Calling All Calvinist/Reformed Christians!

[Evergreen48]

God Is. Between the two words "God" and "Is", lies the revelation that God can know and not know, he can see and not see, and all of these things at the same time. (Comprehending this truth about God is not possible for the finite mind, so, this is one of those things that we must accept without being able to comprehend it.) God left an open end to the destiny of those ones to whom the OT prophets were sent, as well as each individual that has lived, is living, and will live under his heaven. This not because he is limited in power or omnipotence in any way, but because he chose to have it that way when he bestowed upon us this thing which is called free will. One of the central themes of the Old Testament in his dealings with the national peoples whom he chose to keep his holy name alive among the lost and dying populace of the earth until which time that he would, from that people, bring forth the Savior of the masses is: "If you will, I will.", said God.

 

[Clare73]

Lol! Sorry.

If this is indeed the case, then why use such inaccurate, not to say, even deceptive language?

As for Romans 9.17 (and practically the entire chapter for that matter), let me begin by confessing that I'm always uneasy whenever I see somebody drawing a theological conclusion based on virtually any text from Romans.

Well, that's not a good thing.

It's a notoriously unwieldy letter with numerous rabbit trails, all kinds of archaic rhetorical devices employed, complex and nearly impenetrable arguments,

So the word of God he gave us is a word we cannot understand.

I disagree.

and untold translation difficulties out of all proportion to its popularity (I seriously can't count how many Bible study groups in which I've been involved in one way or another where Romans was inevitably chosen as the book to study.)

So, with that in mind, as far as I'm concerned, to properly and most accurately understand its intent, it's of especial importance when it comes to Romans that we always rely on Paul's own summary of his argument -- if he gives one. And fortunately for us, in this instance he does. With v. 30 Paul begins his summation by asking, "So, what are we to say then?"

So of all his numerous rabbit trails, archaic rhetorical devices employed, complex and nearly inpenetrable arguments, just which one is he summing up in v. 30?

For prior to v. 30, we find a summation of the argument of Ro 9:1-18, regarding God announcing to Moses, before he even sent him to Pharoah, that God would harden Pharoah's heart so that he would not listen (Ex 4:21). His summary:

"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'
But who are you O man to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"Why did you make me like this? (Is 29:16, 45:9)" '
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

Now, if the way Calvinists interpret Romans 9 is correct, Paul would have answer his rhetorical question with something along the lines of: "God is sovereign and he alone determines who will be elect and who will not, and no one has the right to question him."

Err. . .uh hum. . .that is what he did answer (Ro 9:19-21).

Let's not try to negate one clear text of Scripture with another text, by setting Scripture against itself.

However, Paul's answer is nothing like this. Rather, he summarizes his argument by concluding:

"So, what are we to say? This: that Gentiles, even though they were not striving for righteousness, have obtained righteousness; but it is a righteousness grounded in faith! However, Israel, even though they kept pursuing a law that offers righteousness, did not reach what the Law offers. Why? Because they did not pursue righteousness as being grounded in faith, but instead as if it were grounded in doing legalistic works."

In other words, Paul explains everything he's been talking about in this chapter

C'mon, guy, you can't have it both ways.

Either Paul's arguments are multiple and inpenetrable, employing archaic rhetorical devices, as you say they are,
or they are not.

If they are, as you say, then they cannot be summed up in one point.
They will require a summation of each different point, and one of those summations is Ro 9:19-21.

Okay. But even if we assume that God is always consistent in how he treats people based on their repentance or lack thereof, if his "way changes in accordance with his mind," doesn't that necessitate his mind changing, as well?

Try reading it again and thinking it through.

Consider: my mind is to go to the ballgame when I receive my ticket,
which I have asked my sister to procure and deliver to me the day before the game, and she does not show,
so I tell my husband I won't be going to the game, and then at the last minute my sister shows up with my ticket,
so I tell my husband I will be going to the game.

Now would a reasonable person think that I had changed my mind about going to the game, or that I had just changed my action?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[dcyates]

First, I agree the Christian reader (as the OT readers at the time of Scripture authorship) should take the reactions of God to human behavior at face value. God does act differently toward human beings with respect to the way He would have acted if the human behavior were other than what it was.

But as a Calvinist, I also believe the Scripture presents God as knowing all things in advance, indeed as foreordaining (or predestining) all things (with the usual and perhaps unusual Scripture proof texts with which I presume you are sufficiently familiar--messianic prophecy such as concerning Jesus' betrayal among them), yes, and that God is holy and righteous.

So the question becomes one of reconciling or harmonizing apparently contrary Scriptural ideas. This exercise entails what I would call systematic theology, among other disciplines. And logic is part of systematic theology.

(P.S. I have had my frustrations with systematic theology, even with Calvinist systematic theology, apparently or in fact going to unwarranted places, but that does not mean I dismiss all systematic theology ... which I do not, nor believe anyone entirely can.)

What I think at this point might be helpful, though, is your further clarification as to how you would respond to the question, "Does God foreknow His own reactions?"

I suppose it depends. To what extent do any of us know what our reactions will be ahead of time? There are, of course, many factors involved. As far as 2 Kings 20 is concerned, I think YHWH was genuinely moved by Hezekiah's tearful prayer for his life.

I am perhaps especially curious as to what you believe about divine foreknowledge. My apologies if you have already made that clear elsewhere on this forum; I am at present unaware of it if it exists.

No problem. I hope I've sufficiently clarified my position concerning this in one of my more recent posts where I explain:
"If time is linear, then certainly God knows all possible outcomes among all present causes. He certainly knows what he himself is going to do in the future (which accounts for biblical prophecy). But the attribute of omniscience is not put in jeopardy here, even if God's knowledge of all future events is neither perfect nor complete, simply because the future hasn't happened yet; there's nothing there to be known."

Meanwhile, you either claim it is illogical or otherwise reject as untenable and indeed also as cruel the notion that "God foreknew [a sentence before seems to imply you also mean "foreordained"--yes? Yes] that he [God] was going to change his mind concerning Hezekiah's death."

Yeah, that was probably a poor choice of words on my part. I don't really believe that God's actions have to make much sense to us. Indeed, most often they don't! After all, if you wanted to make a new people for yourself, does it make much sense to start with an old, childless couple with the woman being barren her entire life? If you wanted to choose a nation through which you wanted to display your greatness, glory, and power, does it make much sense to choose a people that are not only not great in number, but are moreover a bunch of slaves at the time? (And this is not to even mention that, even after God redeemed them from slavery and gave them their own homeland, in the ensuing 3,000-or-so years, there was hardly more than a relative handful where they actually reigned throughout their own homeland, as well as that, at one time or another, they had been trampled upon, conquered, and ruled over by virtually every imperial power to come down the pike throughout history.)

What I rather meant to communicate was simply that, other than to satisfy certain Calvinist presuppositions, there is absolutely no hermeneutical reason whatsoever to surmise that God foreknew that he would change his mind here. If I know well ahead of time that, say, rather than vacation in Mexico, due to given circumstances, I'm going to change my vacation plans and instead go to Hawaii, why would I book reservations at a resort in Mexico, tell everyone that there is where we're going, and even purchase airline tickets to fly us there?!? This would be made even more nonsensical if I knew the whole time that everyone in my family really, really, REALLY wanted to go to Hawaii in the first place!

Somehow this seems close to a crux of your argument. God did not know (?) that Hezekiah would plead for his life. If God had known, He was playing the celestial cat toying with a Hezekiah-mouse within reach of divine claws--though you may not be pleased with all possible implications of the metaphor.

Oh, I imagine God knew that Hezekiah would plead for his life, but he probably didn't know how much he'd be moved and consequently persuaded by Hezekiah's prayer to change his mind and instead save him. I know ahead of time that my kids are going to plead with me to allow them to stay up after I tell them it's bedtime. But I don't necessarily know that I might actually be persuaded to allow them to stay up depending on the content and manner of their pleading. (I'm especially a softy when it comes to my 6-yr old little girl. Who knew her eyes could get that big?!?)

Of course after admitting my belief that one ought to take the reactions of God seriously, I may not be the ideal representative of the position against which you are arguing, but I may be sufficiently representative to respond first that I am sometimes (as here) skeptical of claims as to what God must be or not be like. I am unconvinced God could not have foreordained His own reaction to Hezekiah's plea, not to mention Hezekiah's plea itself and His own declaration of Hezekiah's pending death before that.

You will find my claim unsatisfying, but it stimulates my sincere counter-question, "Why not?"

Hopefully I've adequately dealt with this above.

Why must God be illogical to have foreknown or foreordained His own reactions? Whether or not it "sounds" logical, what does the Scripture say about God?

Does Scripture claim both that God reacts to human behavior AND that God foreknew and foreordained human behavior (unless you wanted to stick to one of the two--either foreknow or foreordain)?

No, this is fine.

Is it premature to harmonize Scripture by claiming divine foreordination of reaction "sounds" illogical?

Do we, in fact, entirely understand divine causality? Divine nature?

"He [God] turned their [Egyptian] hearts to hate His people ... " Psalms 105:25

"... I [God] set every man against his neighbor" Zech. 8:10

"If the mighty works done in [Chorazin and Bethsaida] had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented ..." Matt. 11:21

"It has been granted you that for the sake of Christ you should not only to believe in him but also suffer for his sake" Phil. 1:29.

"For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" Rom. 11:36.

I'll readily confess that I haven't looked up all these references in their respective contexts (but I'm happy to if pressed), nonetheless, as a general statement, we too often read biblical texts as early 21st-century Westerners and interpret them from an individualistic perspective, whereas the people of the ancient world simply didn't think in such terms, and I think that fact impacts at least a few of the passages you've cited above.

Similarly, why must God be cruel in the scenario argument you have outlined above? Could one not argue Hezekiah's distress (at hearing the news he was about to die) stemmed in part from his own lack of trust in and acceptance of Providence? Or that Hezekiah lacked faith, but God meant Hezekiah's distress for his own good as well as God's glory?

One could argue this way. But again, why? The only answer I can think of would be to force the otherwise plain meaning of the text so that it corresponds with Calvinist doctrine.
But even apart from that, a Calvinist interpretation renders it all so meaningless. It wouldn't matter whether Hezekiah lacked faith or had his faith meter burning red hot, because it's not really him anyway; it's all God. God foreordained and predestined Hezekiah's level of faith. He foreordained Hezekiah's reaction. He predestined the thoughts and words Hezekiah would use in his prayer. Within Calvinist thought God is unavoidably the cosmic puppeteer and we're all his marionettes as he pulls the strings and feeds us our lines from the great script he concocted... uhhh, when? Why? For what purpose? Self-entertainment? Couldn't he have done that without so much pain and carnage?

It may be that my response here foreshadows our irreconcilable and divergent opinions, or that greater profit may be had in phasing into related concepts such as more broadly the divine sovereignty/human responsibility or free will debate ... or into theodicy issues or both (although my own hindrances to discussion such as ill health continue).

I'm sorry to "hear" that. You're in my prayers, LU.

Aslan is not a tame lion, but He is good.

He is indeed.

 

[dcyates]

2 Kings is not God literally changing His mind. He knew from eternity what was going to occur and planned on changing His mind.

Lol! I remember reading an old book called "Mama Toto." It was about all the various and diverse folk traditions and superstitions that surround childbirth all over the world. Much of it had to do with predicting the sex of the forthcoming baby. "If the first meal you ate after finding out you were pregnant was hot, you will have a boy, if a cold meal, then a girl. But only if the moon was waxing. If it was waning, then it's the other way around," and things like that.
If, however, the baby ended up being the other sex from that predicted, these same people always had a ready excuse as a reason. "Oh, we forgot to ask if the day of the month was even or odd, that's why." Or, "I didn't take into consideration that your husband is left-handed and a redhead, so that's the only reason I was wrong, you see?"
This is how Calvinists are when it comes to Bible texts that don't correspond with their doctrine.

Jeremiah 3:6-7 is not an example of God changing His mind. God had simply hoped for better for Israel and Judah. It is an anthropomorphic expression so we can convey better on our terms. Statements that are from our human perspective then should only be expected.

This is an ultimately illegitimate excuse, if only because anthropomorphisms are used to represent physical characteristics, since, obviously, a purely spiritual entity possesses no physical characteristics. A mind -- as opposed to a brain -- is by nature not physical. Therefore, there's no need to employ anthropomorphisms.

Jeremiah 18 is not God changing His mind. It is again another anthropomorphic expression of the sorrow God felt that creation became so corrupt. God assuredly did not reverse the decision of creation, for He allowed humanity to exist through Noah. This among all is probably the more poorer example one might try to give in favor of open theism.

Huh? Creation? Noah? I don't think you even read the text I referenced.

Consider the one verse that dismantles any further argument on God changing His mind:

"God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" - Numbers 23:19

Right. This, among all, is probably the poorest example one might try to give in opposing Open Theism. And the reason is right there. The verse you quote is a wonderful example of Hebrew poetry, where the second stanza repeats, expands on, or explains the meaning(s) of the first.
"God is not human, that he should lie; not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

In other words, the notion that YHWH does not speak and then fail to act corresponds with the preceding statement that he doesn't lie, and likewise that he doesn't make a promise and then fail to keep it parallels the previous assertion that he doesn't change his mind.

This text isn't saying that YHWH never changes his mind EVER! As I've already noted, it's saying that, unlike men -- or those false, fickle, and capricious gods, for that matter -- he's reliable and trustworthy.

 

[dcyates]

I can't imagine why you'd be told that, but for a good answer to your question, the place to go is the Reformed forum: Semper Reformanda.

Yeah, that's where I was sent FROM. (AFTER first having been sent there by a mod, btw.)

But as far as this is concerned, I'll say here what I said there. (And I'm perfectly calm as I type this, so please be kind enough to read this in the spirit in which it's intended.) When it comes to my initial question in the OP, I don't want to be directed elsewhere. I want the people here to either answer my question, or of course to comment on anything else said in any of the other posts on this thread, but I personally don't want a link to another website or blog, and I don't want to be told that I should read this or that book or such-and-such an author. If anybody wants to bring up something that somebody else has said on the subject, then by all means do so. But please provide the quote and reference yourself. Deal?

 

[Albion]

Yeah, that's where I was sent FROM. (AFTER first having been sent there by a mod, btw.)

I'm more than surprised. Was it because you were more interested in fighting than being informed?

But as far as this is concerned, I'll say here what I said there. (And I'm perfectly calm as I type this, so please be kind enough to read this in the spirit in which it's intended.) When it comes to my initial question in the OP, I don't want to be directed elsewhere.

I assure you that when such a referral happens, it's because we want to help the person get the most accurate answer. At least that's been my experience in the great majority of cases. Of course, it's possible to wear out one's welcome on any forum if it appears that the questioner is intent upon being abusive or his question was a deception of some sort.

 

[Look Up]

As far as 2 Kings 20 is concerned, I think YHWH was genuinely moved by Hezekiah's tearful prayer for his life.

Agreed.

As far as 2 Kings 20 is concerned, I think YHWH was genuinely moved by Hezekiah's tearful prayer for his life.No problem. I hope I've sufficiently clarified my position concerning this in one of my more recent posts where I explain:
"If time is linear, then certainly God knows all possible outcomes among all present causes. He certainly knows what he himself is going to do in the future (which accounts for biblical prophecy). But the attribute of omniscience is not put in jeopardy here, even if God's knowledge of all future events is neither perfect nor complete, simply because the future hasn't happened yet; there's nothing there to be known."

Thank you for the repeat. It leaves me uncertain whether you believe time is linear or if you are uncertain whether it is. I for one am uncomfortable with certain theological abstractions about time if only because I don't know what to make of them wrt Scripture. More palatable to me is the notion that God foreknows what He will do in the future (as prophesied in examples in the Scriptures), but such prophecies sometimes require and engage the actions and sins of humans yet unborn at the time of prophecy deliverance (e.g., Cyrus' decree regarding the return of exiles, Jacob's stature over Esau, Herod's slaughter of the innocents, Jewish and Roman roles in the death of the Lamb of God). More response below.

I don't really believe that God's actions have to make much sense to us. Indeed, most often they don't!

I agree with your illustrations, for example that God's kingdom in history usually appears rather less glorious than I think I would have advised (!), but in my view also, there is mystery rather than nonsense between God's wisdom and His reactions; my argument is that the Scriptures show both in ways I often cannot explain.

What I rather meant to communicate was simply that, other than to satisfy certain Calvinist presuppositions, there is absolutely no hermeneutical reason whatsoever to surmise that God foreknew that he would change his mind here. If I know well ahead of time that, say, rather than vacation in Mexico, due to given circumstances, I'm going to change my vacation plans and instead go to Hawaii, why would I book reservations at a resort in Mexico, tell everyone that there is where we're going, and even purchase airline tickets to fly us there?!? This would be made even more nonsensical if I knew the whole time that everyone in my family really, really, REALLY wanted to go to Hawaii in the first place!


Oh, I imagine God knew that Hezekiah would plead for his life, but he probably didn't know how much he'd be moved and consequently persuaded by Hezekiah's prayer to change his mind and instead save him. I know ahead of time that my kids are going to plead with me to allow them to stay up after I tell them it's bedtime. But I don't necessarily know that I might actually be persuaded to allow them to stay up depending on the content and manner of their pleading. (I'm especially a softy when it comes to my 6-yr old little girl. Who knew her eyes could get that big?!?)

I agree your representation has its attraction (with which I partly agree), and your method its place in theological construction. God's reaction to Hezekiah's plea was sincere and engaged genuine, divine, paternal-like emotion, or whatever the analogy of paternal human emotion might be in the divine. But I have reservations too.

1) I am unconvinced your portrayal gives God sufficient credit for what we might call intelligence given the picture of God in Isaiah and elsewhere. Aside from the implications about divine intelligence that may be gleaned from the prophecies (including from Isaiah) I note above, the inference appears weak that (as you say you "imagine") "God knew that Hezekiah would plead for his life, but he [God] probably didn't know how much he'd be moved and consequently persuaded by Hezekiah's prayer to change his mind and instead save him." Granted again the view takes divine reaction seriously, but I think the limitation on divine intelligence unconvincing.

If God knew what Tyre and Sidon "would have done if" the miracles done in the Galilean cities previously cited per Matt. 11:21 were done in Tyre and Sidon, is it too much to claim He knew in advance of the events what Hezekiah was to say and what His own response would be?

2) I recall an American adult then lately come from Mexico's rural setting relate how his father would take a switch to his boy's calves (below the knee, and more painfully when the knee was hit) for failure to find such-and-such items on the farm when told to do so. The adult speaking to me related how in each case, he tried valiantly to find the objects in question, but sometimes failed (not for want of trying). My unsolicited comment was that the father seemed cruel (or the like)--a claim forcefully and immediately denied by the adult (son). The son knew his father loved him.

How much, in other words, of our view of God's reaction to Hezekiah's plea is tainted by our culture ... and how much is actually representative of God?

3) I don't see (perhaps from obtuseness of mind) that your Mexico/Hawaii vacation analogy fits the Hezekiah narrative (2 Kings 20) very well; the analogy seems to carry some extremes I don't see in the Hezekiah narrative. But if it did fit well, I am not sure I see how it requires a change in my view of divine foreknowledge.

As a general statement, we too often read biblical texts as early 21st-century Westerners and interpret them from an individualistic perspective, whereas the people of the ancient world simply didn't think in such terms, and I think that fact impacts at least a few of the passages you've cited above.

Granted, and granted the references I cited must be perused, as you wrote, "in their respective contexts." I was aware my citations were at fault for brevity, though I hoped sufficient to instantiate the notion that we may not fully understand divine causality and nature. And I had other reasons.

One could argue this way. But again, why? The only answer I can think of would be to force the otherwise plain meaning of the text so that it corresponds with Calvinist doctrine.
But even apart from that, a Calvinist interpretation renders it all so meaningless. It wouldn't matter whether Hezekiah lacked faith or had his faith meter burning red hot, because it's not really him anyway; it's all God. God foreordained and predestined Hezekiah's level of faith. He foreordained Hezekiah's reaction. He predestined the thoughts and words Hezekiah would use in his prayer. Within Calvinist thought God is unavoidably the cosmic puppeteer and we're all his marionettes as he pulls the strings and feeds us our lines from the great script he concocted... uhhh, when? Why? For what purpose? Self-entertainment? Couldn't he have done that without so much pain and carnage?

(Your quote immediately above is offered in response to my words, again repeated as follows:

"Similarly, why must God be cruel in the scenario argument you have outlined above [wrt the God-Hezekiah interaction in 2 Kings 20:1-6]? Could one not argue Hezekiah's distress (at hearing the news he was about to die) stemmed in part from his own lack of trust in and acceptance of Providence? Or that Hezekiah lacked faith, but God meant Hezekiah's distress for his own good as well as God's glory?")

I do not know how much my alternative reading of the God-Hezekiah interaction (in my quote of me immediately above) was informed by Calvinism per se, nor did I intend to defend Calvinism per se in those words, although other wording in my previous post was so intended. Rather my motivation here (however successfully or unsuccessfully expressed) stemmed from (a) a desire to take human (i.e., Hezekiah's) responsibility seriously and (b) my view of God as it relates to theodicy.

In this connection for example, was God cruel to Job in granting Satan sway over Job's property and body? Was God cruel in calling Jeremiah and Paul to suffer? If not--and I believe the answer is "no" in all cases (although I am confident I do not handle my own suffering always in an entirely "theologically correct" way)--why is it necessarily the case (a case surely of lesser degree) that God must have been cruel to Hezekiah if God knew Hezekiah's plea/His response in advance of the fact?

Granted, the implications return us to the potential weakness of not taking God's reaction seriously, but is that necessarily the case? We are weighing weaknesses on one side and the other ... and I realize I might not have the biblical balance right.

... But your representation above of Calvinism in my (limited) experience is a cariciturization in my view even if, at the end of the day, not entirely in yours. In my view, divine foreknowledge and foreordination of Hezekiah's plea does not require a reduction in Hezekiah's human experience to something other than whatever may be read from a plain reading of the passage. How this is possible I do not know; my question is whether my view represents the whole counsel of God, and at present I have no better reading.

Nor are accusations of God causing "so much [unecessary? pointless? cruel?] pain and carnage" limited to calvinist views. And denying oneself, taking up one's cross, and following Jesus daily is no easy task. Who in his right mind, afterall, would seek to model his life on a scourged and executed God nailed and hung on a gibbet, subject to public humiliation?

In not unrelated fashion, the goal of our debate is not scoring personal victory (as no doubt I need reminding), but edification of God's church.

I'm sorry to "hear" [of Lookup's health challenges]. You're in my prayers, LU.

My thanks. My body is more "concluded" than this debate.

 

[strangertoo]

The above in response to my "You will find my claim unsatisfying." Throughout my post, of which "You will find my claim unsatisfying" is part, I address dcyates alone. I am thus perplexed as to what you mean.

that doesn't preclude that you missed the point made earlier...

 

[dcyates]

Sorry for the delay in my response.

Well, that's not a good thing.

Why not? All sorts of difficulties are inherent in translating any document from one language into another -- and this is especially so when that document was written in an ancient language some 2,000 years ago from within a very different culture and worldview.

So the word of God he gave us is a word we cannot understand.

On a general level we're perfectly capable of understanding the message of the Bible: God is the creator, he loves his creation -- of which we're a very important part -- and he wants to be in close relationship with it. The more one delves into the minute details of Scripture, however, the more difficult it gets. (But this is true of most things.)

I disagree.

Well, I hope you acknowledge that there are some passages in Scripture where it really doesn't matter how much you pray over it, unless you possess certain specific information, it's exceedingly unlikely that you're going to arrive at an accurate interpretation of the text.

So of all his numerous rabbit trails...

Sorry, Clare, please allow me to correct myself here. I should have said "apparent" rabbit trails. I have, just in my personal library, about two dozen major commentaries on Romans, and in several of them one will frequently find words like, "Paul goes off on another tangent here," or "We cannot be sure why Paul rather suddenly switches subjects at this point," or statements along those lines (no less august a NT scholar than Ernst Käsemann provides several examples of this). Nevertheless, I believe, although with no little effort, that it is possible to discern an overarching "structure" to Romans.

...archaic rhetorical devices employed, complex and nearly inpenetrable arguments, just which one is he summing up in v. 30?

For prior to v. 30, we find a summation of the argument of Ro 9:1-18, regarding God announcing to Moses, before he even sent him to Pharoah, that God would harden Pharoah's heart so that he would not listen (Ex 4:21). His summary:

"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'
But who are you O man to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"Why did you make me like this? (Is 29:16, 45:9)" '
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

No, Clare, this is not a summation but a continuation of Paul's argument. Where Paul turns to an imaginary interlocutor is actually one of those rhetorical devices to which I alluded previously, called a "diatribe" and an 'apostrophe' (each instance is identified when the writer turns to the imaginary interlocutor, who is used to introduce a question or opposing objection to the argument being presented).
But even if you don't want to see vv. 30-31 as a summation, my point still stands. The righteousness that believers obtain is grounded in faith, not God arbitrarily deciding who he's going to save and who he's going to condemn.

Err. . .uh hum. . .that is what he did answer (Ro 9:19-21).

Let's not try to negate one clear text of Scripture with another text, by setting Scripture against itself.

But, Clare, couldn't those from my side of the argument say the same thing? Throughout, the preponderance of Scripture presumes that humans possess the ability to make genuine choices. But if our understanding of God is that his foreknowledge of all future events is both perfect and complete, then our ability to choose any of our actions is mere illusion.

C'mon, guy, you can't have it both ways.

Either Paul's arguments are multiple and inpenetrable, employing archaic rhetorical devices, as you say they are,
or they are not.

If they are, as you say, then they cannot be summed up in one point.
They will require a summation of each different point, and one of those summations is Ro 9:19-21.

I'm sorry, Clare, but it's disingenuous for you to cherry pick my arguments, and then to respond only to peripheral matters. As I've said, even if you don't want to see vv. 30-31 as constituting a summation of Paul's argument up to this point, you nevertheless can't ignore them. And besides, you've done nothing to counter my actual point:
"In other words, Paul explains everything he's been talking about in this chapter by appealing to the morally responsible choices of both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews didn't 'strive' by faith, though they should have (cf. Rom 10.3), but rather chose to put their faith in their own works. This theme is found throughout Rom 9-11. For instance, Paul later explains that as a nation the Jews "were broken off because of their unbelief" (11.20)."

Try reading it again and thinking it through.

Consider: my mind is to go to the ballgame when I receive my ticket,
which I have asked my sister to procure and deliver to me the day before the game, and she does not show,
so I tell my husband I won't be going to the game, and then at the last minute my sister shows up with my ticket,
so I tell my husband I will be going to the game.

Now would a reasonable person think that I had changed my mind about going to the game, or that I had just changed my action?

Yes! You changed your mind based on the contingencies you delineated. Your wants or desires may have remained the same but you did indeed decide not to go to the ballgame when it looked like your sister failed to get you your ticket. When she showed up after all you simply changed it back again.

 

[dcyates]

I'm more than surprised. Was it because you were more interested in fighting than being informed?
I'm sure others would argue, but I think I'm more than eager to be informed.

I assure you that when such a referral happens, it's because we want to help the person get the most accurate answer. At least that's been my experience in the great majority of cases.

Oh, I know the intent is pure, but my own experience has shown (and I'm honestly not accusing you of this) that too many direct a questioner elsewhere simply because they refuse to do the heavy lifting of, not only providing an adequate answer to the question themselves, but even of coming to terms with the question itself.

Of course, it's possible to wear out one's welcome on any forum if it appears that the questioner is intent upon being abusive or his question was a deception of some sort.

Yeah, true, but in this case it was due to my refusing to take non-answers to my question for an answer.

 

[elopez]

Lol! I remember reading an old book called "Mama Toto." It was about all the various and diverse folk traditions and superstitions that surround childbirth all over the world. Much of it had to do with predicting the sex of the forthcoming baby. "If the first meal you ate after finding out you were pregnant was hot, you will have a boy, if a cold meal, then a girl. But only if the moon was waxing. If it was waning, then it's the other way around," and things like that.
If, however, the baby ended up being the other sex from that predicted, these same people always had a ready excuse as a reason. "Oh, we forgot to ask if the day of the month was even or odd, that's why." Or, "I didn't take into consideration that your husband is left-handed and a redhead, so that's the only reason I was wrong, you see?"
This is how Calvinists are when it comes to Bible texts that don't correspond with their doctrine.

Two things here. One, I am not a Calvinist, so I am not arguing from a Calvinistic view point. So, it doesn't really matter what Calvinists do when it comes to Bible texts for this discussion. Second, if you disagree with something, it would be more effective to explain and logically support why you do so, instead of giving some drawn out story that you only do disagree.

This is an ultimately illegitimate excuse, if only because anthropomorphisms are used to represent physical characteristics, since, obviously, a purely spiritual entity possesses no physical characteristics. A mind -- as opposed to a brain -- is by nature not physical. Therefore, there's no need to employ anthropomorphisms.

Anthropomorphism's are any attribute or characteristic of humans to other things like deities, or animals, or plants, etc. In this case God. I see no reason why a spiritual deity could not possess physical characteristics, like thinking or reasoning, both of which include the brain and mind. The very definition of "anthropomorphism" is giving God human qualities, it doesn't need to be a physical quality, just a human quality.

Huh? Creation? Noah? I don't think you even read the text I referenced.

Sorry I misread this for a different verse. At any rate, Jeremiah 18:7-10 means if people repent, God will not punish them. This is more about man changing their mind rather than God.

Right. This, among all, is probably the poorest example one might try to give in opposing Open Theism. And the reason is right there. The verse you quote is a wonderful example of Hebrew poetry, where the second stanza repeats, expands on, or explains the meaning(s) of the first.
"God is not human, that he should lie; not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

In other words, the notion that YHWH does not speak and then fail to act corresponds with the preceding statement that he doesn't lie, and likewise that he doesn't make a promise and then fail to keep it parallels the previous assertion that he doesn't change his mind.

This text isn't saying that YHWH never changes his mind EVER! As I've already noted, it's saying that, unlike men -- or those false, fickle, and capricious gods, for that matter -- he's reliable and trustworthy.

Poorest example? This is simply not true, and I'll show why. When you say "and likewise that he doesn't make a promise and then fail to keep it parallels the previous assertion that he doesn't change his mind" do you mean to say that God sometimes doesn't change His mind? If God doesn't change Hid mind in relation to a promise, then the question should be on you to explain Jeremiah 18:7-10, since He said if He planned on do x, but y repented, x would not happen.

Moreover, when it comes to this verse claiming God does not lie, it doesn't mean that He sometimes lies, but never does. Why then, would it be assumed different when the verse talks about not changing His mind?

 

[Clare73]

All sorts of difficulties are inherent in translating any document from one language into another -- and this is especially so when that document was written in an ancient language some 2,000 years ago from within a very different culture and worldview.

Not a good description of the facts.

And only, if we just found the ancient text under a rock with no previous knowledge concerning it, would that description be true.

However, since day one we've had a living transmission of the word of God in Judaism and in the Church.
It's not something we just woke up to in the last 100 years.

This is revisionist history.

And let me remind you that Scripture is not just a document of man.
It is the word of God, superintended by God, whose Spirit illumines our understanding of it.
We're not left on our own to figure it all out some 2,000 years later.

Well, I hope you acknowledge that there are some passages in Scripture where unless you possess certain specific information, it's exceedingly unlikely that you're going to arrive at an accurate interpretation of the text.

Anything in Scripture which is necessary for understanding sin, unrighteousness, condemnation, grace, rebirth, faith, justification, penal substitutionary atonement, salvation, sanctification, obedience, divine adoption, sonship, or the body of Christ does not require specific information outside the Bible.

Someone has futzed with your faith, and it wasn't God.

But even if you don't want to see vv. 30-31 as a summation, my point still stands. The righteousness that believers obtain is grounded in faith, not God arbitrarily deciding who he's going to save and who he's going to condemn.

Faith is a gift (Php 1:29), granted freely, based in nothing other than God's sovereign choice (Jn 1:13, 3:8).

But, Clare, couldn't those from my side of the argument say the same thing? Throughout, the preponderance of Scripture presumes that humans possess the ability to make genuine choices. But if our understanding of God is that his foreknowledge of all future events is both perfect and complete, then our ability to choose any of our actions is mere illusion.

The word of God reveals that man's choices are limited by his sinful nature.
For example, can you live a completely sinless life by choosing to do so?

The mind of unregenerate mankind is hostile to God, and does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so (Ro 8:7).

Unregenerate, hostile, insubordinate, spiritually powerless mankind, born spiritually dead in sin (Col 2:13;
Eph 2:1, 5) because of Adam's sin imputed to him (Ro 5:18-19),
and by nature objects of God's wrath (Eph 2:3), cannot choose anything of God.

you've done nothing to counter my actual point:

"In other words, Paul explains everything he's been talking about in this chapter by appealing to the morally responsible choices of both Jews and Gentiles.

God is absolutely sovereign (Da 4:35), and man is morally responsible (1Pe 4:5).

However, there is no inconsistency between the absolute sovereignty of God
(Da 4:35; Ac 2:23, 4:28, 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, 9:14-29, 11: 25-34; Eph 1:4-12; 2Th 2:13; 1Pe 1:2)
and the moral responsibility of man (1Pe 4:5; Ro 2:5, 16; Ac 17:31).

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Look Up]

The righteousness that believers obtain is grounded in faith, not God arbitrarily deciding who he's going to save and who he's going to condemn.

1) In Romans 9, the chapter in context of the debate, why is God's choice for mercy (e.g., upon cited examples such as Isaac, Jacob, many Israelites at the golden calf incident, and by implication increasing numbers of Gentiles in Paul's day) and for hardening (e.g., Esau, Pharaoh, and many Jews of Paul's day) necessarily "arbitrary" in Paul's or Calvinists' (but particularly Paul's) argument?

2) Assuming at for the sake of argument for the present that the word "arbitrarily" may be omitted from the above quoted sentence, why are (a) righteousness obtained by faith (vv. 30-32) and (b) salvation by God's choice ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy," v. 15 and so on) necessarily mutually exclusive (alluding to your "not God ... deciding")? Indeed is not Paul arguing that both are true in Romans 9? And is Paul not also implying that the "objects of mercy" is the same set of people as those who obtain righteousness by faith, whether Jew or Gentile?

 

[Look Up]

God is absolutely sovereign (Da 4:35), and man is morally responsible (1Pe 4:5).

Tidbits.

1) Of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea who believed the bad report by the ten spies and disbelieved Joshua and Caleb:
" ... How long will they not believe in me in spite of all the signs I have done among them?" (Numbers 14:11).

2) To the second generation Israelite community in the wilderness:
" ... To this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (Deuteronomy 29:4).

 

[Clare73]

Tidbits.

1) Of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea who believed the bad report by the ten spies and disbelieved Joshua and Caleb:
" ... How long will they not believe in me in spite of all the signs I have done among them?" (Numbers 14:11).

2) To the second generation Israelite community in the wilderness:
" ... To this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (Deuteronomy 29:4).

Tasty!

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Look Up]

A few more examples of God's foreknowledge:

1) "When I have brought them into the land ... and they ... they will turn to other gods ... and break my (Sinai) covenant" (Deut. 31:20) on account of which the Israelites were taught the Song of Moses which would witness against them. And was not exile and return prophesied in the previous chapter?

2) "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you" (1 Sam. 8:10). Can one doubt the beginning of Rehoboam's reign, for example, shows fulfillment of the 1 Sam. 8 warnings?

3) "Even before a word is on my tongue, behold O Lord, you know it altogether" (Psalm 139:4).

4) "I declared [what was to take place] to you from of old, before they came to pass, I announced them to you" (Isaiah 48:5). Is God's foreordination limited to certain things of which we know from the Bible?

5) "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Did God not know something about the object of his future love (Jeremiah) before his formation in his mother's womb?

6) A great God has made known to the king [Nebuchadnezzar] what shall be after this [dream and its interpretation]" (Daniel 2:45).

7) "Agabus ... foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this happened in the days of Claudius)" (Acts 11:28).

Thus how can God, whose thoughts are as high above our thoughts as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55), fail to know in advance of His own reactions to future human behavior what His reactions to that behavior will be?

 

[Clare73]

A few more examples of God's foreknowledge:

1) "When I have brought them into the land ... and they ... they will turn to other gods ... and break my (Sinai) covenant" (Deut. 31:20) on account of which the Israelites were taught the Song of Moses which would witness against them. And was not exile and return prophesied in the previous chapter?

2) "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you" (1 Sam. 8:10). Can one doubt the beginning of Rehoboam's reign, for example, shows fulfillment of the 1 Sam. 8 warnings?

3) "Even before a word is on my tongue, behold O Lord, you know it altogether" (Psalm 139:4).

4) "I declared [what was to take place] to you from of old, before they came to pass, I announced them to you" (Isaiah 48:5). Is God's foreordination limited to certain things of which we know from the Bible?

5) "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Did God not know something about the object of his future love (Jeremiah) before his formation in his mother's womb?

6) A great God has made known to the king [Nebuchadnezzar] what shall be after this [dream and its interpretation]" (Daniel 2:45).

7) "Agabus ... foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this happened in the days of Claudius)" (Acts 11:28).

Thus how can God, whose thoughts are as high above our thoughts as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55), fail to know in advance of His own reactions to future human behavior what His reactions to that behavior will be?

Since God is absolutely sovereign, he knows in advance what is going to happen because
has decreed that it shall happen.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Look Up]

Since God is absolutely sovereign, he knows in advance what is going to happen because [he] has decreed that it shall happen.

I had claimed as much already on this thread, also including other relevant Scripture references and allusions and arguments (unanswered as of this writing) that I think support our conclusion (as you have worded it above) even where it seems problematic (e.g., foreordination of human sin), though I also have sincerely affirmed the genuineness of divine reaction (and with you, also human culpability) as also represented in Scripture.

My question to dcyates remains then, as to how better to read the total evidence of Scripture and how my reading necessarily (or on balance probably) conflicts with any particular passage affirming divine reaction.

I may yet be served by correction or adjustment in this theological construction. But my own thought, experience, and even imagination (and perhaps spiritual darkness) thus far have prevented my adoption of a better alternative reading.

Until such time as a change in my view may be required, I must function as if I understood the issue correctly--though that view seems more than a challenge for me, reminding me daily of my need to be delivered not only from my trials and temptations, but more importantly my actual sin, not the least of which is my ingratitude and failure to believe God has my and my Christian loved ones' and friends' best interest at heart even through prolonged and varied suffering and evil.

As to my view, at least my God is good and in control of all things, "for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things." If God did not foreknow and foreordain my future, if God were faced with surprises and uncertainty, if the scope of His sovereignty excluded arenas or samples of His creation, then surely my trust in Him would be lessened and temptations to fear, pride, and self-determination independent of God increased (not that I am a sterling example of my own views, alas, nor necessarily represent dcyates's own theology here).

 

[Evergreen48]

Since God is absolutely sovereign, he knows in advance what is going to happen because
has decreed that it shall happen.

In the faith,
Clare

God knows in advance what is going to happen, but the reason he knows what is going to happen is not because he has decreed that it shall happen. Many things that God knows in advance that are going to happen are not necessarily decreed by him. There is a difference between his knowing what is going to happen and his decreeing that it shall happen. For instance, God said, "Thou shalt not kill". But he knew in advance that many would break his holy law by killing their fellow human beings. But to say that God decreed that one should kill another person takes away human free will and makes God the killer. That's not by God.

 

[Look Up]

God knows in advance what is going to happen, but the reason he knows what is going to happen is not because he has decreed that it shall happen. Many things that God knows in advance that are going to happen are not necessarily decreed by him. There is a difference between his knowing what is going to happen and his decreeing that it shall happen. For instance, God said, "Thou shalt not kill". But he knew in advance that many would break his holy law by killing their fellow human beings. But to say that God decreed that one should kill another person takes away human free will and makes God the killer. That's not by God.

The debate is perennial and although the above is related to the thread, it digresses also somewhat from it--a thread by the way that asks Calvinists to defend a calvinistic view of the OP question.

In sum, I believe that the above cited post displays a caricature of Calvinism and that it presents a dichotomy somewhat at odds with the picture of divine causality and human "freedom" in the Bible as portrayed there in various detail and in systematic whole.

Divine decree, to use an illustration, of Judas Iscariot's betrayal and Jewish-Roman execution of Jesus did not mitigate Judas's and the others' culpability in their sinful acts (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:10, 27-28 and other verses Clare 73 had pointed out earlier on this thread) nor imply divine approval of nor culpability in sin. Human freedom from God in the Bible is never absolute, as if there were a corner of God's universe in which God had no sway at all. Nor does ubiquitous human depravity alleviate bondage to sin.

Otherwise for the present it may be best to defer the issue to outside sources, among which Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (D.A. Carson) and John Murray's essay "Free Agency" are two.