William Lane Craig on Romans 9

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced

John Piper has said that if Calvinism causes you to doubt the character of God, you shouldn't be a Calvinist.

George Whitefield and John Wesley accomplished great things together, because they were able to agree to disagree about predestination.

In the above video, William Lane Craig provides a non-Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. If I wasn’t a Calvinist, I’d probably be a Molinist like Dr. Craig:
What is Molinism and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org


According to William Lane Craig, when he visited Calvin College, all of the theologians said they were actually Molinists, not Calvinists:

When I gave the Stob lectures at Calvin College and Seminary, I was shocked when the theologians at the seminary told me that they were all Molinists! I increasingly encounter people who are moving in the Molinist direction (both from the Calvinistic end and the open theist end of the spectrum!)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism/
It seems to that Molinism is the next logical step after Calvinism, that once you've accepted the Bible's passages on God's sovereignty, Molinism offers a way to reconcile them with other Biblical passages on human responsibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Mosko

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Like many people, I've had problems of Calvinism's strong determinism. I've really been suspicious of it, since as far as church fathers go it comes largely from Augustine, and does not represent what others earlier believed (who believed that both free will and predestination existed but in a way not completely comprehendible to human beings). I really was suspicious of him having his thinking colored by his Manicheanism. And I see one person, explored this idea in a doctoral thesis.

Examining Calvinism: Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good


I like Craig! I found his speech/ writing on Failure very personally helpful as far as dealing with past disappointments when God seems to have let me down etc.

Failure | Reasonable Faith
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed

John Piper has said that if Calvinism causes you to doubt the character of God, you shouldn't be a Calvinist.

George Whitefield and John Wesley accomplished great things together, because they were able to agree to disagree about predestination.

In the above video, William Lane Craig provides a non-Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. If I wasn’t a Calvinist, I’d probably be a Molinist like Dr. Craig:
What is Molinism and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

I like John Piper, but he is a bit of an emotionalist, in my opinion. He means well by what he says, but he maybe should have said that if Calvinism causes you to doubt the character of God, you should learn a bit more about what it actually teaches.

John Wesley, not to denigrate his character nor accomplishments, had a mentality that (not to say he caused it, though I think he (not alone) made it appear worthy) demonstrates the human desire for self-worth and self-determination. It is very much mistaken. Yet, I too am glad for every sect and denomination, and every charlatan and liar that God uses to bring the elect to himself —even those (like Joseph's brothers) who do more harm than good, because God uses them to do what they do, for good. I'm in some ways more Reformed than my Calvinist brothers, but I have no problem associating and working with my brothers from other persuasions and denominations. I think it is ludicrous to think the elect are only the Reformed/Calvinists. (That actually contradicts Calvinism, because it implies that salvation depends on the mode of belief of the individual— instead of depending on the work of God independent of man's intellectual assent. Salvific faith is of God, not of man.)

WLC here is giving the usual answer I have heard so many times about what Romans 9 is about, and to a point I agree with him. The Calvinistic use of it is 'beside the point' that Paul is making in the context. Yet the fact that Paul uses the short discourse concerning the elect the way he does makes it all the more a sure doctrine, BECAUSE of the context and the main point Paul is making. Yes, Paul "wishes to broaden the scope of election" which makes election all the more obvious, among other reasons because those who are rejected are rejected not because they are worse than the elect, whom God chooses by his own counsel and not because "they had done anything good or bad".

A subtheme used within an argument is not of itself wrong outside the argument.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
When Paul uses the potter and clay analogy in Romans 9, it's unthinkable that Paul, as the Pharisee of Pharisees, didn't have Jeremiah 18 in mind:

Jeremiah 18
The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’
12 “But they say, ‘That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’

As one can see, the potter makes Israel a vessel fit for destruction due to its free-willed choice to reject God. Otherwise, Jeremiah 18:12 doesn't make any logical sense, "That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart."

Calvinists, by insisting that humans have no free will whatsoever to obey God, not even to accept God's offer of salvation by faith alone through grace alone, are taking the side of the objector inJeremiah 18:12.

The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God's grace is irresistible. While Calvinists insist that God's enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it. (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11)

The most natural reading of Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, especially in light of Jeremiah 18:12, is that God's decision of election is based on His foreknowledge of who would accept God's free offer of grace and who wouldn't, and is thus conditional, not unconditional.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

John Piper has said that if Calvinism causes you to doubt the character of God, you shouldn't be a Calvinist.

George Whitefield and John Wesley accomplished great things together, because they were able to agree to disagree about predestination.

In the above video, William Lane Craig provides a non-Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. If I wasn’t a Calvinist, I’d probably be a Molinist like Dr. Craig:
What is Molinism and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org


Like the following commenter, I don’t find Craig’s explanation convincing, due to how much of Romans 9, the most controversial parts, he seemingly ignores:

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.


The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!


This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).


Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?


If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?


This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.


Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”


Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?


Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?


Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?


Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?


The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).


How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.


Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.


Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!


The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.


If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potter’s signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Important to note is the fact: the dishonorable vessel can cleanse themselves and become vessels of honor.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods.

They used to, anyway.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

Cut them long next time —it makes no difference. Your point doesn't touch the Reformed use of chapter 9, nor of the other chapters, for that matter, as has been pointed out to you before.

Let me try to make it a little more obvious. If I say to my daughter, "Mommy didn't say, 'You may have one', because they are not hers to give you.", it doesn't mean that the fact the child may not have one is not relevant, nor does it mean that they are hers to give to her child. The Jew-Gentile matter is relevant, and the fact that God's election is all up to God, not man, is not defeated.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
I have realized why I disagree with Leighton Flowers so strongly.

He seems to reject the doctrine of prevenient grace while holding too weak a view of God's sovereignty.

I need to learn more about Molinism as a middle ground between God's sovereignty and human free will.

My intent has not been to convince others that Calvinism is true, but only that they should be more tolerant of Calvinists, especially since some of history's greatest missionaries and evangelists have been Calvinists.

Calvinism is just a framework for understanding the text of scripture, and I've never claimed that it's required for salvation. I am just as offended by anti-Calvinists as I am by young earth creationists who attack Hugh Ross for not believing that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Just as the Bible doesn't specifically endorse either old earth or young earth creationism, it doesn't specifically endorse either Calvinism or anti-Calvinism. I just wish there were more tolerance for points of view that aren't required for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,055
East Coast
✟830,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

John Piper has said that if Calvinism causes you to doubt the character of God, you shouldn't be a Calvinist.

George Whitefield and John Wesley accomplished great things together, because they were able to agree to disagree about predestination.

In the above video, William Lane Craig provides a non-Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. If I wasn’t a Calvinist, I’d probably be a Molinist like Dr. Craig:
What is Molinism and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org


Like the following commenter, I don’t find Craig’s explanation convincing, due to how much of Romans 9, the most controversial parts, he seemingly ignores:


I've always found Molinism attractive as a way of finding room for both human choice and divine sovereignty. But, at the end of the day, God is actualizing one world that is essentially determined by God's actualization. It just happens to be the world that entails us and our choices. But again, it's hard to complain against it since it is our choices that are being actualized.

On a related note: Who did Craig's makeup for this video? :eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
I didn't find William Lane Craig's explanation of Romans 9 to be satisfying, so I read the Bible on my own, after praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and arrived at my own explanation:

Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
According to William Lane Craig, when he visited Calvin College, all of the theologians said they were actually Molinists, not Calvinists:
When I gave the Stob lectures at Calvin College and Seminary, I was shocked when the theologians at the seminary told me that they were all Molinists! I increasingly encounter people who are moving in the Molinist direction (both from the Calvinistic end and the open theist end of the spectrum!)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism/
It seems to that Molinism is the next logical step after Calvinism, that once you've accepted the Bible's passages on God's sovereignty, Molinism offers a way to reconcile them with other Biblical passages on human responsibility.
 
Upvote 0