Unconditional Election
I just don't get the attraction to it. Why is Calvinism so popular today? The other day I saw a comment that Antonio left on a blog that made me do some thinking. The doctrine of unconditional election naturally implies the doctrine of unconditional reprobation. If God decreed to save some folks based on nothing within the individual, then logically God must have decreed to condemn the rest of the bunch based on nothing with the individual. Thus, in the Calvinist scheme the main reason that people go to hell is because God unconditionally elected them to be condemned. They sin because God willed it. And they go to hell because God willed it. Worst of all, it was unconditional. I know that Calvinists might think that they are being misrepresented, but this is the logical outcome of a doctrine such as double predestination.
posted by Daniel | 12:33 PM
6 Comments:
Daniel,
If election is conditional (rather than unconditional), then what is it conditioned upon?
It seems to me you are asking the same question as the 'unknown objector' that Paul deals with in Rom 9:
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
Who are we to question the fact that God chooses vessels of wrath to display the fullness of His glory?
Nathan,
Thanks for visiting my blog. I appreciate your thoughts. Here's my understanding of Romans 9.
First of all, the "unknown objector" is not unknown. These are objections that Paul has faced regularly from unbelieving Jews in response to his gospel.
The Jews thought that God had elected them, and that it was, therefore, necessary that every single Jew should be saved in the long run. However, Paul's gospel implied that the majority of the Jews were lost.
The question of Romans 9 is "Has God's Word (His promised blessings for Israel) failed?" The answer is that God has chosen to save the "children of the promise" and he has chosen to reject the "children of the flesh."
However, v. 17 points out even people that reject God's plan (or will) bring God glory. That was the case with Pharoah.
So here's the objection in v. 19: "If I bring God's glory by rejecting His will, then I'm not really resisting His will, so why does He still blame us?"
This section (Romans 9) will make better sense if you read it in connection with Romans 3:1-8. Here the very same questions come up. Look at 3:7-8. This is the same question as 9:17.
"Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?'"
You said: “These are objections that Paul has faced regularly from unbelieving Jews in response to his gospel.”
Well, you’re half right, Romans was actually written to the Gentiles, but yes he does address many Jewish audiences. However, Paul’s not just addressing one group, he is addressing us all –and as I pointed out, he perfectly answers the questions you raised in your original post.
You said: “However, v. 17 points out even people that reject God's plan (or will) bring God glory. That was the case with Pharoah.”
Where does the text say that Pharaoh rejected God’s plan? Where is Pharaoh’s sin in any part of this discussion? If you interpret V17 like you do above, the argument and therefore the entire passage makes no sense.
You said: “If I bring God's glory by rejecting His will, then I'm not really resisting His will, so why does He still blame us?”
You are inserting the notion that ‘rejecting His will’ is somewhere in this passage. It isn’t. V16 makes this clear. The objection clearly understands that it is impossible to resist His will. Your interpretation of this verse makes no sense with the rest of the passage.
Whoops, sorry Daniel. I didn’t mean to make a statement and run. Let me briefly clarify:
When I say that the rest of the passage makes no sense, I mean that if we interpret verse 17 to mean that we are the ones who choose to accept or reject God’s will (as supposedly Pharaoh did), then how does the analogy of verse 20 and 21 fit in? What sense does verse 15 and 16 make if Pharaoh could have chosen to accept ‘God’s plan’? -Does the phrase "does not depend on the man who wills" turn into "DOES depend on the man who wills"?
Furthermore, your comparison to Romans three is puzzling, since Romans 3 deals with Justification by faith –and Romans 9 never mentions anything of it.
But I really don’t wish to have a long drawn-out debate. Maybe we can accurately draw our ‘lines in the sand’ with these questions:
Are you implying that God has the same exact love for Pharaoh as He did for Moses? Are you implying that the mercy God showed Moses and Israel was the same in measure and intensity as mercy shown to Pharaoh –before any good or evil was done? So God tried to save both Moses and Pharaoh equally? So God tries to save all men, and His efforts in wooing sinners are equal in intensity?
You don’t have to answer, but I just thought this might clear our positions enough to either continue in dialogue, or call it quits on an account we are too far apart.
SDG
Nathan,
Thanks for the dialogue. Questioning and making observations about a passage is the only way to get a better understanding of it.
I understand that Romans was written to a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles. This is clear. However, the focus of both 3:1-8 and 9 is with the Jewish people. We can see this in 3:1. "What's advantage of being a Jew?" (NLT). And of course, Romans 9 deals with objections from Judaism. That is obvious from the 9:1-5.
My comparison between 3:1-8 and 9 has been well noted by several commentators. (cf. Piper's The Justification of God. This is where I first made that connection.)
Awhile back I blogged on Romans 9. Maybe you should read those posts. To have a better understanding of my interpretation. This interpretion is from Cranfield's ICC commentary.
Post a Comment
<< Home