul's motif in Romans 9-11 is to quote a snippet of OT scripture, expound on it, and move on to do the same with yet another snippet of the OT. NOWHERE is Paul telling his readers to use the OT to set up the context. Thus, the Calvinist rendering of Romans 9 - the sovereignty of God in election to salvation - is the correct way to read that chapter.
We ARE to love all, praying for all men to be saved, 1 Tim.2:1-6. That is the duty of the Christian. We have no idea who the elect are; thus our prayers serve as some of the God appointed means to bring in His elect. Remember, there are vessels of mercy prepared for glory... and vessels of wrath.
Dawn,
To answer your view would you please read the next post, "Does God reject anyone with true saving faith" and the 5th comment by me in the thread. Thanks.
wayne
Post a Comment