Hello all. This thread is for the purpose of discussing one of the most common themes of this MB.
I am a reformed Christian and, despite the popular consensus regarding the reformed view of God's sovereignty vs. man's responsibility, we believe that man has free will.
Now, before my reformed brethren cast me from their congregation
, let me qualify that statement. We hold to the view that the very core of man's nature, from whence all things flow, was radically corrupted as a result of the Fall. This radical corruption is, in fact, so devestating to man's moral ability that it is described in the Bible as "death" (Eph 2:1-10). As a result of this corruption man's nature is in bondage to his sinful inclinations.
"Wait," you exclaim, "if you believe that man's nature is in bondage to sin how, then, can you say man has free will?" I believe that man has free will in the sense that he freely seeks to fulfill his desires and does so without external coercion. This is the very definition of free, that our decisions are decided by us and are not coerced or forced by an external entity. That man's nature is in bondage to only sinful inclinations does not make the decisions of his will coerced by some "puppet master." To be sure, our decisions are "determined." However, they are determined by our own will. The corruption of that will, however, causes our desires to be only sinful, thus the actualization of those inclinations are sinful as well.
With that out of the way let me address some verses in Romans 9. Before I do I would ask that each of you consider the logicality of Paul's particular style of teaching. He was a teacher par excellance. He knew the objections that his teaching would incite.
I turn your attention to Romans 9:10-13:
Romans 9:10-13
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
Now, let us address this. Verse 11 says that "the children were not yet born" and they had done "neither good nor evil." The common evangelical explanation of this verse is that God's decision is based on His foreknowledge (in this sense the term "foreknowledge" is used to mean "a knowledge of things before they actually happen"). This, in my opinion, directly contradicts the actual wording of the passage itself. Paul specifically tells us that it is "not of works." He does not limit that to "works already performed." He specifically says that the purpose of God is fulfilled according to His sovereign election.
For the purpose of a momentary sidestep in the discussion let's just assume Paul meant what many believe, i.e., that God elects based on His divine prior knowledge of how we will respond to His call.
Let's look at the very next three verses:
Romans 9:14-16
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
If, in verse 11, Paul had meant that God bases His election upon man's response, as many contend, why in the world would he pose the question, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?" As much as I personally disagree with the Arminian view of this section of Scripture the one thing I cannot do is say that their view implies some kind of "unrighteousness with God." On the contrary, if the view that God bases His election on our response is accurate then I doubt that there are any that would say, "Hey, that's not fair." If God based His election on our decisions, not only could we boast, but we would be forced to say that we had earned exactly what we get. To object with "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?" would make no sense whatsoever.
If, however, Paul was saying that the reasons God has for choosing His elect are found in His Will alone, and not based on "our response" then the exact objection he could expect to hear is the same objection that reformed Christians hear all the time, "Hey, that's not fair." As I said, Paul was a great teacher. He anticipated the objections that would naturally be raised.
Let's continue. Look at verses 17 and 18:
For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
Now I ask you, what is the natural reaction to the idea that God sovereignly exalts some by the power of His divine majesty based on His own purpose in election yet does not enable others to seek to please Him?
It is the exact objection I hear against the reformed view on this MB daily. "Hey, if God makes us a certain way then it would be unrighteous for Him to punish us for being exactly as He made us." Sound familiar? They should because that is the exact objection that is raised in the next three verses:
Romans 9:19-21
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
Here Paul pointedly tells us that the natural objection, that God has no right to find fault with us because if He made us a certain way then we will act according to the very way He made us, is ungodly. He tells us we are in no position to question Him. In spite of that reminder many would still view God as unrighteous if He punished us for acting exactly as He had made us. What is Paul's response? He reminds us of God's divine authority to bring about His Plan as He sees fit because He is God. He tells us that God has the power to make, from the same lump of clay, one vessel to be exalted and another to be destroyed. Not only does He have the power, He has the authority to do so. We are His creation. We are not in a position where we can question God and try to blame Him for our iniquity for being exactly as He created.
The gloriousness of God in His sovereign work of creating mankind is revealed in the very next three verses:
Romans 9:22-24
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
God has the divine authority to create some to be vessels of wrath to glorify Himself. Make no mistake, it does indeed glorify God for Him to pour out His wrath upon the iniquity of man. In addition, it is this very act of justice by God against those He created for that purpose that reveals to His children the unmerited magnificence of His mercy on those whom He created for glory.
So, my question to those of you who follow the Arminian stance on this section of Scripture is, why would Paul anticipate and address these objections if he wishes us to understand that God saves us based on our response to His call? It seems to me that there would be no such objections if the Arminian view is the one Paul was purporting.
Thanks for any input,
God bless
I am a reformed Christian and, despite the popular consensus regarding the reformed view of God's sovereignty vs. man's responsibility, we believe that man has free will.
Now, before my reformed brethren cast me from their congregation
, let me qualify that statement. We hold to the view that the very core of man's nature, from whence all things flow, was radically corrupted as a result of the Fall. This radical corruption is, in fact, so devestating to man's moral ability that it is described in the Bible as "death" (Eph 2:1-10). As a result of this corruption man's nature is in bondage to his sinful inclinations."Wait," you exclaim, "if you believe that man's nature is in bondage to sin how, then, can you say man has free will?" I believe that man has free will in the sense that he freely seeks to fulfill his desires and does so without external coercion. This is the very definition of free, that our decisions are decided by us and are not coerced or forced by an external entity. That man's nature is in bondage to only sinful inclinations does not make the decisions of his will coerced by some "puppet master." To be sure, our decisions are "determined." However, they are determined by our own will. The corruption of that will, however, causes our desires to be only sinful, thus the actualization of those inclinations are sinful as well.
With that out of the way let me address some verses in Romans 9. Before I do I would ask that each of you consider the logicality of Paul's particular style of teaching. He was a teacher par excellance. He knew the objections that his teaching would incite.
I turn your attention to Romans 9:10-13:
Romans 9:10-13
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
Now, let us address this. Verse 11 says that "the children were not yet born" and they had done "neither good nor evil." The common evangelical explanation of this verse is that God's decision is based on His foreknowledge (in this sense the term "foreknowledge" is used to mean "a knowledge of things before they actually happen"). This, in my opinion, directly contradicts the actual wording of the passage itself. Paul specifically tells us that it is "not of works." He does not limit that to "works already performed." He specifically says that the purpose of God is fulfilled according to His sovereign election.
For the purpose of a momentary sidestep in the discussion let's just assume Paul meant what many believe, i.e., that God elects based on His divine prior knowledge of how we will respond to His call.
Let's look at the very next three verses:
Romans 9:14-16
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
If, in verse 11, Paul had meant that God bases His election upon man's response, as many contend, why in the world would he pose the question, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?" As much as I personally disagree with the Arminian view of this section of Scripture the one thing I cannot do is say that their view implies some kind of "unrighteousness with God." On the contrary, if the view that God bases His election on our response is accurate then I doubt that there are any that would say, "Hey, that's not fair." If God based His election on our decisions, not only could we boast, but we would be forced to say that we had earned exactly what we get. To object with "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?" would make no sense whatsoever.
If, however, Paul was saying that the reasons God has for choosing His elect are found in His Will alone, and not based on "our response" then the exact objection he could expect to hear is the same objection that reformed Christians hear all the time, "Hey, that's not fair." As I said, Paul was a great teacher. He anticipated the objections that would naturally be raised.
Let's continue. Look at verses 17 and 18:
For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
Now I ask you, what is the natural reaction to the idea that God sovereignly exalts some by the power of His divine majesty based on His own purpose in election yet does not enable others to seek to please Him?
It is the exact objection I hear against the reformed view on this MB daily. "Hey, if God makes us a certain way then it would be unrighteous for Him to punish us for being exactly as He made us." Sound familiar? They should because that is the exact objection that is raised in the next three verses:
Romans 9:19-21
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
Here Paul pointedly tells us that the natural objection, that God has no right to find fault with us because if He made us a certain way then we will act according to the very way He made us, is ungodly. He tells us we are in no position to question Him. In spite of that reminder many would still view God as unrighteous if He punished us for acting exactly as He had made us. What is Paul's response? He reminds us of God's divine authority to bring about His Plan as He sees fit because He is God. He tells us that God has the power to make, from the same lump of clay, one vessel to be exalted and another to be destroyed. Not only does He have the power, He has the authority to do so. We are His creation. We are not in a position where we can question God and try to blame Him for our iniquity for being exactly as He created.
The gloriousness of God in His sovereign work of creating mankind is revealed in the very next three verses:
Romans 9:22-24
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
God has the divine authority to create some to be vessels of wrath to glorify Himself. Make no mistake, it does indeed glorify God for Him to pour out His wrath upon the iniquity of man. In addition, it is this very act of justice by God against those He created for that purpose that reveals to His children the unmerited magnificence of His mercy on those whom He created for glory.
So, my question to those of you who follow the Arminian stance on this section of Scripture is, why would Paul anticipate and address these objections if he wishes us to understand that God saves us based on our response to His call? It seems to me that there would be no such objections if the Arminian view is the one Paul was purporting.
Thanks for any input,
God bless
