Showing posts with label calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label calvinism. Show all posts
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Note to Five-Point Calvinists
Saving-faith is not a 'work' - it is one of those things a person can 'do' which isn't actually in itself doing anything. It does result in doing something though, after it has saved us.
Monday, 25 April 2011
Predestination - Mishearing Question/Misapplying Answer
You can hear someone answering a question - but if you didn't hear what the question was, you might not understand and apply the answer properly.
When you hear someone speaking on the phone, without hearing what he is responding to from the other side of the line, you might misapply what you hear him say. You might not even be in the same ballpark with what he's really talking about.
In the same way, many read Paul's statements in Romans 9, and seek to find answers in it to the question that was debated by Calvin and Armenius - but there's one problem with that: Paul was never, in Romans 9, addressing the specific question that Calvin and Armenius debated - Paul was addressing another issue not related to their question at all!
Take another look at the text. Observe the issue which the text states Paul was addressing. The meaning of the rest of the chapter will then fall into place nicely, as a defence of his premise that salvation is by faith.
When you hear someone speaking on the phone, without hearing what he is responding to from the other side of the line, you might misapply what you hear him say. You might not even be in the same ballpark with what he's really talking about.
In the same way, many read Paul's statements in Romans 9, and seek to find answers in it to the question that was debated by Calvin and Armenius - but there's one problem with that: Paul was never, in Romans 9, addressing the specific question that Calvin and Armenius debated - Paul was addressing another issue not related to their question at all!
Take another look at the text. Observe the issue which the text states Paul was addressing. The meaning of the rest of the chapter will then fall into place nicely, as a defence of his premise that salvation is by faith.
Monday, 21 March 2011
Freewill and Predestination
Since God ordained that man should have freewill, then whatever man chooses to do, it can be said in a sense that God is the doer of it, without meaning that God necessarily controls each person's choices.
Illustration:
Queen Victoria on July 9, 1900 gave Royal Assent to The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which created and give legislative powers to the Australian federal government).
But the Act did not come into force until January 1, 1901.
Thereafter the Australian federal parliament began passing its own Bills.
But it can be said that whatever Bills the Australian government chose to pass were in a sense passed by the monarch Herself (seeing She had given Royal Assent in the first place that an Australian federal Parliament should be created and that it should be empowered to enact its own legislation).
But that doesn't mean the Queen literally is the doer of everything enacted by the Australian parliament. She hasn't decided on a single Bill. Her only sovereign decision was that parliament should henceforth make its own decisions - even when parliament might sometimes make decisions that happen to be against Her personal preferences!
Similarly, God's sovereign choice (like the Queen's) was that man should have freewill and that there would be consequences for different choices.
Therefore it can be said that God foreordained people to various consequences - not because freewill isn't really freewill, but simply because He foreordained freewill and consequences.
Illustration:
Queen Victoria on July 9, 1900 gave Royal Assent to The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which created and give legislative powers to the Australian federal government).
But the Act did not come into force until January 1, 1901.
Thereafter the Australian federal parliament began passing its own Bills.
But it can be said that whatever Bills the Australian government chose to pass were in a sense passed by the monarch Herself (seeing She had given Royal Assent in the first place that an Australian federal Parliament should be created and that it should be empowered to enact its own legislation).
But that doesn't mean the Queen literally is the doer of everything enacted by the Australian parliament. She hasn't decided on a single Bill. Her only sovereign decision was that parliament should henceforth make its own decisions - even when parliament might sometimes make decisions that happen to be against Her personal preferences!
Similarly, God's sovereign choice (like the Queen's) was that man should have freewill and that there would be consequences for different choices.
Therefore it can be said that God foreordained people to various consequences - not because freewill isn't really freewill, but simply because He foreordained freewill and consequences.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Contextualizing Predestination in Rom.9-11
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.
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.
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Jacob Have I loved, Esau Have I Hated
Paul quoted this verse. It was a statement by God. But notice God didn't say it in the first book of the Bible, before Jacob and Esau were born - He said it in the last book of the Bible long after the two brothers had lived and died.
Yes, before they were born, God declared what the outcome of these two guys' descendents would be, based on His foreknowledge. It wasn't even a statement about the two brothers, primarily. Esau didn't actually serve Jacob during his lifetime. It was mainly a statement about the two brothers' descendants. But the outcome was not without a cause: Esau despised his birthright and chose to allow Jacob to inherit it. The New Testament later actually describes Esau as a profane person - a prototype of the type of Hebrews who were at risk of missing-out on God's promised salvation due to unbelief in Jesus.
Paul told this story to illustrate that it was not without precedent in Scripture that many Jewish people were missing-out on experiencing the promised salvation - it was an outcome long foreseen by the Prophets. God had elected that salvation would be by grace alone, and He foresaw that many, despite being Jewish, would not believe. Therefore the outcome which the Roman believers were witnessing in the first century was quite in-keeping with prophecy and quite in-keeping with God's original promises. Paul's Gospel [the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith] was therefore vindicated, despite its implications for unbelieving Israel.
Yes, before they were born, God declared what the outcome of these two guys' descendents would be, based on His foreknowledge. It wasn't even a statement about the two brothers, primarily. Esau didn't actually serve Jacob during his lifetime. It was mainly a statement about the two brothers' descendants. But the outcome was not without a cause: Esau despised his birthright and chose to allow Jacob to inherit it. The New Testament later actually describes Esau as a profane person - a prototype of the type of Hebrews who were at risk of missing-out on God's promised salvation due to unbelief in Jesus.
Paul told this story to illustrate that it was not without precedent in Scripture that many Jewish people were missing-out on experiencing the promised salvation - it was an outcome long foreseen by the Prophets. God had elected that salvation would be by grace alone, and He foresaw that many, despite being Jewish, would not believe. Therefore the outcome which the Roman believers were witnessing in the first century was quite in-keeping with prophecy and quite in-keeping with God's original promises. Paul's Gospel [the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith] was therefore vindicated, despite its implications for unbelieving Israel.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
I Pet.1:1,2
The sanctified, obedient and blood-sprinkled believers in Jesus Christ were considered "strangers" from the Jewish, Law-keeping point of view - but from God's point of view the Church - made up of both Jews and Gentiles - was in reality the very thing that God had foreknown from the beginning; the existence of the Church as the true people of God was the very plan that God Himself had elected from the beginning - a chosen plan based on His own grace and willingness to extend His peace.
T.U.L.I.P. - My Version
Total Depravity:
Justification could never be earned on the grounds of Jewishness nor on the grounds of keeping the Law;
Unconditional Election:
God therefore elected to grant salvation on a different basis that would not be conditional upon Jewishness nor conditional upon observance of the Law;
Limited Atonement:
The basis upon which God elected to grant salvation meant that a person would not automatically be saved just because of his Jewishness;
Irresitable Grace:
God chose to save both Jew and Gentile - by His grace! Who can resist (dispute) the graciousness - the justice, equality & mercifulness - of that plan.
Perseverence of Saints:
Seeing it was always legitimately God's plan to save both Jews and Gentiles by the grace of Jesus Christ alone - rather than on the basis of Jewishness or on the basis of keeping the Law - believers who had chosen not to succumb to the insistences of the Judaizers could therefore rest assured that this confidence of theirs would not disppoint them in that Great and final Day. The believers' confidence was founded in the legitimacy of the plan which from the beginning was God's own: to save by His grace (rather than by Jewishness nor by the observance of the Law).
Justification could never be earned on the grounds of Jewishness nor on the grounds of keeping the Law;
Unconditional Election:
God therefore elected to grant salvation on a different basis that would not be conditional upon Jewishness nor conditional upon observance of the Law;
Limited Atonement:
The basis upon which God elected to grant salvation meant that a person would not automatically be saved just because of his Jewishness;
Irresitable Grace:
God chose to save both Jew and Gentile - by His grace! Who can resist (dispute) the graciousness - the justice, equality & mercifulness - of that plan.
Perseverence of Saints:
Seeing it was always legitimately God's plan to save both Jews and Gentiles by the grace of Jesus Christ alone - rather than on the basis of Jewishness or on the basis of keeping the Law - believers who had chosen not to succumb to the insistences of the Judaizers could therefore rest assured that this confidence of theirs would not disppoint them in that Great and final Day. The believers' confidence was founded in the legitimacy of the plan which from the beginning was God's own: to save by His grace (rather than by Jewishness nor by the observance of the Law).
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
A Parable to Explain Predestination
Predestination is like an event organizer who planned a free concert. In his mind, he anticipated comfortably filling the stadium at Lang Park. So he booked the venue, planned the whole concert in advance, issued free-entry tickets to be made available to the public from any Ticketek outlet, then initiated a rigorous publicity and advertizing campaign.
When the time came, whoever wanted to could collect their free-entry ticket from Ticketek, then show-up at the turnstiles and be granted free admission into the concert.
While the audience was sitting there enjoying the event organizer's great generosity, some people who didn't officially represent the event organizer started demanding to see proof of payment from the audience. "Events at Lang Park aren't free," they insisted. It created such a scene that it momentarily threatened to disrupt many in the audience from feeling that they were allowed to stay and enjoy the rest of the concert.
But then many in the audience started producing the torn-off butts of their free-entry tickets, which clearly showed Ticketek's logo as well as the name of the event and the words "free entry". Their ticket-butts proved that the event organizer himself had pre-planned many months in advance that they should be given full admission upon presentation of their free-entry tickets alone. The audience weren't gate-crashers after all - they were the pre-planned; they were there in full conformity with the organizer's original idea, plan and criteria.
That's the sense in which the Apostle Paul meant that believers, as the Church, had been predestined!
Paul was revelling in the gracious truth that the emergence of the Church as the people of God on the basis of faith alone without the requirement of the observance of the Law and irrespective of whether a person was Jew or Gentile, was the very scenario which God had planned, chosen, elected and predestined all along and which had been foreseen by the Prophets. Therefore the early Church's Savior, salvation and faith were legitimate, despite what the Judaizers were insisting.
When the time came, whoever wanted to could collect their free-entry ticket from Ticketek, then show-up at the turnstiles and be granted free admission into the concert.
While the audience was sitting there enjoying the event organizer's great generosity, some people who didn't officially represent the event organizer started demanding to see proof of payment from the audience. "Events at Lang Park aren't free," they insisted. It created such a scene that it momentarily threatened to disrupt many in the audience from feeling that they were allowed to stay and enjoy the rest of the concert.
But then many in the audience started producing the torn-off butts of their free-entry tickets, which clearly showed Ticketek's logo as well as the name of the event and the words "free entry". Their ticket-butts proved that the event organizer himself had pre-planned many months in advance that they should be given full admission upon presentation of their free-entry tickets alone. The audience weren't gate-crashers after all - they were the pre-planned; they were there in full conformity with the organizer's original idea, plan and criteria.
That's the sense in which the Apostle Paul meant that believers, as the Church, had been predestined!
Paul was revelling in the gracious truth that the emergence of the Church as the people of God on the basis of faith alone without the requirement of the observance of the Law and irrespective of whether a person was Jew or Gentile, was the very scenario which God had planned, chosen, elected and predestined all along and which had been foreseen by the Prophets. Therefore the early Church's Savior, salvation and faith were legitimate, despite what the Judaizers were insisting.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
My Explanatory Notes on Romans 9
...in response to the controversy between Calvinists and Armenians.
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
God's promises had not failed. The Church is the Israel of God.
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
From the beginning it was God's plan that inclusion in His eternal purposes would not be on the basis of physical descendancy from Abraham.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Not only did the word spoken to Sarah prove that inclusion in the family of God was to be based on something other than physical descendancy from Abraham, but the things spoken concerning Rebekah's children also proved that neither would the works [of the Law] be the ultimate criteria for inclusion in the family of God either, as follows:
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
The future supremacy of Jacob over Esau was stated before the birth of the twins - before either of their works had been performed.
Paul used this fact to illustrate that God would ultimately give His love and mercy to a people, not on the basis of any physical descendancy from Abraham, nor on the basis of the works of the Law, but on another basis of His own choosing - on a different basis about which He spoke even before the Law was introduced - and that basis, as Paul had explained in previous chapters, is faith.
God chose to make certain privileges available to Jacob and to Jacob's descendants (Jacob, refers also to the nation of Israel). Those privileges were offered to the nation of Israel - but it was still Israel's responsibility to respond to theh offer through the obedience of faith. If they did not respond to the privileges, there would still be consequences for Israel.
God hated Esau in comparison. Similarly, Jesus stated that anyone who does not hate his father and mother is unworthy of Him. It means, in comparison. Esau and his descendants (Edom) were not given the same privileges as the nation of Israel.
Paul was illustrating that it was quite in-keeping with Scriptural principle that God excluded the physical descendants of Abraham who sought righteousness through the works of the Law, in contrast to accepting into His grace a people who would enter through the door of His choosing, and that door is the door of faith.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Almost as if anticipating the types of misunderstandings about his above statements which have ensued throughout history, Paul qualifies that this is not to be taken to mean that there is unrighteousness or inequality in God's dealings with man.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
It is righteous of God to show mercy and compassion upon His own righteous terms. And those terms will always be consistent with His Word and with His own character.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
The election of God, the experience of God's mercy and compassion, is received on God's own terms - not by man's insistance that it must be on the basis of attempted obedience to the Law. And God's terms, as previously shown by Paul, is faith.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
He shows mercy on whim He will. Upon whom does He will to show mercy? He wills to show mercy on those who meet the criteria of His own choosing, which is faith. His mercy could not be claimed on the basis of physical descendancy alone (as illustrated by Sarah in regard to Isaac) nor on the basis of the works of the Law (as illustrated by Rebekah in regard to Jacob) - but on the basis of His will, which is faith.
And the rest, He hardens. Or, He allows to continue in their ever-hardening state. He is said to be the hardener in the sense that it was His will to show mercy to those of faith alone.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Paul again anticipates a potential misunderstanding of his statements, and now proceeds to remove such potential:
20 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?
It was quite okay for God to choose to set faith as the prerequisite.
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Seeing it is not unrighteous of God to choose to show mercy on the basis of faith (rather than on the basis of nationality or the works of the Law), it cannot therefore be said that God is being unequal in His treatments of men.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
What should be amazing, is not that God finally chose to show the higher regard that He shows towards faith - what is amazing is that He for so long was willing to put-up with the behaviours of the natural seed, of those who were under the Law.
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
His vessels of mercy were those who met the criteria which He Himself set as the prerequisite for becoming objects of His mercy, which is faith.
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
His called, His chosen, are those who would come via the doorway of faith.
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Gentiles would be included.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Only a remnant, like the remains of a flock ravaged by a predator.
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
It was a righteous act of God - not an unequal act of God, but a Scripturally precedented and foreseen act of God - that would cause an elect Church, inclusive of Gentiles, to emerge on the basis of faith alone, out of the rubble of the physical nation of Israel who were under the Law.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
God's promises had not failed. The Church is the Israel of God.
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
From the beginning it was God's plan that inclusion in His eternal purposes would not be on the basis of physical descendancy from Abraham.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Not only did the word spoken to Sarah prove that inclusion in the family of God was to be based on something other than physical descendancy from Abraham, but the things spoken concerning Rebekah's children also proved that neither would the works [of the Law] be the ultimate criteria for inclusion in the family of God either, as follows:
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
The future supremacy of Jacob over Esau was stated before the birth of the twins - before either of their works had been performed.
Paul used this fact to illustrate that God would ultimately give His love and mercy to a people, not on the basis of any physical descendancy from Abraham, nor on the basis of the works of the Law, but on another basis of His own choosing - on a different basis about which He spoke even before the Law was introduced - and that basis, as Paul had explained in previous chapters, is faith.
God chose to make certain privileges available to Jacob and to Jacob's descendants (Jacob, refers also to the nation of Israel). Those privileges were offered to the nation of Israel - but it was still Israel's responsibility to respond to theh offer through the obedience of faith. If they did not respond to the privileges, there would still be consequences for Israel.
God hated Esau in comparison. Similarly, Jesus stated that anyone who does not hate his father and mother is unworthy of Him. It means, in comparison. Esau and his descendants (Edom) were not given the same privileges as the nation of Israel.
Paul was illustrating that it was quite in-keeping with Scriptural principle that God excluded the physical descendants of Abraham who sought righteousness through the works of the Law, in contrast to accepting into His grace a people who would enter through the door of His choosing, and that door is the door of faith.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Almost as if anticipating the types of misunderstandings about his above statements which have ensued throughout history, Paul qualifies that this is not to be taken to mean that there is unrighteousness or inequality in God's dealings with man.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
It is righteous of God to show mercy and compassion upon His own righteous terms. And those terms will always be consistent with His Word and with His own character.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
The election of God, the experience of God's mercy and compassion, is received on God's own terms - not by man's insistance that it must be on the basis of attempted obedience to the Law. And God's terms, as previously shown by Paul, is faith.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
He shows mercy on whim He will. Upon whom does He will to show mercy? He wills to show mercy on those who meet the criteria of His own choosing, which is faith. His mercy could not be claimed on the basis of physical descendancy alone (as illustrated by Sarah in regard to Isaac) nor on the basis of the works of the Law (as illustrated by Rebekah in regard to Jacob) - but on the basis of His will, which is faith.
And the rest, He hardens. Or, He allows to continue in their ever-hardening state. He is said to be the hardener in the sense that it was His will to show mercy to those of faith alone.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Paul again anticipates a potential misunderstanding of his statements, and now proceeds to remove such potential:
20 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?
It was quite okay for God to choose to set faith as the prerequisite.
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Seeing it is not unrighteous of God to choose to show mercy on the basis of faith (rather than on the basis of nationality or the works of the Law), it cannot therefore be said that God is being unequal in His treatments of men.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
What should be amazing, is not that God finally chose to show the higher regard that He shows towards faith - what is amazing is that He for so long was willing to put-up with the behaviours of the natural seed, of those who were under the Law.
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
His vessels of mercy were those who met the criteria which He Himself set as the prerequisite for becoming objects of His mercy, which is faith.
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
His called, His chosen, are those who would come via the doorway of faith.
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Gentiles would be included.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Only a remnant, like the remains of a flock ravaged by a predator.
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
It was a righteous act of God - not an unequal act of God, but a Scripturally precedented and foreseen act of God - that would cause an elect Church, inclusive of Gentiles, to emerge on the basis of faith alone, out of the rubble of the physical nation of Israel who were under the Law.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Is TULIP Taught in Romans 9?
God made "faith" the prerequisite for salvation rather than physical Jewishness; and God extended the availability of this mercy to the Gentiles.
In Romans 9 Paul showed that it was not altogether without precedent in Scripture for God to take such a sovereign prerogative, and Paul showed that this outcome had already been foreseen by the Prophets.
In Romans 9 Paul showed that it was not altogether without precedent in Scripture for God to take such a sovereign prerogative, and Paul showed that this outcome had already been foreseen by the Prophets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)