|
Tychicus -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/7/2008 5:36:05 AM)
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Tychicus: So, yes, God will choose to do what he wishes, based on his Sovereign Will. Suppose God decides to "mar" or "unmar" a vessel, not based on some decree before the foundation of time, but because he sees how the vessel behaves, as we see in Jer 18:7-10. Suppose God wants to make his decisions that way. Can we tell God that He can't do this?
kelman: We can't tell God; but, He can tell us - and He has. He tells us He is the potter and He does the molding of the vessel with the vessel having no say how he is to be molded. That's also the point Paul is making in Rom 9.
Tychicus: No, it does not say "with the vessel having no say". And that is not the point in Rom 9.
kelman: That is very much the point "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
I'm answering this one separately since it is almost on another topic. And, yes, I recognize your answer, because it is a typical Calvinist understanding of this passage. As to be expected, of course, it assumes the "O man" here is an Arminian who is complaining that God is unfair, and Paul the Calvinist is setting him straight: "Who are you, O Arminian, to question the idea that God predestines people to heaven or hell, with them having no say."
But is the “O man” an Arminian? What if he is really a Calvinist? Think about that one awhile.
In fact, the “O man” is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. He is a Jew. A very traditional Jew. A Christian, perhaps, but of the Judaizing kind. And he takes God’s promises very seriously, e.g. those in Rom 9:4-5, but of course he understands that these promises are given to Jews, to ethnic Jews, certainly not to Gentiles. We see him first pop up in Rom 2:1, really in most of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3; and he also shows up on occasion in chap 4, 6, 7, and now 9. Sometimes he is called “O man”, sometimes “one of you”, sometimes just “you”. In 2:17, he is called “you, if you call yourself a Jew”. He might not be one specific person, but a representative of a group; like in modern America we might say, “you, O Republican” or “you, O Democrat” in a political discussion.
You might not buy all this right away, but I would encourage you to read all of Romans very carefully, following Paul’s arguments, and checking on these references to “O man”, and “you”, etc. Whether you agree with me or not, it should be a very rewarding study.
But in many ways this Jew is very much a Calvinist. After all, he is one of the Elect, God’s chosen people. And he also believes in Eternal Security – not exactly as Calvinists do today, but he does believe that God’s promises to Israel are eternally secure. And they will not be shared with the non-elect (i.e., the Gentiles). After all, as he reasons, God made promises to Israel; therefore if Israel is rejected it means that God failed. And that just can’t be. (You see Paul’s response to this kind of reasoning in 3:4 and 9:6. Like I said, you must pay proper attention to the text; you can only understand what the “O man” is saying by studying Paul’s responses carefully.)
And this is really what is going on in Romans 9. After all, just look at the beginning of the chapter. What does it say?
It does not say, “Ok, now I Paul am going to explain to you how it came about that Jacob went to heaven and Esau went to hell. It was all because of God’s decision made at the beginning of time, before Jacob and Esau were ever born. . . .” Nothing like that is said; and the reason is that Paul had no intention of ever discussing such a topic.
What Rom 9:1-5 does bring up is the puzzle of Israel: if all the OT promises are addressed to Israel, then why is it that most of the Jews are not accepting Christ? Instead, it is mostly Gentiles who are becoming believers. How does that square with the promises of God (e.g. see 9:4-5)?
The rest of chapter 9 is really a response to the Jewish version of Eternal Security. They argued that the promises were for Israel; and if you let all the Gentiles in then Israel would no longer be the chosen people (the elect), and therefore all God’s promises would have failed.
That is why Paul said in 9:6, “it is not as though God’s word had failed.” And then he goes on to explain what is really happening. The rest of the chapter is not about why some people go to heaven and others go to hell. That is ridiculously out of context.
The chapter is about how the sovereign God does not always choose the “elder” or “first born”, or the one you think. God might choose someone else. And in fact Israel, although they are called the “chosen people”, are losing their status. God is choosing another. Why? Well, you can cheat and look at the end of the chapter (9:30-33), or ahead further to 10:21. Or you can look at the lesson of the potter in Jer 18:6: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” You can read 18:9-12 to see the unfortunate results for Israel; and 18:7-8 to see the good results for the nation that repents.
If you follow Romans carefully, starting at chapter 1, and especially looking at passages like 2:17-29, 3:3-4, 3:9-18, you get a good idea that ethnic Israel is not doing very well. In fact, being a physical Jew is really not so important, at least compared to someone who actually obeys God (see esp. 2:25-29). And if you, the reader, are a traditional Jew (the “O man”) you are not going to like what Paul is saying. Especially when you get to chapter 9.
It is this “O man” who is complaining in 9:19-20. And it is not because God decreed that Esau went to hell, or because God hardened Pharaoh. (As if he would be bothered by that!) It is because God “hardens whom he wants to harden”, and that means that right now God is hardening Israel. This is explicitly stated further on in 11:25, but “O man” certainly gets the drift by now. And if God is hardening Israel, then how can God blame them? Because then, according to his logic, it would be all God’s fault.
And so, according to “O man”, Paul’s argument is all nonsense. But, according to Romans, it is not nonsense. God is hardening Israel, but it is Israel’s fault, not God’s fault. They are disobeying God, as is made abundantly clear throughout Romans (e.g. 2:24, 10:21). That is the lesson of the potter, and that is why Paul brings up this example here. (Remember, when you see “potter”, read Jer 18.)
---------------------------------------------------
I’ll stop my response here, because this is a forum, not a book. The topic is large, and the response woefully brief. But I hope it will encourage someone to realize that there is more than just the Calvinist explanation of Rom 9; in fact there is an explanation that actually deals with all of chapter 9, and makes sense in the context of the whole book.
You may poke holes in what I said. That’s fine. But I would offer you this one challenge: whatever view you have, make a serious attempt to trace how it develops throughout the flow of the book, and how it fits into the context. If you do that I’ll be happy. It doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not.
|
|
|
|