Hi Steve,
Does Romans 9:14-23 teach a sovereign freedom of God over man?
Romans 9:14-23 (ESV)
"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. [17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." [18] So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
[19] You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can
resist his will?" [20] But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will
what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" [21]
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? [22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— ."
Thanks,
Jude
Does Romans 9:14-23 teach a sovereign freedom of God over ma
Does Romans 9:14-23 teach a sovereign freedom of God over ma
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Romans 8:29 (ESV)
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Hi Jude,
It's me, Steve. I don't know why I am logged on as "guest." I just don't have this internet thing down yet, I guess. I'm sorry to take so long getting this reply posted. As you can see, if you surf around this forum, I have been busy elsewhere. :-)
You asked: "Does Romans 9:14-23 teach a sovereign freedom of God over man?"
I believe that the entire Bible, including Romans 9, teaches God's sovereign freedom over man, though not necessarily in a Calvinist sense of those terms. I don't think Romans 9 teaches the Calvinist concept any more than does any other passage (although it is a favorite passage used by Calvinists, as if it did teach their view).
Let me explain what I see as the difference between the biblical view and the Augustinian/Reformed view of "sovereignty." This word describes a state of supreme authority which can exist, within the limits of certain spheres, even among men. An ordinary king is an obvious example of a man possessing sovereignty over his realm; a master also has sovereignty over his slaves; a father has sovereignty over his family; the owner of sheep has sovereignty over his flock; a potter has sovereignty over his clay, and a head is sovereign over its body. I give these examples because, obviously, these are the very human institutions that God has chosen to use as analogies to communicate His sovereignty to our minds.
Though the word "sovereign" is not found in the classic English translations of the Bible, the idea is conveyed by the writers through the employment of these analogies: God relates to His creation and to His people as a King, a Master, a Father, a Shepherd, a Potter and a Head. There may be other analogies used in scripture, but these are the ones most calculated to communicate what He wants us to know about the specific matter of His sovereignty.
When we look at human kings, masters, fathers, etc., we recognize that they have a kind of authority within their respective spheres that is not subject to challenges from their subordinates. They act and arbitrate as they choose without interference or answerability to others. This is, in fact, how the word "sovereign" is understood in normal usage.
Another observation about these human analogies is that, in none of these cases does the word "sovereign" necessarily include the concept of "micro-management" or "meticulous control." These latter concepts might be said to be options open to the sovereign, but they do not form any part of the definition of sovereignty.
That is, a king, if he has the ability to do so, may choose to monitor and micro-manage every decision that his subjects make, or he may not choose to do so. He is equally sovereign in either case. His sovereignty only guarantees that he, as the supreme ruler, has the unchallengable prerogative of choice between these different styles of ruling.
Likewise a father may wish to schedule and control every activity of his children down to the minutest detail, or he may prefer to grant them some liberty of choice in some matters. He is no more or less sovereign over his children if he makes one choice or if he makes the other. Sovereignty merely means that the man possessing it is the undisputed ruler. It does not in itself tell us how he may choose to exercise his rule.
It is at this point that the Calvinist introduces a novel twist to the definition of the word "sovereignty," as applied to God, which is neither part of the dictionary definition, nor of the biblical teaching on the subject. The Calvinist would cause less confusion if he would stop using the word "sovereignty" (it is apparently unnecessay, since the biblical writers did not see a need to use it!), and would use a term that really represents what they mean. The best alternative expression I have heard for the Calvistic concept of God's sovereignty is "meticulous providence." This term (like the Calvinist doctrine) indicates that nothing happens but what God has directly ordained and eternally decreed should happen. "Sovereignty" is not the right word for this concept.
Calvinists believe that, if there is a single atom in the universe that is not doing exactly what God most wants it to be doing at any given moment, then God is no longer sovereign. This is as sensible as saying that, were I to give my children a choice between spinach and corn, and they chose the corn, though I would have thought spinach to be the better choice, then I am no longer the head (sovereign) of my home! If I give them no choice in the matter, and insist that they eat spinach, but they refuse, and I cannot force it down their throats, I am still the sovereign head of the home. They are simply in rebellion against their sovereign. My sovereignty means, in such a case, that it is my prerogative to sanction, discipline or punish them for their disobedience.
My position of headship (sovereignty) is not diminished a) by my giving my children a choice of vegetables, b) by my giving them no choice, but being unable to force their obedience, or c) by my choosing or not choosing to impose sanctions for disobedience. In fact, all of these options are alternate exercises of my sovereignty that are open to me. It is the fact that I have the authority to make such choices that defines my position as sovereign.
It may go against our grain, seeming almost blasphemous, for me to speak of my being "sovereign," but this is only because we are a democratically-conditioned people, who acknowledge no kings or masters other than God, and instinctively balk at the suggestion of any man being ruler over another human. However, in terms of the normal usage of this word, which has always been applicable to people, states and institutions, as well as to God, my usage is not inappropriate.
Now, Christians before Augustine acknowledged the obvious biblical doctrine that God is "sovereign"--that is, He is the supreme authority. The novel idea of "meticulous providence" was borrowed from the Greek philosophers' concept of "fates" and was imported into Christian theology by Augustine. Both Luther and Calvin were admitted Augustinians, and his views, therefore, became the official doctrines of the Reformation. But being "official doctrine" does not make a thing true.
The Calvinist is especially eager to apply his doctrine of meticulous providence to the subject of man's salvation. He argues: "If God wished for a man to become a believer, and that same man failed to do so, then that man is like a renegade atom in God's universe, and God is no longer sovereign! This is impossible!" Therefore, it must be affirmed (by the Calvinist) that, if a man does not get saved, it is only because God did not really choose to save him. This means that in the realm of individual salvation, as in every other, God must hold all the cards, and every detail must go precisely as He wishes for it to go. Otherwise, He has been stripped of His sovereignty.
Primitive Christianity taught that it was a sovereign decision on God's part to create a man free to choose the nature of his own responses to God, and to face the consequences of that decision. This is certainly the impression that is given in scripture, from the story of the fall onward.
God is no less sovereign for having chosen to rule the moral creation in this manner than He would be had He forced His will on every man. In the end, God still holds the winning hand, because His sovereignty guarantees Him the right to choose the ultimate fates of those who believe and of those who rebel, as categories. He does not choose which individuals will be in which categories. That is the choice that God chose to leave with us.
Nothing in the Bible, including Romans 9, contradicts this thesis, which is why it was so universally believed by the primitive Christians for the first four-hundred years, and is still believed by most Christians (Calvinists are still in the minority among Bible-students, if every branch of Christianity is taken into the count).
Romans 9 does indeed affirm (as does the whole Bible) that God is sovereign, but nothing in the chapter (or the whole Bible) suggests that God has chosen one man to be saved and another lost without reference to the presence or absence of faith in the man as a condition.
What we do see affirmed in Romans 9 is that Jacob was chosen over Esau (unconditionally) to possess the birthright in his generation. This birthright was no guarantee of salvation, and its loss by Esau was no guarantee of his damnation. The choice of which son of Abraham's line would receieve the birthright in each generation was indeed God's choice, and may have been made without any consideration of conditions being met by the recipient. But the eternal salvation of individuals was always determined strictly by that individual's own choices (e.g., Gen.4:6-7/ Deut.30:19/ Josh.24:15/ Prov.1:28-29/ Isa.65:12).
Though God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and will harden whom He wills, this doesn't suggest for a moment that he follows no general policies as to whom He will treat in which way. He makes it clear throughout scripture: "He that honors me, I will honor; he that despises me shall be lightly esteemed," "God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble," "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." These are universal policies by which God sovereignly dispenses His favor and His rejection. Nothing in Romans 9 denies these facts.
Pharaoh's hardening was not an unprecipitated act. It was the long-awaited execution of God's judgment on a man who had for a long time deserved to be judged for his crimes against humanity and Israel. There is no "mysterious decree" involved in this.
That God, like a potter, would take one lump of clay (Israel) and make from it two separate vessels (categories) is His sovereign choice. The one vessel, comprised of the believing Israelites, is destined for honor, and the second, comprised of the unbelieving Israelites, is prepared for dishonor and wrath. What is mysterious in this? It is agreeable with the whole teaching of scripture: believers will be honored, and unbelievers damned. Nowhere does Paul say that God has chosen which Israelite will believe and which will not. The choice of vessel-status is left to the individual (2 Tim.2:21).
I conclude that Romans 9, while teaching the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in harmony with the whole of scripture, does not teach the Calvinist doctrine of God's meticulous providence in man's salvation, any more than does the rest of scripture.
I have said more on this particular passage in my post, dated April 27, 2004, under the question, "A good work?" (page 2, also in the Calvinism category).
My warmest regards to you, my brother!
P.S. I would here like to state a request concerning these on-going discussions about Calvinism, and that is that our Calvinist friends might consider actually dealing with some of the scriptures raised by the non-Calvinist posts. I have noticed that the non-Calvinists answer the Calvinists point-by-point, whereas the Calvinists, thus far, have simply ignored the arguments of the non-Calvinists and moved along to their next question. I think it would better profit the readers of this forum if both sides engaged one another exegetically from the scripture, cross-examining and rebutting each other's arguments. Could we possibly take this discussion in that direction?
It's me, Steve. I don't know why I am logged on as "guest." I just don't have this internet thing down yet, I guess. I'm sorry to take so long getting this reply posted. As you can see, if you surf around this forum, I have been busy elsewhere. :-)
You asked: "Does Romans 9:14-23 teach a sovereign freedom of God over man?"
I believe that the entire Bible, including Romans 9, teaches God's sovereign freedom over man, though not necessarily in a Calvinist sense of those terms. I don't think Romans 9 teaches the Calvinist concept any more than does any other passage (although it is a favorite passage used by Calvinists, as if it did teach their view).
Let me explain what I see as the difference between the biblical view and the Augustinian/Reformed view of "sovereignty." This word describes a state of supreme authority which can exist, within the limits of certain spheres, even among men. An ordinary king is an obvious example of a man possessing sovereignty over his realm; a master also has sovereignty over his slaves; a father has sovereignty over his family; the owner of sheep has sovereignty over his flock; a potter has sovereignty over his clay, and a head is sovereign over its body. I give these examples because, obviously, these are the very human institutions that God has chosen to use as analogies to communicate His sovereignty to our minds.
Though the word "sovereign" is not found in the classic English translations of the Bible, the idea is conveyed by the writers through the employment of these analogies: God relates to His creation and to His people as a King, a Master, a Father, a Shepherd, a Potter and a Head. There may be other analogies used in scripture, but these are the ones most calculated to communicate what He wants us to know about the specific matter of His sovereignty.
When we look at human kings, masters, fathers, etc., we recognize that they have a kind of authority within their respective spheres that is not subject to challenges from their subordinates. They act and arbitrate as they choose without interference or answerability to others. This is, in fact, how the word "sovereign" is understood in normal usage.
Another observation about these human analogies is that, in none of these cases does the word "sovereign" necessarily include the concept of "micro-management" or "meticulous control." These latter concepts might be said to be options open to the sovereign, but they do not form any part of the definition of sovereignty.
That is, a king, if he has the ability to do so, may choose to monitor and micro-manage every decision that his subjects make, or he may not choose to do so. He is equally sovereign in either case. His sovereignty only guarantees that he, as the supreme ruler, has the unchallengable prerogative of choice between these different styles of ruling.
Likewise a father may wish to schedule and control every activity of his children down to the minutest detail, or he may prefer to grant them some liberty of choice in some matters. He is no more or less sovereign over his children if he makes one choice or if he makes the other. Sovereignty merely means that the man possessing it is the undisputed ruler. It does not in itself tell us how he may choose to exercise his rule.
It is at this point that the Calvinist introduces a novel twist to the definition of the word "sovereignty," as applied to God, which is neither part of the dictionary definition, nor of the biblical teaching on the subject. The Calvinist would cause less confusion if he would stop using the word "sovereignty" (it is apparently unnecessay, since the biblical writers did not see a need to use it!), and would use a term that really represents what they mean. The best alternative expression I have heard for the Calvistic concept of God's sovereignty is "meticulous providence." This term (like the Calvinist doctrine) indicates that nothing happens but what God has directly ordained and eternally decreed should happen. "Sovereignty" is not the right word for this concept.
Calvinists believe that, if there is a single atom in the universe that is not doing exactly what God most wants it to be doing at any given moment, then God is no longer sovereign. This is as sensible as saying that, were I to give my children a choice between spinach and corn, and they chose the corn, though I would have thought spinach to be the better choice, then I am no longer the head (sovereign) of my home! If I give them no choice in the matter, and insist that they eat spinach, but they refuse, and I cannot force it down their throats, I am still the sovereign head of the home. They are simply in rebellion against their sovereign. My sovereignty means, in such a case, that it is my prerogative to sanction, discipline or punish them for their disobedience.
My position of headship (sovereignty) is not diminished a) by my giving my children a choice of vegetables, b) by my giving them no choice, but being unable to force their obedience, or c) by my choosing or not choosing to impose sanctions for disobedience. In fact, all of these options are alternate exercises of my sovereignty that are open to me. It is the fact that I have the authority to make such choices that defines my position as sovereign.
It may go against our grain, seeming almost blasphemous, for me to speak of my being "sovereign," but this is only because we are a democratically-conditioned people, who acknowledge no kings or masters other than God, and instinctively balk at the suggestion of any man being ruler over another human. However, in terms of the normal usage of this word, which has always been applicable to people, states and institutions, as well as to God, my usage is not inappropriate.
Now, Christians before Augustine acknowledged the obvious biblical doctrine that God is "sovereign"--that is, He is the supreme authority. The novel idea of "meticulous providence" was borrowed from the Greek philosophers' concept of "fates" and was imported into Christian theology by Augustine. Both Luther and Calvin were admitted Augustinians, and his views, therefore, became the official doctrines of the Reformation. But being "official doctrine" does not make a thing true.
The Calvinist is especially eager to apply his doctrine of meticulous providence to the subject of man's salvation. He argues: "If God wished for a man to become a believer, and that same man failed to do so, then that man is like a renegade atom in God's universe, and God is no longer sovereign! This is impossible!" Therefore, it must be affirmed (by the Calvinist) that, if a man does not get saved, it is only because God did not really choose to save him. This means that in the realm of individual salvation, as in every other, God must hold all the cards, and every detail must go precisely as He wishes for it to go. Otherwise, He has been stripped of His sovereignty.
Primitive Christianity taught that it was a sovereign decision on God's part to create a man free to choose the nature of his own responses to God, and to face the consequences of that decision. This is certainly the impression that is given in scripture, from the story of the fall onward.
God is no less sovereign for having chosen to rule the moral creation in this manner than He would be had He forced His will on every man. In the end, God still holds the winning hand, because His sovereignty guarantees Him the right to choose the ultimate fates of those who believe and of those who rebel, as categories. He does not choose which individuals will be in which categories. That is the choice that God chose to leave with us.
Nothing in the Bible, including Romans 9, contradicts this thesis, which is why it was so universally believed by the primitive Christians for the first four-hundred years, and is still believed by most Christians (Calvinists are still in the minority among Bible-students, if every branch of Christianity is taken into the count).
Romans 9 does indeed affirm (as does the whole Bible) that God is sovereign, but nothing in the chapter (or the whole Bible) suggests that God has chosen one man to be saved and another lost without reference to the presence or absence of faith in the man as a condition.
What we do see affirmed in Romans 9 is that Jacob was chosen over Esau (unconditionally) to possess the birthright in his generation. This birthright was no guarantee of salvation, and its loss by Esau was no guarantee of his damnation. The choice of which son of Abraham's line would receieve the birthright in each generation was indeed God's choice, and may have been made without any consideration of conditions being met by the recipient. But the eternal salvation of individuals was always determined strictly by that individual's own choices (e.g., Gen.4:6-7/ Deut.30:19/ Josh.24:15/ Prov.1:28-29/ Isa.65:12).
Though God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and will harden whom He wills, this doesn't suggest for a moment that he follows no general policies as to whom He will treat in which way. He makes it clear throughout scripture: "He that honors me, I will honor; he that despises me shall be lightly esteemed," "God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble," "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." These are universal policies by which God sovereignly dispenses His favor and His rejection. Nothing in Romans 9 denies these facts.
Pharaoh's hardening was not an unprecipitated act. It was the long-awaited execution of God's judgment on a man who had for a long time deserved to be judged for his crimes against humanity and Israel. There is no "mysterious decree" involved in this.
That God, like a potter, would take one lump of clay (Israel) and make from it two separate vessels (categories) is His sovereign choice. The one vessel, comprised of the believing Israelites, is destined for honor, and the second, comprised of the unbelieving Israelites, is prepared for dishonor and wrath. What is mysterious in this? It is agreeable with the whole teaching of scripture: believers will be honored, and unbelievers damned. Nowhere does Paul say that God has chosen which Israelite will believe and which will not. The choice of vessel-status is left to the individual (2 Tim.2:21).
I conclude that Romans 9, while teaching the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in harmony with the whole of scripture, does not teach the Calvinist doctrine of God's meticulous providence in man's salvation, any more than does the rest of scripture.
I have said more on this particular passage in my post, dated April 27, 2004, under the question, "A good work?" (page 2, also in the Calvinism category).
My warmest regards to you, my brother!
P.S. I would here like to state a request concerning these on-going discussions about Calvinism, and that is that our Calvinist friends might consider actually dealing with some of the scriptures raised by the non-Calvinist posts. I have noticed that the non-Calvinists answer the Calvinists point-by-point, whereas the Calvinists, thus far, have simply ignored the arguments of the non-Calvinists and moved along to their next question. I think it would better profit the readers of this forum if both sides engaged one another exegetically from the scripture, cross-examining and rebutting each other's arguments. Could we possibly take this discussion in that direction?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
rabbit trails
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your thorough answers to questions and points raised. I have been guilty of not debating points. The reason is, I do not want to get bogged down with so much to consider first. I thought I would present the case for Calvinism and then go back over your answers. Otherwise a person could debate for years on some points without first encompassing the lay of the land. You might consider my questions for now, softballs you can hit out of the park. Given time you can be sure we will go back. Lord willing. In the meanwhile you can make a great case for the non-Calvinistic view, by your responses, because I would like march through the whole Calvinist position prior to chasing down the necessary rabbit trails that soor or later must be trod. But I do not want to get lost on them just yet. So dear brother if you can bear with me, I will proceed this way for now. By the end you will have your case made, and the Calvinist outline will be presented.
Thanks,
Jude
Thanks for your thorough answers to questions and points raised. I have been guilty of not debating points. The reason is, I do not want to get bogged down with so much to consider first. I thought I would present the case for Calvinism and then go back over your answers. Otherwise a person could debate for years on some points without first encompassing the lay of the land. You might consider my questions for now, softballs you can hit out of the park. Given time you can be sure we will go back. Lord willing. In the meanwhile you can make a great case for the non-Calvinistic view, by your responses, because I would like march through the whole Calvinist position prior to chasing down the necessary rabbit trails that soor or later must be trod. But I do not want to get lost on them just yet. So dear brother if you can bear with me, I will proceed this way for now. By the end you will have your case made, and the Calvinist outline will be presented.
Thanks,
Jude
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Romans 8:29 (ESV)
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.