Calvin vs Arminius.
I like John Welsey's notes on these passages of Scripture.
"But Wesley was an Arminian wasn't he?"
My preliminary thoughts are as follows:
That Paul's general treatise throughout Romans was that salvation is received by faith irrespective of nationality, not earned by keeping the Law or through being Jewish by birth.
The above treatise gave believers at Rome a dilemma - did the fact that most first-century Jews were failing to receive salvation, because of their unbelief in the Gospel, imply that God's ancient promises to Israel were somehow now failing?
Paul's statements in these famous Predestination chapters were his answer to that dilemma - and need to be understood in that light.
They need to be understood as a continuation of and a defence of his treatise that salvation is by faith, rather than as a discussion of a whole new topic (namely, Calvinism v Arminianism) as if from left-field.
By appealing to Scriptural precedent and prophecy, Paul was defending God's sovereign prerogative to extend mercy on the grounds of faith alone rather than on the grounds of Jewish nationality or the works of the Law.
"'Extend mercy on the grounds of faith'. Yet faith itself has to be given, it is a gift, not a natural attribute in man since the fall. We are saved by faith (by means of), not because of faith," some may say.
But that's outside the scope of Paul's design in these chapters. The only dilemma Paul was seeking to answer here was the dilemma caused by his simple treatise that salvation is through faith. He was discussing the impact of this treatise on the question of God's ancient promises to Israelites. His statements were not in answer to questions which only came centuries later about what role God might have in granting saving-faith.
To understand how to apply someon's answer, we first have to know what question he was answering.
Illustration:
I ask my sister how to prevent a cake from flopping in the oven.
She writes her answer to me in a letter.
Years later, two people are discussing how to change a flat tyre.
They both argue over my sister's answer.
But my sister's answer was about flat cakes - not flat tyres!
Similarly, we could misapply Paul's answer if we don't identify the question.
The question asked by the believers at Rome was not the same question being debated today by Calvinists and Armenians. It was a question of how Paul's treatise that salvation was by faith impacts upon God's ancient promises to Israel.
So it's a mistake to take Paul's answer to that question, and instead make it an answer to Calvin's and Arminius' question.
That sort of reasoning wouldn't help us with changing a flat tyre nor with preventing a flopped cake.
"Ok I have it...............Im getting a black laundry marker and completely marking through everyplace that the Bible says The Elect, chosen, predestinated, called. And Im so glad the Bible says that I chose God before the foundations of the earth
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls — not because of works? before either was born? oh, and there is that word ELECTION again. hmmmmmmm and God's PURPOSE......I though it was all based on me??????" some may say.
Before the foundation of the world, God elected to extend His mercy to you on the basis of your faith despite your nationality and without the works of the Law. I think that's the tenure of Paul's argument in Rom.9-11.
"On the basis of my faith????? Bull hickey...........Romans 9 plainly staes that it is not him that willeth or runneth.....but according to God's purposes..........
better read the Bible...........we have nothing good in us unless God puts it there
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who call Romans 9:16 (New Living Translation) 'So it is God who decides to show mercy.' We can neither choose it nor work for it," some may say.
But you didn't work for it - you only believed it!
That is Paul's point throughout all of Romans.
"...and he chose me to believe!" some may retort.
The meaning is that the availability of salvation to the Romans through faith was not a plan that was contrived by their own will, nor awarded to them on the basis of their running or works - it was a plan which originated in God's own merc...y.
That's why Paul explained that the Gospel didn't mean that the Roman believers should be conceited above the unbelieving Jews - because it was by God's mercy and by faith alone that they stood.
Paul was defending the Gospel of salvation through faith by proving that it was indeed God's prerogative to save or reject without any recourse to a person's nationality or works (of the Law). Only believe! That's God's mercy.
Otherwise it could not have had any relevance at all when Paul warned, in this very context, that the Roman believers could just as well be cut off if they didn't continue in faith. They should not be conceited but fear, since it was by faith that they stood.
The inclusion of that warning makes no sense unless Paul's statements were meant to be understood as a defence of God's right to save or reject without respect to a person's Jewishness or Law-keeping.
In Rom.9-11 Paul was responding both to disillusionment at the rejection of so many israelis on one hand, and to conceitedness over the promotion of so many Gospel-believing Gentiles on the other hand. It was Scriptural for God to have set His own basis for extending His mercy even if it meant some natural-born Jews would miss-out; and it meant the Gentiles should also maintain a healthy fear - because the basis which God set by His own prerogative is faith alone.
That's what Paul was arguing.
"and he chose me to believe!" some may again retort.
But that is a question that is outside the scope of what Paul was discussing in Rom.9-11!
I'm not saying it is a question that shouldn't be asked - just saying that it wasn't the issue which Paul was answering in Rom.9-11.
And if we do happen to ask that question, we make a mistake if we assume Paul's statements in Rom.9-11 apply directly and deliberately to that question - because they don't!
The question which Pastor Calvin and Pastor Armenius squabbled over in the 16th century didn't even get a mention in Paul's letter to the Romans.
Instead the pertinent issue during the first century in Rome, which Paul addressed in Rom.9-11, was the doctrine of salvation through faith and its RAMIFICATIONS FOR ISRAEL AND FOR GENTILES.
Was God unjust to reject unbelieving Jews? Did it mean His ancient promises to Israel had failed? Plus there was the danger that Gentile believers might become too complacent with their new privileges in the plan of God. Those are the issues which Paul sought in Rom.9-11 to answer.
Rom.9-11 wasn't about some Calvinistic/Armenian debate in God's mind about who to give saving-faith to and who not to give it to - rather, it was about defending the Gospel (of salvation by faith) despite its ramifications for natural-born, Law-keeping, but unbelieving Jews. And Paul's statements need to be understood in that context.
That's the meaning that springs naturally to my mind anyway, when I consider the chapters in context.
No comments:
Post a Comment