Steve Anderson, Predestination, and the "Nations" Interpretation of Romans 9

[abacabb3]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLl7gvYEW3k

I have heard a few times Arminians seek to explain away Romans Chapter Nine's obvious teaching pertaining to double predestination. They usually say something along the lines of:

However, if we look closely at Romans 9 and its referenced passages, we can observe where God has manipulated nations in His grand scheme, or judicially hardened rebellious individuals. Yet, He still allowed the ultimate fate of both nation and individual to be chosen through either penitent obedience or stubborn disobedience.

Yes, Romans 9 clearly teaches God's sovereignty and the immutability of God's election. However, we have learned to be careful and not to interject our prejudices into the context. By exercising diligence (II Timothy 2:15; II Peter 3:14-18), we have examined the context of the Old Testament passages quoted by Paul, so we could clearly see that God's unconditional election only applied to the role of nations in producing the Messiah, not the salvation of individuals (Genesis 25:22-23; Malachi 1:1-4).

Though I recommend watching the video for an emphatic presentation of the above view (complete with the "proper" interpretation given as an answer to prayer), it is more useful for us to read the synopsis above.

Indeed, as Anderson correctly notes Romans 9:7-12 God is probably talking about the nations Esau and Jacob represented more than the actual individuals. Also, as Anderson conveniently leaves out, Rom 9:14-18 unequivocally pertains to the hardening of a specific individual (Pharoah) so God's purpose according to His choice may stand.

However, in this whole silly conversation, we need not spend a lot of time exegeting crystal clear passages such as "it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16) and "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). Let's just look at the assertions made by the Arminians themselves:

[W]e can observe where God has manipulated nations in His grand scheme...so we could clearly see that God's unconditional election only applied to the role of nations in producing the Messiah, not the salvation of individuals.

Think about that for a second. Even if the whole passage talks about nations and nations alone, how does that change a single thing?

1. Nations are made up of PEOPLE. If God hardens an entire nation of people (Babylon) and yet is gracious to another (the Israel of God), isn't it true that God hardened each individual within the despised nation and had shown exceedingly great mercy to each individual making up the other nation?

2. A careful reading of the Scripture shows we are not saved as individuals. Read the Old Testament. Think of the nation of Israel. God saves a people (that's a plural folks)! Thanks to revelation given to Paul, we know the real Israel of God are not literally the genetic children of Abraham, but those that have the faith of Abraham. So, indeed the entire Israel of God is saved because they are the Church. Paul speaks a great mystery when he says, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church" (Eph 5:31-32).

So, we are saved because we are members of an entire body that is in union (one flesh) with Christ. This is why the Scripture says, "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col 3:3).

As we can see, we would have to ignore the two exceedingly obvious points in order for the nations interpretation of Romans 9 to even begin making sense...and even then, it would require us to believe the Scripture is teaching nonsense (i.e. God can predestine entire nations and harden the hearts of all their people, but it is somehow outside the scope of His power to harden the hearts of individuals.)

One last comment. Steve Anderson in response to "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44) quotes John 12:32 ("And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.")

Seriously Mr. Anderson? So, does this mean all men are saved, because after all this would mean all men are drawn to Christ. Interestingly enough, unless we accept universalism, the only workable interpretation is that Christ will interpret men of all nations, not each and every single man. Obviously, being that there are men thrown into the lake of fire, we know that the universalist interpretation is literally impossible.

So, Steve Anderson might have read the Bible cover-to-cover in five different languages, sadly God has not given him eyes to see the obvious: If God predestines nations by showing grace to some and hardening others, the same is true of each individual that follows the harlot of Babylon or descends from Abraham by faith.

 

[hedrick]

From J D G Dunn’s commentary on this passage:

“Those in close touch with his train of thought would have remembered that he had in fact already shown that election and judgment can be reconciled, in 2:1–3:20—that being outside the elect people of God is no guarantee of final condemnation, just as being inside the elect people of God is no guarantee of final justification—that, as we might say, God’s firm purpose in the broad sweep of salvation-history through the centuries does not exclude or excuse any individual within that purpose from answering for his or her own deeds.”

God chooses nations and people to use for different purposes. But I don’t think there’s anyplace in Romans where Paul says that God chooses people to be damned. If you check Ex 8:16, which Paul is quoting on Pharaoh, you find that God held off punishing Pharaoh himself in order to use him as part of Israel’s exodus. It does not say that God predestined Pharaoh for rejection.

You have to look at the whole flow of the argument. The apparent hard-core predestination to destruction is within a context that still allows mercy. E.g. in 11:7 we see that God chose a remnant and left the rest to be hardened. But does that mean that he left them no opportunity? No. He says that clearly in 11:11, and raises in 11:23 the hope that some of those who were rejected will still return. Indeed Paul’s Gentiles were chosen precisely to make the Jews jealous and motivate them to conversion (11:14).

I’m not advocating Arminianism. I'm certainly not supporting Anderson, who seems more interested in controversy than understanding. I don’t have a specific model to push at this point. I tend to be sympathetic with the later Luther, who didn’t think we could (or should) explain why some people were lost. But I'd like to move the exposition of Romans in a direction that looks at where Paul is going.

 

[abacabb3]

God works all things in accordance with His will. If the salvation of any is absolutely contingent upon the grace of God, God's intentionality in not giving grace to all makes it patently obvious that double predestination is the only Biblical view (though this does not justify predestinarianism which does violence to free will and has been denounced by the Second Council of Orange.)

 

[BryanW92]

1. Nations are made up of PEOPLE. If God hardens an entire nation of people (Babylon) and yet is gracious to another (the Israel of God), isn't it true that God hardened each individual within the despised nation and had shown exceedingly great mercy to each individual making up the other nation?

You can harden a nation without hardening every single person in that nation. The present-day United States is a nation every bit as hardened as Babylon, but there are tens of millions of devout Christians living it its borders, but they are being marginalized by the government, media, and corporations.

In earlier times, God could literally harden a few hearts (the king and his trusted ministers and some generals) and the entire nation would suffer as if all of them were hardened.

 

[abacabb3]

Ultimately, the issue in Rom 9-11 is why the ethnic people of Israel have rejected the Savior, but those from nations that are not ethnically Israel are being brought in droves. Paul's answer is clear: God hardened the people of Israel (not just the "leaders") and God has shown mercy to those outside Israel (making the true "Israel of God.")

The moment an Arminian concedes anyone can be hardened or shown grace at all they just eviscerated their own argument. Trying to push it off to an impersonal entity like a whole nation does not help their argument at all, because it illustrates Paul's point why the vast majority of ethnic Israel have rejected Christ.

 

[BryanW92]

Ultimately, the issue in Rom 9-11 is why the ethnic people of Israel have rejected the Savior, but those from nations that are not ethnically Israel are being brought in droves. Paul's answer is clear: God hardened the people of Israel (not just the "leaders") and God has shown mercy to those outside Israel (making the true "Israel of God.")

The moment an Arminian concedes anyone can be hardened or shown grace at all they just eviscerated their own argument. Trying to push it off to an impersonal entity like a whole nation does not help their argument at all, because it illustrates Paul's point why the vast majority of ethnic Israel have rejected Christ.

People are a product of their culture. If your culture is nominally Christian, it is easier for you to accept Christianity. If you culture is Marxist, it is easier to be atheist. People do break out of their cultural norms and accept something else. So, you see Christians suffering in muslim nations, American atheists, and Jewish Christians.

All that does weaken the Arminian argument quite a bit. That's the big reason why I left an Arminian denomination. They wring their hands all the time about "how is it fair that someone can live their whole life and never be given the opportunity to hear the gospel?" I finally realized that it is because God put them there. They are either supposed to go along with their culture and die unsaved...or maybe they are supposed to be the first Christian in their village because someone passed through and talked to them.

But the Arminain idea that God wants all to accept Jesus and then puts people in places where no one has ever heard of Jesus makes no sense to me.

 

[hedrick]

God works all things in accordance with His will. If the salvation of any is absolutely contingent upon the grace of God, God's intentionality in not giving grace to all makes it patently obvious that double predestination is the only Biblical view (though this does not justify predestinarianism which does violence to free will and has been denounced by the Second Council of Orange.)

That deduction doesn't logically follow. God could give irresistible grace to some, but allow others to choose freely. I'd prefer to use Biblical grounds rather than this kind of deduction.

 

[abacabb3]

That deduction doesn't logically follow. God could give irresistible grace to some, but allow others to choose freely. I'd prefer to use Biblical grounds rather than this kind of deduction.

I think you are missing the point. The default is that men will not be righteous, that they will never seek God, that their throats will be open graves, etc.

So, God does not need to harden anyone in order the His "purpose according to His choice would stand," though He does often in order to exercise judgment for what they were already doing freely to begin with. There are several explicit examples of this in the Scripture. The logical deduction that God is hands off and God merely chooses who is saved and has no thoughts about anyone else, I cannot find in the Scripture.

 

[stenerson]

Anderson has much worst issues than not believing in double predestination. He is a false teacher that doesn't believe repentance is necessary or that it should be preached. He equates the preaching of repentance with works righteousness. Not to mention his videos saying he hates the president and wants him dead and that he hates homosexuals and thinks they should be executed.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Romans 9:19 shows that Paul's audience fully understood what he was saying. It must be among the most damaging to Arminian argument. If Paul was describing a "free offer" of salvation how would Paul anticipate this response?

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

 

[abacabb3]

For those who like the "two nations" interpretation, how does the following not show double predestination?

Rom 11:7-10

What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; just as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day.”

And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
And a stumbling block and a retribution to them.
“Let their eyes be darkened to see not,
And bend their backs forever.”

 

[lesliedellow]

Romans 9:19 shows that Paul's audience fully understood what he was saying. It must be among the most damaging to Arminian argument. If Paul was describing a "free offer" of salvation how would Paul anticipate this response?

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

Quite. It is obvious that Paul expected his hearers to be scandalised by what he was saying.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, but what is the scandal? I would say that it is the idea that God would choose Gentiles over Jews as his instruments.

The whole discussion in Rom 9 is about the choice and eventual temporary rejection of Israel. This is calling people for a purpose, not choosing who will be saved in the end. (It’s not just nations, since he speaks of a remnant that has a specific call.) Pharaoh's hardening is part of the story of the Exodus, not an account of Pharaoh’s individual religious experience. God hardens Pharaoh’s will with respect to letting Israel go. This is a political action, though of course one with religious implications, since he is persecuting God’s people. But I think it’s pretty clear that by this time Pharaoh was already opposed to God.

I think 9:24 does say that God has called specific people, and the rest of 9 suggests that he has left the rest. But calling individuals can have two very different implications:
* he can be choosing specific people to be saved and leaving the others to be damned
* he can be choosing specific people to act as his agents, leaving others temporarily unchosen, but though the chosen ones to save others
From 11:11 ff I think it’s clear that he has the second in mind. That’s also the later prophets’ concept of God’s purpose in choosing Israel. Israel was to be the light to the Gentiles, bringing God to them.

Note that 9 does not describe a parallel election to destruction. The potter makes some objects for special use and others for ordinary or possibly dishonorable use (e.g. chamber pots). He does not make some to be destroyed. I follow Dunn and others in understanding the objects in 9:22 as being fit for destruction, but not being made specifically for that purpose. Indeed the objects fit for destruction may not even stay that way permanently, since we see in 11 that Paul hopes to redeem much of Israel. After all, their destruction is being held pending the working out of God's mercy (9:22-23).

 

[abacabb3]

The whole discussion in Rom 9 is about the choice and eventual temporary rejection of Israel. This is calling people for a purpose, not choosing who will be saved in the end. (It’s not just nations, since he speaks of a remnant that has a specific call.) Pharaoh's hardening is part of the story of the Exodus, not an account of Pharaoh’s individual religious experience. God hardens Pharaoh’s will with respect to letting Israel go. This is a political action, though of course one with religious implications, since he is persecuting God’s people. But I think it’s pretty clear that by this time Pharaoh was already opposed to God...

Note that 9 does not describe a parallel election to destruction. The potter makes some objects for special use and others for ordinary or possibly dishonorable use (e.g. chamber pots). He does not make some to be destroyed. I follow Dunn and others in understanding the objects in 9:22 as being fit for destruction, but not being made specifically for that purpose. Indeed the objects fit for destruction may not even stay that way permanently, since we see in 11 that Paul hopes to redeem much of Israel. After all, their destruction is being held pending the working out of God's mercy (9:22-23).

If we can agree that God does not save individuals but rather a Church onto Himself (which is what the Israel of God was and continues to be), then what is the difference? The true Israel is made up of individuals, and God has hardened peoples and given additional grace to others, and the individual remnants therein.

I fail to see the differentiation.

 

[lesliedellow]

If we can agree that God does not save individuals but rather a Church onto Himself (which is what the Israel of God was and continues to be), then what is the difference? The true Israel is made up of individuals, and God has hardened peoples and given additional grace to others, and the individual remnants therein.

I fail to see the differentiation.

In determining the meaning of Romans 9, the phrase "whole counsel of scripture" comes to mind. Cf. John 6.44 or Acts 2.47.

 

[abacabb3]

In determining the meaning of Romans 9, the phrase "whole counsel of scripture" comes to mind. Cf. John 6.44 or Acts 2.47.

Of course, but I literally do not understand why the "nations interpretation" is used as a way of explaining away predestination. It does nothing of the sort.

 

[hedrick]

If we can agree that God does not save individuals but rather a Church onto Himself (which is what the Israel of God was and continues to be), then what is the difference? The true Israel is made up of individuals, and God has hardened peoples and given additional grace to others, and the individual remnants therein.

I fail to see the differentiation.

The question is what election is. The key part of my posting was not what you quoted but this: But calling individuals can have two very different implications:

* he can be choosing specific people to be saved and leaving the others to be damned
* he can be choosing specific people to act as his agents, leaving others temporarily unchosen, but though the chosen

Is it choosing some to be saved and rejecting others, or is it choosing some to be used in a special way? I think election is normally election for a responsibility. Indeed the concept of election as privilege is the Jewish misunderstanding that he's opposing. Any privilege conveyed by it is liable to be temporary, and requires continued faith. See 11:17-24. He points out that the newly elect may still be rejected if they don't maintain faith, and that those who seem to have been rejected can still return.

Who is saved and who is not is still something that in the end we can only leave to God. But I don't think that's what Paul is talking about in Romans.

 

[abacabb3]

Is it choosing some to be saved and rejecting others, or is it choosing some to be used in a special way? I think election is normally election for a responsibility. Indeed the concept of election as privilege is the Jewish misunderstanding that he's opposing. Any privilege conveyed by it is liable to be temporary, and requires continued faith. See 11:17-24. He points out that the newly elect may still be rejected if they don't maintain faith, and that those who seem to have been rejected can still return.

Who is saved and who is not is still something that in the end we can only leave to God. But I don't think that's what Paul is talking about in Romans.

At the risk of totally misunderstanding what you are saying, permit me to pass comment.

I still think that God's choosing of nations eviscerates a view of libertarian free will, without destroying the tension between our personal responsibility and God's complete sovereignty evident in Phil 2:12-13.

If God can harden pharaoh in order to bring about an end, or if He can give the entire nation of Israel to bring about an end, or if He can give people ears to hear and eyes to see as we see elsewhere in the Scripture, then obviously God ultimately has the say for both salvation and damnation. However, we no elsewhere in the Scripture that responsibility resides with the individual. It is an uncomfortable tension, but it is made clear in the Scripture.

To ignore the fact that God's hardening and mercy has any bearing on salvation is simply silly. Paul makes it explicit, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people,[a] my kindred according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3). The consequences of what Paul sees unfolding are ultimate, which is why he has anguish. However, as he then makes clear in the next three chapters, God has a specific purpose behind it.

I presume your explanation is tied to the thinkings of NT Wright. But let's cut through all the convoluted fluff. Is God hardening people or not? Is this not consistent with His choosing of people before the foundation of the world?

I think the conclusion is unavoidable.

 

[hedrick]

I presume your explanation is tied to the thinkings of NT Wright. But let's cut through all the convoluted fluff. Is God hardening people or not? Is this not consistent with His choosing of people before the foundation of the world?

I think the conclusion is unavoidable.

Yes, he hardened Pharaoh. But that doesn't mean he was chosen for damnation before the foundation of the world:

* Before he was hardened, Pharaoh already showed that he was opposed to God's people. So there's nothing leading us to believe that this decision was independent of Pharaoh's actions.

* The hardening referred to his decision on how to treat Israel, not matters related to his own salvation.

 

[lesliedellow]

Before he was hardened, Pharaoh already showed that he was opposed to God's people. So there's nothing leading us to believe that this decision was independent of Pharaoh's actions.

"And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. (Exodus 4.21)"

That was before Pharaoh's first encounter with Moses.

If the Open Theists have nothing else going for them, they at least seem to realise what the twin attributes of omnipotence and omniscience imply.