Quotes are from Ben's "Text on OSAS" which he provided in my response to a request for a non-Calvinist interpretation of portions of Romans 9.
From my text on "OSAS":
Romans 9, TOTAL DEPRAVITY
To understand the Romans 9 passage, let us first come to understanding of the concept of "total depravity". One of the primary posits of "Irresistible Grace" is that man is completely, totally, depraved; so much so, that he cannot ever even consider the possibility of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior.
It appears that you are not quite understanding the Reformed/Calvinistic view of what you have mislabeled Total Depravity (TD). Certainly TD relates to a person ability to trust Christ unto salvation. However, if you are going to challenge a theological system, it would be best to be precise. What you are addressing is what a Calvinist would label "total inability." Total inability is itself a product of original sin and its effect upon human freedom. Allow me to present the concept of "Original Sin" and its effect upon "Human Freedom" from the perspective of one who holds the doctrine to be true and consistent with the Scriptures. The following is an excerpt on the subject from Louis Behkoff's "Systematic Theology."
ORIGINAL SIN AND HUMAN FREEDOM. In connection with the doctrine of the total inability of man the question naturally arises, whether original sin then also involves the loss of freedom, or of what is generally called the liberum arbitrium, the free will. The question should be answered with discrimination for, put in this general way, it may be answered both negatively and positively. In a certain sense man has not, and in another sense he has, lost his liberty. There is a certain liberty that is the inalienable possession of a free agent, namely, the liberty to choose as he pleases, in full accord with the prevailing dispositions and tendencies of his soul. Man did not lose any of the constitutional faculties necessary to constitute him a responsible moral agent. He still has reason, conscience, and the freedom of choice. He has ability to acquire knowledge, and to feel and recognize moral distinctions and obligations; and his affections, tendencies, and actions are spontaneous, so that he chooses and refuses as he sees fit. Moreover, he has the ability to appreciate and do many things that are good and amiable, benevolent and just, in the relations he sustains to his fellow-beings. But man did lose his material freedom, that is, the rational power to determine his course in the direction of the highest good, in harmony with the original moral constitution of his nature. Man has by nature an irresistible bias for evil. He is not able to apprehend and love spiritual excellence, to seek and do spiritual things, the things of God that pertain to salvation.
In Romans 1 it says very clearly and undeniably that God is revealed to all men.
As you can see Ben, that on this count Berkoff (and I) would agree with you.
It is then up to each to accept Him or reject Him.
We are still in agreement.
Clearly, although "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, there are NONE righteous" (Romans 3), God reveals Himself to each person, in enough measure that the person HAS the ability to choose.
Recall that the Calvinist agrees that the unregenerate has full capacity to choose and refuse "as he sees fit." And as Berkhoff expresses it, "He still has reason, conscience, and the freedom of choice."
Thus the "They are without excuse". It also undeniably says that God, because of their conscious rejection of Him and embracement of "the lie", gives them over to a depraved mind. Does this mean that their hardened hearts are their own fault? Consider Hebrews 3:13, "Lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin". The Greek for "hardened" here is "skleruno", which means "made stubborn or obstinate". The same word as used in Romans 9:18; which, apparently indicates that God does the "hardening and softening", but in context with Romans 1, we gain the deeper understanding that the hardening is a result of their conscious choice (their heart darkened because they chose "the lie") and the "God hardens whom He desires" is understood to mean that He gives over to a base and depraved mind those who reject Him.
Still you remain faithful to the Calvinistic view . . . perhaps I have been misunderstanding you. Perhaps you are actually a Calvinist challenging your brethren to strengthen us?
Technically, in Exodus 10:1 it reads "made heavy", and verses 10:20, 27, 11:10 and 14:8 mean "made strong". Was Pharaoh a helpless pawn in the machinations of an absolutely-controlling-God? Or was his "hardening" because of his choice to "embrace the lie"? It is theologically sound to understand the latter. God "hardens" people in the sense that He honors their choice to reject Him and gives them over to a base and depraved mind.
Still no arguments here.
Consider also a "Semitic View" --- in Romans 9:17-18, one would think that GOD hardened Pharaoh's heart, UNILATERALLY (against Pharaoh's will). You would also think this if you read Exodus 10:1. But read just two verses earlier: "When Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and HARDENED HIS OWN HEART, he and his servants. Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go
" Exodus 9:34-35 There is a "Semitic View" that ascribes to God things that God HAS NOT DONE. Context is always critical.
Just a reminder of what Berkhoff wrote above, "Man did not lose any of the constitutional faculties necessary to constitute him a responsible moral agent. He still has reason, conscience, and the freedom of choice. He has ability to acquire knowledge, and to feel and recognize moral distinctions and obligations; and his affections, tendencies, and actions are spontaneous, so that he chooses and refuses as he sees fit."
Please explain this "Semitic view". Apparently I need help understanding it.
What of the words, "Who resists God's will"? (vs19) This is a rare use of the word, "DECREE" (boulema); but the context is Paul constructing a RETORT, this statement was made by Paul's proposed DETRACTOR.
But how is this question of his detractor different from the Arminian protest against the Calvinist Doctrines? Is not the protest often that the Calvinistic model makes out God to be unjust? Many non-Calvinists hold a false understanding of the Calvinist views. They set up a misrepresent Calvinistic theology and then attack the doctrine that they constructed. If, as it seems, that you feel specially called to prove Calvinism wrong, endeavor to prove
true Calvinism wrong.
A common accusation against the Calvinistic view is that it makes men to be passive puppets simply responding savingly to the pull of the strings at the hands of an omni-oppressive god, or blunder ignorantly into hell without ever having a fair chance at redemption. "Unjust!" declare the detractors.
As I have shown above - the Calvinist view sees the will of unregenerate man as fully capable of making a moral choice, making a choice that is fully consistent with his desires, based upon his nature. His problem is that what he wills is to walk contrary to God.
There is nothing in the context to deny that "God has mercy on whom He desires, and He desires that all who see Jesus and BELIEVE, be SAVED." Jn6:40 There is nothing in the context to imply that anyone's salvation is DECREED.
Help me out here please. John 6:40 is involved in this argument in what way? Calvinists understand that to believe on Christ is the standard. Calvinists understand that its God's will that
believers receive eternal life.
Now, if God does not predestine-to-salvation, then what of the passage in Romans 9 that speaks of "pottery"? It clearly says that some are created "for honor", and some "for common".
Let us assume that they are on the potter's wheel because of their choice to submit to Him --- they are already saved (as we have already established in this discourse). 1Corinthians 12:4ff tells us that God uses each of us as He chooses, different parts of the body, for the common good, as He chooses. Some for honor, some for common. Perfect harmony, the clay submits to the potter to use as He wills.
Excuse me? The best / or a reasonable metaphor for a willingly obedient servant is a lump of clay? And the eventual form of the crockery is to represent the willingness of the "lump" to serve? Please, you cannot possibly be satisfied with this interpretation you offered.
While I agree that It is necessary that we interpret the more obscure Bible texts in light of those clearer teachings of Scripture. This does not, however, give us license to abuse any text. I really believe this is a case where you have abused the clear teaching of a clear text.
Though the words "Honor" (ti-me),and "dishonor" (atimia) seem to convey "saved" and "unsaved" vessels in 2Tim2:20-21, in Romans 9 there are clearly THREE vessels; "honor", "dishonor", and "wrath-prepared-for-destruction". The translators of the NASV take the "dishonor" to mean "COMMON" --- both honor and common are SAVED; while the "wrath-destruction" are clearly unsaved. I agree with them --- it makes no sense if the "atimia dishonor" and the "skeuos orge katartizo eis apoleia vessels-of-wrath-fitted-for-destruction" are both UNSAVED.
Check the footnote in your NASV it says, "Lit, for dishonour." The KJV translates the term in various locations as: reproach (once), dishonour (4 times), shame (once), and vile (once). Surveying other less "modern" translations reveals: 1611 King James - dishonour, 1582 Rheims - contumilie (meaning disgrace or reproach), 1557 Geneva - dishonour, 1539 Cranmer - dishonour, 1534 Tyndale - dishonour, and Tyndale's 1380 - dispite (meaning without mercy). None of these terms lend themselves to your position.
Verse Romans 9:23, the "endured with patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"? What caused them to BE "vessels of wrath", and to BE "prepared for destruction"? (KATARTISMENA carries the tense of "middle-voice", meaning "PREPARED-THEMSELVES"). . . Belief is a choice, very clearly written in this passage. It is not predestined.
I'm glad to see that your are back into a Calvinist train of thought!
The issue of choice is a red herring. The Calvinist believes that the unregenerate makes a choice as a free moral agent, a choice that is consistent with the desires of his heart, a choice against the righteousness of God. Contrariwise, the regenerate, also acting as a free moral agent chooses that which is consistent with the new nature given him by a sovereign act of God - yet the individual's free moral agency, his ability to select those options perceived by most desirable to him is left intact. Both the regenerate and the unregenerate are held accountable for the choice they make regarding Christ as Saviour.
Some try to assert that "God PRE-LOVED Jacob and PRE-HATED Esau" (from Romans 9:11-13); but God knew the future, and knew which would follow and which would rebel. Also, an idea has been suggested that "Jacob" and "Esau" are "archetypes" of two peoples --- again, one people who loved God, and the other who did not.
Here you avoid a acknowleding a widely accepted understanding that "hated" as used in the Scriptures can mean "to love less." Which within the context of this passage would simply mean that God did favor Jacob over Esau.
Romans 3, TOTAL DEPRAVITY
The third chapter of Romans seems to be a "PROOF" to many who support "Calvinism". Romans 3 boldly declares, "There is NONE righteous, not one; ALL have turned aside, NONE seek after God." The Calvinist says, "AHA! See?! They are TOTALLY DEPRAVED, they CANNOT turn to God WITHOUT His forceful intervention . . .Verse 6:5 is the same type of lamentation/exaggeration as is the Romans 3, and Psalm14/53 passages.
O.K., I'm done panicking. For a moment I thought you were saying that Paul did not write what we now refer to as Romans 3:11!
In part, I agree with your assessment that Romans 3:11 is hyperbolical, in a manner of speaking. If we seek to apply the term 'none' in Rom 3:11 in it's literal sense it would be including believers as well as unbelievers those that do not "seeketh after God." It seems most certain that the unregenerate would not seek after God in the sense described in this verse. "Seeketh" is in its participle form, as I have explained previously in this thread, this means that "seeking" must be a characteristic of the individual (something beyond the simple action of seeking - they must become a seeking one) to meet the definition of the term as used in Romans 3:11. Paul describes his own struggles with sin in Romans 7 wherein he (much like the "all' in Romans 3:9) describes himself as "under sin." And the description in chapter 7 is not consistent with one who would be characterized as a seeker of God, not characterized as a righteous one - not in his flesh. Paul knew how desperately he needed His Saviour. And this Paul, that describes a struggle that all Christians face, is indwelled by the Holy Ghost (on this we surely agree). Further, he as been born again (again we should be in agreement). Yet he struggles. He expresses in as being bound to a body of death.
Such a struggle to live a life that Glorifies our redeemer! But what does Paul, what do we, struggle against but our old nature. Yes when we are born anew, we are given a new nature. Are we not in agreement on that issue? Yet the old nature is not eliminated. It remains an influence in our lives until we enter glory. But it is the old nature that is the sole influence - the entire nature - upon the unregenerate. We struggle knowing that our sins are an offense to the Christ who loves us and died for us. We sin although we know that within our own selves dwells the Holy Spirit of God.
What chance does the unregenerate have of hating his sin and turning to the righteousness of God which is Christ? The Calvinist believes he has none, for he refuses to see as righteousness, the righteousness of God.
By His Grace,
Mike
