The Good Pleasure of God is the Sole Cause of His Gracious Election
Romans 9:11-13 (ESV)
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 his call [12] she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13] As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I despised."
Malachi 1:2-3 (ESV)
"I loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have you loved
us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I loved
Jacob [3] but Esau I have despised. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Acts 13:48 (ESV)
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Ephes. 1:5 (ESV)
he predestined us for adoption through Jesus
Christ, according to the purpose of his will
Ephes. 1:5 (KJV)
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Ephes. 1:9 (KJV)
Having made known unto us the mystery of his
will, according to his good pleasure which he hath
purposed in himself:
Philip. 2:13 (KJV)
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
The Good Pleasure of God is the Sole Cause of His Gracious E
The Good Pleasure of God is the Sole Cause of His Gracious E
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.
Hi Jude,
The problem with simply posting a list of scriptures to prove a point like yours is that it seems to presuppose that non-Calvinists will somehow be embarrassed by an inability to exegete the same scriptures from their own viewpoint. In fact, exegesis of the scriptures is exactly what is needed, in order to resolve the controversy, and Arminians seem to be the only parties willing to actually do this. There is nothing in any of the verses listed that contradicts the non-Calvinist position. Let me demonstrate:
Romans 9:11-13 (ESV)
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 his call [12] she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13] As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I despised."
Malachi 1:2-3 (ESV)
"I loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have you loved
us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I loved
Jacob [3] but Esau I have despised. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
By quoting Malachi (as Paul does) you bring out the fact that Paul was not talking about God's election and treatment of individuals, but of nations. This is confirmed by appeal to the other verse that Paul quotes in the same passage (Genesis 25:23). Both of the verses that Paul quotes mention that God has chosen to favor one nation over another—and neither passage indicates that this showing of favor translates into salvation, in the sense that this debate is concerned with. God chose Jacob over Esau to be the progenitor of the nation through whom the blessings of Abraham (i.e. the Messiah) would be brought to the nations. There is no discussion in any of the passages about God selecting one individual to go to heaven and another to go to hell.
Acts 13:48 (ESV)
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
There is no mention here of any unconditional election. If we work with the translation as it stands, we might as readily assume that these people's preappointment for salvation had been based (as is suggested elsewhere in scripture) upon God's foreknowledge that they would believe (Rom.8:29/ 1 Pet.1:2). Arminians also believe that those who become believers have been preappointed for salvation. The controversy between them and the Calvinists is over the question of the grounds of this preappointment: was it unconditional, or was it based upon God's foreknowledge of their faith?
Of course, there is no need to settle for the present translation. Another possible translation would be "as many as were disposed to eternal life believed." This would not speak of God's eternal decree, but of the predisposition (however arrived at) of the individuals who believed on this occasion. If we assume that "as many as were appointed" by God's eternal decree "to eternal life believed" on this occasion, then we would have to assume that no one in that town was elect except for those who were converted that very day, and that no further conversions could ever be expected there (and how could Luke pretend to know such things?).
The same Greek expression here translated "appointed to" is elsewhere translated "devoted to" in 1 Corinthians 16:15—"the household of Stephanus...have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints." If we were to translate Act 13:48 the same way, it would say, "As many as had devoted themselves to eternal life believed." This would change the tone in such a way as to embarrass the Calvinist, not the Arminian. In fact, it would fit the context much better, which contrasts these people with others, a few verses earlier, who "judge [themselves] unworthy of eternal life" (v.46).
Ephes. 1:5 (ESV)
he predestined us for adoption through Jesus
Christ, according to the purpose of his will
Ephes. 1:5 (KJV)
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Ephes. 1:9 (KJV)
Having made known unto us the mystery of his
will, according to his good pleasure which he hath
purposed in himself:
The three Ephesian verses above all tell us that our predestination and our knowledge of the mystery of His will are in accord with "the purpose of His will," "the good pleasure of His will," and "His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself." There really is nothing distinctly Calvinistic in these statements, since Arminians also believe that every aspect of the plan of salvation (the predestination, the calling, the revelation of the mystery, etc.) was conceived and executed by the sovereign will of God (that is, no one ever coerced Him to do these things contrary to His will, but He really took delight in doing them). The merits of the Calvinist assertion of unconditional election as over against the Arminian contention that this predestination was either corporate or based upon God's foreknowledge of individual choices does not come into consideration in these verses. The question must be decided by appeal to scriptures that speak to these differences, not by scriptures that fit equally comfortably into either an Arminian or a Calvinist paradigm.
Philip. 2:13 (KJV)
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
This is a promise made to people who are already believers (Christians in Philippi), and does not address the disputed point of whether people become believers in the first place, or remain unbelievers, by God's unilateral decree and working. Believers (like Lydia—Acts 16:14) are already on God's side, directed by His hand, and guided in action and heart. This is a benefit of the new covenant (Jer.31:31-34/Ezek.26:26-27).
To my knowledge, there are no verses of scripture, cited by Calvinists, that do not allow for a non-Calvinistic interpretation upon careful exegesis. However, there are many scriptures raised by non-Calvinists (e.g., see the other posts in this forum), which the Calvinists not only cannot exegete in favor of their viewpoint, but which they are, apparently, afraid to address or acknowledge at all (see other posts in this forum).
(I am now speaking over your shoulder, Jude, to the larger readership of this forum) I still await a Calvinist to answer the challenges raised by the various non-Calvinist contributors to this forum. If there is one who would like to debate this matter on my radio program, please contact me.
The problem with simply posting a list of scriptures to prove a point like yours is that it seems to presuppose that non-Calvinists will somehow be embarrassed by an inability to exegete the same scriptures from their own viewpoint. In fact, exegesis of the scriptures is exactly what is needed, in order to resolve the controversy, and Arminians seem to be the only parties willing to actually do this. There is nothing in any of the verses listed that contradicts the non-Calvinist position. Let me demonstrate:
Romans 9:11-13 (ESV)
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 his call [12] she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13] As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I despised."
Malachi 1:2-3 (ESV)
"I loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have you loved
us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I loved
Jacob [3] but Esau I have despised. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
By quoting Malachi (as Paul does) you bring out the fact that Paul was not talking about God's election and treatment of individuals, but of nations. This is confirmed by appeal to the other verse that Paul quotes in the same passage (Genesis 25:23). Both of the verses that Paul quotes mention that God has chosen to favor one nation over another—and neither passage indicates that this showing of favor translates into salvation, in the sense that this debate is concerned with. God chose Jacob over Esau to be the progenitor of the nation through whom the blessings of Abraham (i.e. the Messiah) would be brought to the nations. There is no discussion in any of the passages about God selecting one individual to go to heaven and another to go to hell.
Acts 13:48 (ESV)
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
There is no mention here of any unconditional election. If we work with the translation as it stands, we might as readily assume that these people's preappointment for salvation had been based (as is suggested elsewhere in scripture) upon God's foreknowledge that they would believe (Rom.8:29/ 1 Pet.1:2). Arminians also believe that those who become believers have been preappointed for salvation. The controversy between them and the Calvinists is over the question of the grounds of this preappointment: was it unconditional, or was it based upon God's foreknowledge of their faith?
Of course, there is no need to settle for the present translation. Another possible translation would be "as many as were disposed to eternal life believed." This would not speak of God's eternal decree, but of the predisposition (however arrived at) of the individuals who believed on this occasion. If we assume that "as many as were appointed" by God's eternal decree "to eternal life believed" on this occasion, then we would have to assume that no one in that town was elect except for those who were converted that very day, and that no further conversions could ever be expected there (and how could Luke pretend to know such things?).
The same Greek expression here translated "appointed to" is elsewhere translated "devoted to" in 1 Corinthians 16:15—"the household of Stephanus...have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints." If we were to translate Act 13:48 the same way, it would say, "As many as had devoted themselves to eternal life believed." This would change the tone in such a way as to embarrass the Calvinist, not the Arminian. In fact, it would fit the context much better, which contrasts these people with others, a few verses earlier, who "judge [themselves] unworthy of eternal life" (v.46).
Ephes. 1:5 (ESV)
he predestined us for adoption through Jesus
Christ, according to the purpose of his will
Ephes. 1:5 (KJV)
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Ephes. 1:9 (KJV)
Having made known unto us the mystery of his
will, according to his good pleasure which he hath
purposed in himself:
The three Ephesian verses above all tell us that our predestination and our knowledge of the mystery of His will are in accord with "the purpose of His will," "the good pleasure of His will," and "His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself." There really is nothing distinctly Calvinistic in these statements, since Arminians also believe that every aspect of the plan of salvation (the predestination, the calling, the revelation of the mystery, etc.) was conceived and executed by the sovereign will of God (that is, no one ever coerced Him to do these things contrary to His will, but He really took delight in doing them). The merits of the Calvinist assertion of unconditional election as over against the Arminian contention that this predestination was either corporate or based upon God's foreknowledge of individual choices does not come into consideration in these verses. The question must be decided by appeal to scriptures that speak to these differences, not by scriptures that fit equally comfortably into either an Arminian or a Calvinist paradigm.
Philip. 2:13 (KJV)
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
This is a promise made to people who are already believers (Christians in Philippi), and does not address the disputed point of whether people become believers in the first place, or remain unbelievers, by God's unilateral decree and working. Believers (like Lydia—Acts 16:14) are already on God's side, directed by His hand, and guided in action and heart. This is a benefit of the new covenant (Jer.31:31-34/Ezek.26:26-27).
To my knowledge, there are no verses of scripture, cited by Calvinists, that do not allow for a non-Calvinistic interpretation upon careful exegesis. However, there are many scriptures raised by non-Calvinists (e.g., see the other posts in this forum), which the Calvinists not only cannot exegete in favor of their viewpoint, but which they are, apparently, afraid to address or acknowledge at all (see other posts in this forum).
(I am now speaking over your shoulder, Jude, to the larger readership of this forum) I still await a Calvinist to answer the challenges raised by the various non-Calvinist contributors to this forum. If there is one who would like to debate this matter on my radio program, please contact me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Judgment calls like the above are inappropriate. It is okay to disagree strongly with another contributor's position, but we are all Christians here, and it is not possible for us to decide how sincere another man's love of the truth may be. He may not be impressed with our arguments, but he may be equally amazed that we are not convinced by his. Jude is a gracious brother (I know him well), and he has not lashed out at the Arminians here. He may have his reasons for not responding to our arguments, but so long as he wishes to post scriptures in favor of his position, he is welcome to do so here, and should not catch flack from other participants for doing so. If you feel that he or any other participant is unable or unwilling to process the arguments of the other side, you do not need to accuse him, nor to respond at all, if you prefer not to.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
I took the following from a lecture by Dr. Douglas Stuart. I thought that the definition for love/hate is useful in understanding what is meant by "I love Jacob, I hate Esau".
http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/ots/03c_t.html
=====
William Moran back in 1963 wrote a very nice article that many scholars have referred to called "The Ancient Near Eastern Background for the Love of God in Deuteronomy," published it in a journal called Catholic Biblical Quarterly. What Moran demonstrated was this--when we read the commandments "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind," and "Love your Neighbor as yourself," we are not reading about attitude at all. We are reading about action. To love is to do acts of love, to show love. It is not a feeling. So you do not just say, "I just love God. Oh! Oh! Oh! Yes! I love ya!" "Well, there's that commandment fulfilled." "I just love my neighbor. You are a sweetheart. I love ya!" "There is another one." No, it is what I do for her that is obedience to that commandment to love her as my neighbor, as myself, and it is what I do for God that demonstrates it. Moran just showed this by showing from many ancient documents from all over the time period of the Bible, Old Testament time period, how this terminology of love really functions. Here is one king writing to another, "I'm the king's servant and the one who loves you. Various kings, my lord, just as I love the king my lord," he is writing to a Pharaoh in Egypt, "so do these other kings. They are all servants of my lord." That is what it means. "Who will love if I die?" Here is Rib-Addi writing about a revolt, "Half the city loves the sons of Abdi-Ashirta; half of it loves my lord," meaning the Pharaoh. "If you send me no answer, I'll leave the city and go away with the people who love me." Are these a bunch of gay people? No, that is not it; that is not what is going on. Look at this one, "You will love Ashurbanipal as yourselves," says one vassal king about his son. "The king of Assyria, we will love." Here is reference to David and Hiram, "Hiram had been a lover of David all his life," (1 Kings 5:1), meaning, they were allies, they did things for each other, they were in league, they functioned as allies function. That is the usage.
What you really find is this, in the ancient world in referring to things like loyalty, faithfulness, decency, doing things for one another, being allies, being closely supportive, in international diplomacy they use the terminology of love, and by the way, also hate. I could show you a whole bunch of passages relating to hate. So and so hates this. So and so hates that. When you read in Malachi, "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." Ancient people did not understand that to mean, "I just love my people and just hate those Edomites." It rather, "I have made an alliance with my people, they are in my covenant. I don't have a covenant with the Edomites." That is the point. The language of love and hate is the language of international diplomacy and also of personal favor and service and so on.
http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/ots/03c_t.html
=====
William Moran back in 1963 wrote a very nice article that many scholars have referred to called "The Ancient Near Eastern Background for the Love of God in Deuteronomy," published it in a journal called Catholic Biblical Quarterly. What Moran demonstrated was this--when we read the commandments "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind," and "Love your Neighbor as yourself," we are not reading about attitude at all. We are reading about action. To love is to do acts of love, to show love. It is not a feeling. So you do not just say, "I just love God. Oh! Oh! Oh! Yes! I love ya!" "Well, there's that commandment fulfilled." "I just love my neighbor. You are a sweetheart. I love ya!" "There is another one." No, it is what I do for her that is obedience to that commandment to love her as my neighbor, as myself, and it is what I do for God that demonstrates it. Moran just showed this by showing from many ancient documents from all over the time period of the Bible, Old Testament time period, how this terminology of love really functions. Here is one king writing to another, "I'm the king's servant and the one who loves you. Various kings, my lord, just as I love the king my lord," he is writing to a Pharaoh in Egypt, "so do these other kings. They are all servants of my lord." That is what it means. "Who will love if I die?" Here is Rib-Addi writing about a revolt, "Half the city loves the sons of Abdi-Ashirta; half of it loves my lord," meaning the Pharaoh. "If you send me no answer, I'll leave the city and go away with the people who love me." Are these a bunch of gay people? No, that is not it; that is not what is going on. Look at this one, "You will love Ashurbanipal as yourselves," says one vassal king about his son. "The king of Assyria, we will love." Here is reference to David and Hiram, "Hiram had been a lover of David all his life," (1 Kings 5:1), meaning, they were allies, they did things for each other, they were in league, they functioned as allies function. That is the usage.
What you really find is this, in the ancient world in referring to things like loyalty, faithfulness, decency, doing things for one another, being allies, being closely supportive, in international diplomacy they use the terminology of love, and by the way, also hate. I could show you a whole bunch of passages relating to hate. So and so hates this. So and so hates that. When you read in Malachi, "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." Ancient people did not understand that to mean, "I just love my people and just hate those Edomites." It rather, "I have made an alliance with my people, they are in my covenant. I don't have a covenant with the Edomites." That is the point. The language of love and hate is the language of international diplomacy and also of personal favor and service and so on.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: