Open View of Salvation vs. Predetermination

Grace and Peace Jarthur001,

In Romans 9:14, Paul asks: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God is there? may it never be!" (9:14). If we miss the meaning of Paul's question in verse 14, we will likely come away from Romans 9 with a wrong view of what Paul is meaning to covey. It is absolutely necessary for us to udnerstand why Paul asks the question in verse 14, if we are going to be able to understand the contribution that Romans 9 gives to our understanding of election.

It is assumed by those who believe in unconditional election that Paul is raising the question of whether God was unrighteous or unjust in unconditionally choosing Jacob while rejecting Esau. Robert Haldane explains, "The Apostles anticipated the objection of the carnal mind in this doctrine. Bose not loving Jacob and hating Esau before they had done any good or evil, imply, that there is injustice with God?" Everett F. Harrison observes, "God's dealings with Jacob and Esau might be challenged as arbitrary, on the ground that Esau was the object of injustice." William S. Plumer says, "The meaning is this: Does God's treatment of Isaac and Jacob display injustice to Ishmael and Esau?" William G. T. Shedd explains. "The objection is raised that in such discrimination as that between Jacob and Esau, God acts unjustly." John Piper comments, "When Paul said that God chose to bless Jacob over Esau apart from any basis in their actions but simply on the basis of his choice (ek tou kalountos, Romans 9:12), his opponent objected that this would call God's righteousness into question (9:14).

I believe that Calvinism has wrongly interpreted the question in verse 14. They have wrongly interpreted the question in verse 14 because they ahve wrongly interpreted verses 6-13, particularly verses 11 and 12. A proper understanding of verses 6-13 should help us understand why Paul posed the question of whether there is injustice in God in verse 14.

Let's take a serious look at verses 6-13 and see what the context is for this question in verse 14.

To find out why Paul raised this question in verse 14, we need to review the context. In verses 1-3, Paul expressed his deep concern over the many Jews who were not saved. This created a serious problem for the Jews. The unbelieving Jews were not prepared for such an observation. That large numbers of Jews, who were the Covenant People of God, would be lost and under God's wrath was for them unthinkable.

We are confronted with two seemingly contradictory concepts in the New Testament concerning the Jewish viewpoint on their own salvation. The first is the concept of unconditional salvation of all Jews as the seed of Abraham. It was this viewpoint that cause John the Baptist to say, "Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with your repentance; and do not suppose that you can say, to yourselves, we have Abraham for our fathre; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham" (Mt. 3:9; see also Jn. 8:33-40).

The other viewpoint is that they were depending on their own works. This viewpoint is set forth by Paul when he said, "But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works" (Rom. 9:31-32).

It appears that these two observations about salvation among the Jews are mutually exclusive. However, from all I can gather, Jews were not as concerned with harmonization as some of us are.

Douglas J. Moo raises the question:

Who constitutes the "Israel" to whom God's promises of salvation ahve been given?

He goes on to say:

"The standard view among Paul's Jewish contemporaries was that this Israel was made up of all those physically descended from Jacob, the heir of Abraham and Isaac, who was himself named "Israel." Only those who had refused their inheritance by outright apostasy would be excluded form Israel to whom the promises belonged."

So in a certain sense the Jews of Paul's day also believed in a corporate salvation of 'all' Jews.

While Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, he had a heavy burden for the Jews who were unsaved. I am conviniced that the burden of Paul in the Book of Romans was his deep concern that so many of his own kinsmen, the Jews, were not saved. While the most intense statement of the burden is found in 9:3, Paul's burden for the Jews comes across before we get to chapter 9.

The evidence of Paul's burden for the Jews comes early in the book. In showing that the Gentiles who had only general revelation were lost in 1:19-32, Paul took only 14 verses to make his case. In trying to show the Jews that they were lost in 2:1-3:8, he took 37 verses.

The appeal to Abraham and the Abrahamic Covenant in Romans 4 had a threefold purpose:

1. To show that in the convenant that God made with Abraham, faith and faith alone was the condition of justification.
2. To show that Gentiles who have faith in Christ are also justified by faith alone.
3. To show that it was God's plan in the Abrahamic Covenant for Gentiles who believe to become Abraham's seed and thus heirs with him and the Jewish believers.

The major concern of Romans 7:7-25 was to deal with Jewish concerns. In verse 7, Paul asks the question, "Is the law sin?"

Why would Paul raise the question, "Is the law sin?" Because the emphasis up to this point is on what the law cannot do. The law cannot justify (3:20). The law works wrath (4:15). The law tended to make sin abound (5:20). To be out from under the law was supposed to be a plus factor so far as righteous living was concerned (6:14 and 7:6). The law stirred the passions of sins in us into activity (7:5).

We need to keep reminding ourselves how important the law was to the Jewish people of that day, especially to the Pharisees. Law to them was supreme. Even a converted Jew would have difficulty understanding the removal of law from the center of the picture. It is not hard at all to see why a Jew would raise the question, and why he would need an answer.

Against the background of thought that God has uncondtionally promised eternal life to all Jews. Paul said, "But it is not as though the Word of God has failed" (9:6). If God had unconditionally promised eternal life to all Jews through the Abrahamic Covenant, His promise would ahve failed if large numbers of Jews, as Paul taught, were unsaved. On the hand, as John Piper explains, "If Paul can show that God's ultimate 'purpose according to election' never included the salvation of every individual Israelite, then the situation described in Rom. 9:1-5 would not so easily jeopardize God's relability."

Jewish thought assumed that if masses of Jews were unsaved, that would mean that God's promise had failed. That would mean that God would be unrighteous or unjust because He would be failing to live up to His promise of eternal life to all Jews, as it was given in the Abrahamic Cavenant.

With great concern, Paul attempted to show the Jews that God's promise had not failed. He revealed that God had never promised to save all Jews.

Paul's first step in trying to convince the Jews that God had not promised salvation to all Jews was to say, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Isreal" (9:6). In this verse, Paul is saying that the name "Israel" has a broad and a narrow use. In the broad use it refers to all of those who have descended from Abraham through Jacob. These are the Covenant Seed of Abraham. It is true that the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were made to all of those who descended form Abraham through Jacob. But the question is: Does this mean that all are saved?

Paul is saying we are not to understand that all who have descended from Abraham through Jacob are saved. Thsi suggests that there is a second use of the name "Israel". This use of the name "Israel" refers to those who descended from Abraham through Jacob who will actually be the beneficiaries of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. According to Paul, these are the ones who believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. These are "True Israel".

It takes more than a mere statement on Paul's part to convince the Jew. So what follows is designed to get the Jew to come to an understanding of the truth that God did not uncondtionally promise eternal life to all who descended from Abraham through Jacob.

In verse 7 Paul observes, "Neither are they all children because they are descendants, but: 'Through Isaac your descendants will be named.'" The Jews understood wee that though Ishmael and the descendants of Abraham through his children Keturah were Abraham's descendants, they wer not considered a part of the Covenant Seed of Abraham. They werwe also well aware that not even all of the descendants of Isaac were a part of this Covenant Seed. They understood that the descendants of Isaac through Jacob were the Covenant Seed of Abraham, while the descendants of Isaac through Esau were not the Covenant Seed of Abraham.

It is important to observe that 9:10-13 are in a context which has as its purpose to show that there is no reason to believe that all the Covenant Seed of Abraham (those who descended from Abraham through Jacob) are saved. This means that verses 10-12 are used by Paul to show that not all of the natural descendants of Abraham were saved. If this consideration of the context is not taken into account, the meaning of these verses will be missed.

Verses 10-13 are of particular importance because they point out that even though God had said, "Through Isaac your descendants will be named" (verse 7), not even all fo Isaac's descendants made up the Covenant Seed of Abraham.

Long story short Paul was building a case for the Jews who assumed unconditional salvation by pointing out the fact that their assumption was flawed. In a certain sense it is irony that I am using those same verses to disprove the same belief among Calvinist. :tongue3:

Peace and God Bless.

 

Bound, great post. You should write a book

 

Grace and Peace webdog,

Unless the book is already been written.

I am an insect standing on the shoulders of giants.

Peace and God Bless.

 

And then we have that word context.

In learning all you can about Calvinist, you will find this is one thing that will really gets under your skin. They always seem to want to stick to context. How dare them!! If only we could pull a verse from here and remove a few words, change the meaning of 2 or 3 words, clap your hands and turn around 3 times, we can get the Bible to say just about any thing we want it to say. To bad we have Calvinist around that make us stick to context.

The goal is for us to understand Spiritual context. We need look at historical and Cultural context. You did ok on this, though I would change a few things, your historical point remains. But you have built your point on history and this is wrong.

After a preacher has established the cultural and historical context, next they move onto formal exegesis. This is where they find out what words mean and how they are used grammatically. This is called grammatical context. This is language work in dealing with Hebrew and Greek. The word Exegesis…as I’m sure you know… means to “draw out.” When dealing with a passage the preacher does not say “What do I think this says?” but rather, “What does it say.” Here the tense, mood, grammar and syntax are considered.

This will lead us to spiritual context our goal.

The text…

What is the spiritual purpose of this passage? What subject is God trying to teach us about himself?

It is stated at the beginning…. ,
that the purpose of God according to election might stand.

Will the context be supported thoughout the text? Let look and see.

God choose the 2nd son over the 1st son. Why? To prove election. The norm is for the 1st child to get the blessings. When God choose the 2nd child it was for one purpose…not because they were better…not because they believed…not because of him that willeth (16) to choose God on there own….but it was for the purpose of election.

It is black and white…check out the text..

Mercy to one vs no mercy to the other…why? For the purpose of God according to election might stand.

Compassion to one vs no compassion to the other..why? For the purpose of God according to election might stand.

Love to one vs hate to the other. Why? For the purpose of God according to election might stand.
Honour to one vs dishonour to the other..Why? For the purpose of God according to election might stand.

Wrath fitted to destruction to one vs mercy to others...why? For the purpose of God according to election might stand.



But ..but ..but ..but….does not this make God unjust?

But …but… but… but why does it not make God unjust?

This my dear friend is called context. God is in full control, and can do as He pleases. That is the context..that is the meaning of the context.


In Christ...James

 

Hello Christian friend. Left off that which followed as all scripure quoted is true. But we of "free will" do not need to try and explain away those scriptures.


You evidently are secure in your belief, as I in mine. I am "dispensationalist" and perhaps you are also for in another forum that was cut-off I noticed you enter into the "justification" gospel of the individual in this dispensation, which Christ Jesus gave to Paul.

To stay within subject and be brief, perhaps I can show "free will" is applicable, without duplicity. Also praise God that what ever we believe here is not what our salvation depends upon. But just in case it does, I feel very secure for I know whom it is I believe, and am absolutely sure, until that day, He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him.

I believe "free will" must first be "disproved", and holding this belief pluralism is a non-issue for many in the Body of Christ. The only way to arrive at this truth of "free will" is to begin with the "purpose of God". We know the purpose of God is Jesus Christ and it is Christ, the only begotten Son of God that tells us of Free Will salvation. We know Christ Jesus spoke personally and revealed to Paul His salvation gospel from heaven for we of the heavenlies. We see above Paul tells Timothy it was he (Paul) that trusted Christ Jesus.

In order to not have robots, we see the angels have "free will" and we are made a little less than the angels. Also in our spirituality is required the Spirit and a free will. We also know Adam and Eve had true free will. Yet we know God has control of all things, else we would not be able to trust Him. He also knows all things - He "foreknows" and in this He can then "predestinate". I believe when I was in the womb He knew me and the choice I would make, so he predestined me to be in the Body of Christ for He knew when he called I would be justified.

A verse that must be disproved, which advises of our "free will" is one Christ said on earth, but not brought to light until the proper time, for until the Holy Spirit had John write words spoken by Jesus while on earth, these words had been forgotten, and not understood. The Gospel of John in many places give credence, and great back up to what Paul had written 30 or more years before John was allowed to write his gospel. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 

Maybe everyone forgot this post a few pages back.

Will God save these guys..being God is love?

anyone?

 

If my calling myself a Calvinist means that I follow Calvin instead of Christ then your calling yourself a Baptist must mean that you follow John instead of Christ. The only alternative is that your logic is flawed and that Calvinists do not mean that they follow Calvin rather than Christ.

But you go ahead and think what you will of me and other Calvinists, and I hope you have a blessed day.

 

Paul said, I would that you be followers of me even as I am a follower of Christ so I doubt if it would be a bad thing to follow John the Baptist for He also was a follower of Christ and is indeed a part of the Bible.
I find no where in the Scripture the name of Calvinism, Calvinist or John Calvin.

You have a good day also. I think you hurt your cause by using the name of Calvinism.

 

35: Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36: For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
37: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38: Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
39: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
40: Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
41: Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

He came unto His own but His own received Him not, but as many as did He gave them power to become the Sons of God.
It still took belief for them to receive this work that Jesus did when He came.

They all had a chance but refused to believe that Jesus was the Christ.

 

41: These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
42: Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
44: Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45: And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46: I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47: And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48: He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49: For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50: And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

It was time for Him to die so their hearts were hardened for as in the Books of Acts; Your fathers have slain the Prince of Life, but if they would of known they would not of slain Him.

It was done by God so that His Son could die for the sins of the Whole World. If you look, Jesus still preached "you must believe". Judas was also chosen, but he was chosen for what he was "Son of perdition", a devil from the beginning!

I really don't know why you are using these Scriptures to deny Free-will?

 

28: Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29: Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30: For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Again, Jesus is talking about those who would not receive Him as the Messiah, but finished the chapter 3 verses down by saying "Come unto me, all ye that Labour".

Sorry, but can't see the connection to deny Free-willism?

 

Rom
31: But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32: Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33: As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

If, we did not try to gloss over the word faith then we would truly understand the Scriptures. Same stuff, the coming in of the Gentiles and the blindness of the Jews because they never believed.

Of course it was in God's plan the coming in of the Gentile nation through "Grace through Faith". God is outside of time and sees the coming in of the Gentiles, the unbelief of the Jews. He is all in all. Nothing Non-Free-Willism here.

 

Grace and Peace Jarthur001,

Actually I felt my post which appeared before this addressed your recent Universalist leanings. I find equal concerns between both extremes, Calvinism and Universalism.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=832086&postcount=35

Without a 'balanced' use of God's Divine Attributes we, as fallen human beings, can't help of distort the Scriptures. When the whole of Scripture is interpreted in a balanced and measured manner I believe we encounter a just, loving, wise means to bring healing to those who suffer, struggle and cry-out for an encounter with God.

I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't believe it was the means for the salvation of the most who have fallen but I am equally 'bound' to recognize that not all God's creatures will respond but ultimately I don't know how many lost sheep cry-out for Him in the last throws if life and experience that glorious hand of grace extend their way. I do have that hope for God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".

What I don't believe is that we are all pawns of a divine lottery system.

Peace and God Bless.

 

36: He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37: And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38: And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39: And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40: And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41: Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

It seems to be saying here that through belief their sins

would be blinded out of them. I may have it wrong on this

one but Jesus said because they said "We see" then their

sin remaineth so therefore if they did not see (sins cast out

never to be remembered against them anymore) or blinded

to the sins they once had. I think it is talking about natural

blindness and Spiritual blindness? I may be reaching here BP/T

 

Grace and Peace Jarthur001,

Prayer is the key of heaven; prayer ascends and mercy descends; high as are the heavens, and low as is the earth, God hears the voice of man. - St. Augustine

My only criticism would be when one draws 'Spiritual context' which contradicts God's Divine Nature. Remember God is 'not' arbitrary but He 'is' Just. There is 'wisdom' in everything that He does. The point of my post was that everything in Scripture has layers of meaning and without a firm understanding of those layers we fail to grasp the deeper meaning for ourselves. Everytime we encounter the misuse of Scripture we encounter the failure to discern the continuity between these layers and God's Divine Nature at work in them.

On so many levels I find myself uncomfortable with Calvinist Theology. I can appreciate that it can be argued but I continue to believe it reaches it's unique exegesis without concern or understanding of God's Divine Nature.

So like I've said before, I don't dispute that Calvinist Theology can be argued what I dispute is that it is reasonable knowing the Nature of God.

Peace and God Bless.

 

As He blinded Israel for the coming in of the Gentiles and He blinded them because of unbelief for they had not faith. If they would of had faith He would not of blinded them.
Rom
31: But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32: Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33: As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Even so, He blinded Pharaoh for the deliverance of His people out of the land of bondage of which He had promised them that He would not leave them down in the land of Egypt. If Pharaoh had of had faith there would of been no reason to blind him for he would of let the people go. "Let My people go!!".

Again, Faith is missing here and is what brought this destruction upon them. He picked Pharaoh for what he was knowing that Pharaoh had no faith so He blinded him and raised him to the position of being able to block the children, so as to show His power that he had to let them go.

 

But didn't God give to every man the measure of faith? Rom 12:3

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

 

I really glad to see you post this J.D.

Everytime I used this Scripture the Calvinist have refused to accept it at all but I am glad to see you have.

KJMatt.13

"12": For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

If you don't use it you lose it!!!

 

so then they crossed a line somewhere along the way and God took away the faith he had given them?

 

No, God gave them the measure of faith. Enough to believe there is a God and know they were lost. The measure of faith will just get you to the foot of the cross but takes faith in Christ to take you all the way.

They did not have the faith once delivered unto the Saints, the faith that lead them to Grace. peace and maybe we can start over again sometime?