Showing posts with label calvinism prooftext. Show all posts
Showing posts with label calvinism prooftext. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Romans 9. Notes.

 I have a lot of notes on Romans 9. In this article, I will merely present my notes on the chapter. It will not be a proper article but a collection of notes. It will be like, instead of turning in the research paper, I turned in only my note cards. Nevertheless, I think my notes will be helpful for any readers who consider the chapter difficult.

Incidentally, the chapter is difficult; but that difficulty springs more from so much Reformist-style preaching about God rather than a reading would through Near-Eastern First Century eyes. Paul is struggling with something in this chapter but it is not over God's arbitrary—or conditional— election of individuals. Paul is struggling with the roles played by Israel and gentiles in God's election. Anyway, here we go:

Rom 9:1 — Rom 9:4 (NRSV)
God’s Election of Israel
Chapter 9
​1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;

The title of this chapter, "Romans 9:1 (ESV)
God's Sovereign Choice," in ESV, is Calvinistic.

This point is very important! This chapter (and the next) builds on what is introduced in this paragraph: If the kingdom of Christ belonged to the Jews by inheritance, why did the Jews fail to inherit it? It is NOT because God predestined the Jews to be cast out. Quite the opposite! They were predestined to inherit it; but they failed—a choice they made on their own—with no push from God. God was pushing them to embrace the kingdom; but they rebelled against God's influence and rejected Christ (John 1: 11).

 Romans 9:5
5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

On whether this verse in translation should explicitly support the deity of Christ—I'm not convinced.

While Jesus is Israel's messiah, spiritually, Jesus is everybody's messiah.

Romans 9:6
6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 

On the most obvious level, God's promise to Abraham's decedents (Genesis 12:3) was not received by all of Abraham's descendants. Some of them were excluded from the promise (Ishmael and Esau). The same thing is happening now (says Paul). Not all Jews are a part of that promise.

On another level, it turns out that inclusion in the covenant is not based upon descent from Abraham or keeping the law, but rather on faith in Christ. That's a big surprise to Jewish believers. It is the issue of chapters 9-11 and concluded in Romans 11:26-28.

Matthew 3:8-9

 For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, (NRSV)

So we have two Israels: Ethnic Israel (most of whom reject the Messiah) and believing Israel, which includes Gentiles!

Something interestingly subtle is happening here. The Jews called Abraham their father; but they behaved as if Moses was their father.

Why do Calvinists start reading in verse six?
Paul is asking if God's election of Israel was a screw-up on God's part. After all, most Jews don't even believe in their own Messiah.

Romans 9:7
7 and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.”

 Quoted from Genesis 21:12

 Rom 9:8 — Rom 9:9
8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.”

Quoted from Genesis 18:10

 Rom 9:10 — Rom 9:11
10 Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue,

Adam Clarke's note on "children":

For the children being not yet born - As the word children is not in the text, the word nations would be more proper; for it is of nations that the apostle speaks, as the following verses show, as well as the history to which he refers.

 Romans 9:12
12 not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.”

Quoted from Genesis 25:23 and refers to Jacob and Esau.

Note that this prophecy never applied to the two boys. During their lifetimes, Esau was greater than Jacob. He was significantly more wealthy by the time Jacob returned to Esau, Esau refused the gifts Jacob offered because Esau was clearly better off that was Jacob (Genesis 33:9).

 Why does Paul seem to indicate that actions had nothing to do with it when on the national scene, actions were the primary cause? The answer is that general national faith was the problem. (Really, few Jews were right with God in Old Testament times; and, reasonably, not all Edomites were "not right" with God). Above that, Israel is at this time, in the position of the older brother in relation to the gentiles. Why? Because of unbelief. Paul is against merited election. While obedience of faith is the criteria, obedience to the Law is not. Just get used to this: When Paul says, "Not of works," he means the non-heart works of the Law. Getting circumcised and eating a kosher diet is not the way to covenant relationship with God. Faith is the way.

Adam Clarke:
that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.
Therefore,
He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate.
When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.
He published to all mankind that the pardon of sin could and should be obtained Only by faith in his Son Jesus, and not by any obedience to any law. And the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected this way of salvation, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are Now laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction.

N. T. Wright, "Commentary on Romans," NIBC:
Romans 9:11 (NIBC)
Of course, the phrase “not by works” occurs in many other contexts, not least in Romans, and as we have argued elsewhere its primary emphasis is on the “works of Torah” as the practices that mark out the Jew, the one who knows and (supposedly) does God’s will (cf. 2:17-24), from the surrounding pagan world. In the present passage, though the emphasis is on “works” as the doing of good rather than evil, the background in Paul’s mind is most likely the regular rabbinic exegesis according to which the patriarchs were already obeying the Torah, even before it was given to Moses. Paul’s point, as part of his answer to the question posed by unbelieving Israel, is that God’s stated purpose always involved a division within the family. The quotation from Gen 25:23 gives us, finally, the word that was spoken to Rebecca concerning her unborn twins, reversing the natural assumption concerning the rights of the firstborn.

 Romans 9:13
13 As it is written,
“I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau.”

The Jews may think they have a "first born" privilege to it; but, as evidenced by Ishmael and Esau, there is no such thing as a first-born privilege.

The argument matches that of Galatians 4:21-31 in which Jerusalem correlates to Hagar and her son Ishmael, but the church is represented by Sarah and Isaac.

 Quoted from Malachi 1:2-3
Malachi means the nations, not the boys. (Malachi's's prophecies postdate Jacob and Esau by at least 900 years!)

Describing "hate" as "loved less" is off topic. By the time of Malachi's prophecies, Edom was a dry raisin of a nation. It was disappearing.

The correct understanding is that God chose to favor one nation more than another.

God prospers a nation and he withholds prosperity from another nation. A reading of the book of Obadiah shows that Edom earned God's displeasure.

 Romans 9:14
14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!

Crossef: parable of the landowner.
Matthew 20:1-16

 Romans 9:15
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.”

Quoted from Exodus 33:19 in reference to God permitting Moses to see him from behind.

The point here and in Exodus is that Moses received God's mercy. Note that Moses refused God five times (Exodus 3:11, 13; 4:1, 10, 13).
Moses had doubts about God fulfilling his promises (Exodus 6:10-12, 28-30).

Moses is being compared to Pharaoh. What is the difference? Moses eventually obeyed.

 Romans 9:16
16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

The Jews were accepting of God's limitation of his promise to only Isaac and Jacob. They believed God was just to extend freedom to some and not others. What comes as a surprise is that God is again (says Paul) imposing a limit to those who are chosen: to those who put their faith in Jesus Christ!

Some (many) Jews are left out because they reject Christ. That comes as a surprise to Jews, both believing and unbelieving.

Paul is building up to an even greater surprise: that Gentiles are recipients of this choice/election, even though they are not descendants of Abraham (vss 30-33)!

 This verse, by itself, seems to teach unconditional salvation (election?). Is Paul teaching unconditional salvation here? Such a conclusion is contradicted by Philippians 2:12-13.

We must keep context in mind.
Rom 9:31-32
31 But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the righteousness of the law. 32 Why is that? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were by works. ...
(HCSB)

The "human will or exertion" here refers to the Jewish claim to salvation by adherence to the law of Moses.
Romans 4:4-5
Does salvation depend on faith? Romans 4:16 says it does! But from where does it come? God, who shows mercy.

 The context is still about national vocational election—not particular salvation.
(ponder this thought)

 Romans 9:17
17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”

quoted from Exodus 9:16. The context is Exodus 9:13-17 (the hail plague) which shows that God was being extraordinarily patient with Pharaoh--waiting for Pharaoh to have a change of heart.

Exodus 10:7 - very important observation. Hardening is not equivalent to determinism.

 Pharaoh, in this quote, is being applied to Israel, who had many-many warnings; but their hearts got harder and harder.

 Romans 9:18
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

For further study:

Romans 1:24, 26, 28
Ephesians 4:19
1 Timothy  4:2
2 Thessalonians 2:11

Origen: Pharaoh’s heart was hardened in the following way: God did not want to punish him immediately and completely. Although Pharaoh’s wickedness was enormous, God in his patience did not withdraw the possibility of conversion from him. Instead he struck him lightly at first and then gradually increased the blows. But although God acted with patience, Pharaoh was hardened by that very thing and became even more angry with God and contemptuous of him.… Therefore it is not that God hardens whom he wills, but rather that whoever is not softened by his patience is thereby automatically hardened. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

 Jonathan Williams
Facebook post
Calvinism Theology VS The Rest of Christianity group
2018 06 05

I would like to propose a question for discussion pertaining to the "hardening" part of Rom 9:18 which says, "So then he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires."

Here is my question, if the Calvinist interpretation of Total Depravity is correct, i.e., because of a person's utter deadness in sin and complete inability to respond to the Gospel which requires that God regenerate him prior to faith, then why is it necessary for God to harden people?

Let me repeat it with fewer words: if the Calvinist interpretation of Total Depravity is correct, why is it necessary for God to harden?

Although all, of course, may respond, I especially look forward to the answers from my Calvinist brethren.

Thank you and may God help us grow in our understanding.


 I wish to point out something that may make a Calvinist uncomfortable. If this chapter teaches salvation predestination, then this verse teaches double-predestination—that God selects some to be saved and he deliberately selects others to be damned.
Same with vs 22

 on Romans 9:18
A hardened heart does not imply a person has been made impervious to outsides influences. See, for example, Exodus 10:1-7! In that case, the hearts of the officials were hardened; but they saw the foolishness of their chosen path and counseled Pharaoh to concede to Moses' demand.
Hardening has a cumulative effect--the more that opportunities to repent are rebuffed, the harder the heart grows; like thick callouses. ... like a conscience that is seared with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

Let us not become attached to the status quo!

 on Romans 9:18
See Romans 1:28

Paul is not quoting a specific scripture here; but clearly he means the many mentions of Pharaoh's heart hardening in the book of Exodus.

The first mention is in Exodus 4:21 and we should note that Jewish scholars read this passage as applying to Pharaoh's own self-hardening of his heart—using God's actions as a pretext.

Marcus Kalisch (1828-1885) wrote, "The phrase 'I will harden the heart of Pharaoh' means 'I know that I shall be the cause of Pharaoh's obstinacy; my commands and wonders will be an occasion, an inducement to an increasing obduration of his heart."
(Gleaned from the notes to the Revised English Version, revisedenglishversion.com)

God's repeated extending of invitations to return puts individuals in a position to accept (praise God) or refuse. Repeated refusals results in hardening.

As the hillbillies say, the same sun that hardens clay melts butter.

 Quick comparison regarding the notion that God's hardening is some divine external force imposed on an individule: What does "Lead us not into temptation" (Matthew 6:13) mean if not "Do not let us be led into temptation?"

 Romans 9:19
19 You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

 Possibly verse 19 is about the Jewish effort to argue that it is possible to acquire salvation by keeping the law -- or by merely being Jewish. Of the several ways to understand verse 19, one is not to understand it as God's forcing people to be bad. That approach contradicts the "patient endurance" (vs 22) motif in the following verses.

It really seems to me the complaint is that, if God is able to take Israel's disobedience and make something good come out of it, then, "Why is Israel condemned for its disobedience?"

"For who can resist his will?” (NRSV)
is misleading. It implies God makes people do whatever they do--even if it is evil.

What is meant is, "Who has successfully withstood the purpose off God?"

better:
Who can resist whatever God wants to do? (God's Word)
who is able to go against his purpose? (Bible in Basic English)
for who resists his purpose? (Darby)
Who can fight his will? (NCV)

 Given the above note, this verse is best paraphrased as:

Why does God require faith in Christ if, by the Jews' unbelief, God is nevertheless glorified in their unbelief?

The hypothetical questioner is criticizing God for having such a criteria--not for having "no criteria!"

 Romans 9:20
20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?”

What is being compared here is a person who has faith in God and a person who ARGUES with God.

Note: the clay affects the kind of vessel he becomes by his choices (2 Timothy 2:20-21).

Jeremiah 18:1 f God will deal [enter into covenant?] with the Jews based upon their repentance.

The passage may also allude to one of the following:
Job 10:9; 38:14
Psalm 2:9
Isaiah 29:16 clay tries to refashion God
Isaiah 41:25
Isaiah 45:9 criticizing God's work
Isaiah 64:8


God did not chose to make me this way. I made that choice. The better question should have been, "Why did I harden my heart against God?"

See also Wis 15:7; Isa 44:9-20
Sir 33:13

 Romans 9:21
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

Note how many lumps of clay there are (1) and how many vessels (2). This is what God is doing with the one people Israel.

 Some (Calvinists) think this passage says God elects some to eternal life while allowing others to remain damned to eternal hell. It is not unfair (they argue) because everybody deserves hell. Vs 22 refutes the Calvinist aversion to double-predestination. Check it out.

The natural reading of this passage (in both English and Greek) describes these honorable or dishonorable vessels as the end result of a long (life-long) process.

The problem is that some (particularly unbelieving Jews) are like a lump of clay that refuses to go into the shape conceived by the potter; so the potter works with the unruly clay until it is formed into a different kind of vessel.

 Romans 9:22
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction;

 Holman, REB and NCV alter this verse to soften it--attempting to avoid the view that God predestined some people for Hell.

I think an accurate translation will stand on its own.

One point to observe is that God is patient (longsuffering). If God is outside of time, what is there to be patient about?

 "desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power" (NRSV) points to the inclination of a righteous God--who wants to step in and stop evil at its beginning; but he endures--working something redemptive out of people's bad choices. See REB, CEV, NASB, KJV

"endured" (NRSV) is well chosen here. God is negatively affected by people's evil.

"made" (NRSV) does not require that God made them that way. No. God's work of love and mercy causes the hardening in the hearts of obstinate people.

Wrath: Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5
"In all these verses the wrath is God's reaction to sin and not a predestined phenomenon. Thus Paul is emphasizing God's righteous anger but is not saying that God created people purely for wrath.... In chapter 9 the 'vessels of mercy' are believing Jews and 'the vessels of wrath' are unbelieving Jews.... Moreover, in the same way that he 'prepared' [I object to this notion-ns] the vessels of wrath for destruction, he has prepared the saints beforehand for glory. Once again this is God's predetermined will in producing salvation in his elect (on this see Romans 8:29). Note that the first use of glory in this verse is God’s glory, and this second use refers to the glory the saints have in him. Once more this is our present glory (the already) as an anticipation of our final glory (the not yet), with the greater emphasis here on the glory we will have in eternity" (Osborne. IVPNT, 225).

 made for destruction
If Calvinists believe this chapter is about particular election (predestination) then they are really forced by this phrase to embrace double-predestination (God elects some people to hell).

 Romans 9:23
23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

 prepared beforehand (NRSV)

Exact same word as Ephesians 2:10 which applies to good works.

God is preparing us beforehand for eternal glory yet to come.

Moreover, in the same way that he “prepared” the vessels of wrath for destruction, he has prepared the saints beforehand for glory. Once again this is God’s predetermined will in producing salvation in his elect (on this see Romans 8:29). Note that the first use of glory in this verse is God’s glory, and this second use refers to the glory the saints have in him. Once more this is our present glory (the already) as an anticipation of our final glory (the not yet), with the greater emphasis here on the glory we will have in eternity. (Osborne, IVPNT)

  Romans 9:24
24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Not only is God just in excluding some Jews from his people, but also he is just in turning to the Gentiles. So people become his children not on the basis of their rights as a covenant people (birthright in vv. 3- 4, Romans 9:7- 8) but on the basis of the divine call (the flip side of Romans 3:21 - 4:25, where it is on the basis of faith). (Osborne, IVPNT)

Verses 24-33 (especially 30-31) summarize the chapter.
Noticing as much betrays the meaning of the chapter--and it is not any kind of limited calling.

Rom 9:25 — Rom 9:26
25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’. ”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they shall be called children of the living God.”

Hosea 1:10; 2:23
Osborne: For Hosea [this passage applied to] the northern kingdom, but for Paul it is the Gentiles.
----
Hosea expected the restoration of the northern kingdom; but Paul sees its fulfilment in the New Testament church.

"The very place" in Hosea was the land of Israel, but for Paul it refers to the Gentile mission (or, the mission with respect to the Gentiles.

 Rom 9:27 — Rom 9:28
27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.”

Isaiah 10:22-23

Paul's quote is much closer to the LXX; although he paraphrased a bit.

NETS:
And if the people of Israel become like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved, for he is completing and cutting short a reckoning with righteousness, 23 because God will perform a shortened reckoning in the whole world.

It is a warning to Israel that they should repent in order to become part of the remnant who will be saved.

Paul might identify the small number of believing Jews as the remnant.

 Romans 9:29
29 And as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us,
we would have fared like Sodom
and been made like Gomorrah.”

quoted from Isaiah 1:9

It reinforces the fact that, while there is now a place for Gentiles in the scheme of salvation, the Jews had best not let that fact dissuade them from their own salvation.

"Lord of hosts" is rare in the N.T. The only other place is in James 5:4.

 Rom 9:30 — Rom 9:31
30 What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law.

The question that dominates chapters Romans 9—Romans 11 is the justice of God in light of the contradiction between his promises to his covenant people and the fact that so few of them had been converted. In these chapters Paul answers the question from two perspectives, first from the sovereignty of God to choose whom he wishes (Romans 9:6- 29) and second from the responsibility of Israel to accept God’s gift of salvation by faith (Romans 9:30—Romans 10:21). (Osborne, IVPNT)

 vss 30-31 summarize Paul's lengthy argument. It shows that election boils down to individual choice. If an explanation of 9:1-29 contradicts 9:30-32, then the explanation is wrong.

 Romans 9:32
32 Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

The faith/works antithesis has been often emphasized (Romans 3:20, Romans 3:27- 28; Romans 4:2, Romans 4:6; Romans 9:11), and as elsewhere their pursuit of righteousness is not at fault but rather their trying to attain it by works.
It was not wrong to pursue the law, but to make it the locus of salvation in light of the Christ- event meant that they rejected God’s Messiah and the salvation he made possible. (Osborne, IVPNT)

 Romans 9:33
33 as it is written,
“See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Quotes Isaiah 28:16

In the N.T. the stone refers to Jesus.
Rom 10:11; 1 Pet 2:6
Rejecting Jesus was the mistake of ethnic Israel.

Sunday, June 30, 2019

Irresistible Grace?

I was recently asked to address scriptures that seem to promote the doctrine of Irresistible Grace–the doctrine that God's grace cannot be resisted.I have a short list of passages showing that God's grace can be resisted:
Luke 7:30
John 5:40
Colossians 1:23
1 Thessalonians 2:16
Hebrews 10:26
2 Peter 2:1

These are the ones I have currently tagged in my Olive Tree Bible App as being contra-Irresistable Grace. I don't always remember to tag my notes; so these lists are far from exhaustive. My intent with this article will be to cite each passage and to share with you my notes on it. I am certain that my conclusions will at times be vulnerable to refuting arguments. I will leave it to the reader to draw his/her own convictions.

Verses that tend to promote the doctrine of Irresistible Grace:

Isaiah 30:19
Truly, O people in Zion, inhabitants of Jerusalem, you shall weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry; when he hears it, he will answer you.
I am not sure how this verse promotes the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Perhapse it is clear when read with the unconditional mindset. If nobody is weaping any longer then they will cry to God and God will hear. What other choice do they have? Even the calvinistic Reformation Study Bible says, "Like the father of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), the Lord is quick to listen for the voice of His returning people. It is they who are hard of hearing" (R.C. Sproul).

The calvinistic ESV Study Bible begins its comment at verse 18. "Note the amazing logic of grace: God's people forsake him for a false salvation (vv.1-17); therefore, he is gracious to them (v. 18); but he waits, for the LORD is a God of justice, i.e., he knows the porfect way to achieve his purpose, the perfect tme to go into action, and the perfect disciplinary process that awaken Judah" (Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.).  In order to conclude that God is gracious before the people repent one must see it before he reads it. The text says the complete opposite. God is gracious in response to the people's cries.

Jeremiah 31:3
the Lord appeared to him from far away.
I have loved you with an everlasting love;
therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.
This passage is often presented as proof of Irresistible Grace.

Hat tip to Jamie Saunders who wrote this Facebook comment:
The drawing that Jeremiah is speaking to is that general drawing which was rejected of Israel, but is of such a kind that God will persist in continually putting it forth unto their national restoration after the Babylonian captivity–or the end of the ages–comes to it's end.  Jeremiah's point there is to show that God in the wilderness had attempted to woo them in love, but he 'failed' of the result due to their obstinacy–cue captivity.  Yet, God will once again do this work and the results will be clearly manifest to all in the future.  Meaning?  The so-called "internal call" is in no sense conveyed within this text and in fact the exact opposite of that is relayed in the context.
In summary: God's continued faithfulness to Israel/Judah has always been from the perspective of repeated invitations to faithfulness–not from continued blessing irrespective of Israel's unfaithfulness.

Ezekiel 36:27
I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.
Make you -- does this language require divine determinism? If so then the priests did the same thing in Ezekiel 44:12. Also, such determinism contradicts Ezekiel 18:31. This verse should be seen as consistent with Hosea 2:14.
Therefore, I will now allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.
Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.
The Calvinist take on this verse seems to be at odds with Romans 8:30. The Reformation Study Bible defines two kinds of "call." The first is a general call that Christians extend to everybody. The second is an "effectual" call.
The preaching of the gospel represents the outward call of God. This call is heard audibly by both the elect and the nonelect. Human beings have the ability to resist and refuse the outward call. He will not respond to the outward call in faith unless or until the outward call is accompanied by the effectual inward call of the Holy Spirit.
The second is the powerful call that God places on the heart of the unbeliever. That "effectual call" is ultimately irresistible.
Effectual calling is irresistible in the sense that God sovereignly brings about its desired result. This sovereign work of grace is resistible in the sense that we can and do resist it in our fallen nature, but irresistible in the sense that God’s grace prevails over our natural resistance to it.
Elected and chosen are the same gk word (Gk 1588)

Election is about individuals choosing God. Those who are not chosen are thus not chosen because of their own resistance.

John 6:29
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Belief is a work. Calvinists read this verse as if belief is irresistible.

Faith is not a gift. Salvation is a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Believing refers to the entire process of human reception of God's act of grace. In that sense, faith can be seen as a gift because it comes out of God's work of self-revelation. The final choice is nevertheless our own.

Acts 1:16-20
“Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus— for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
“For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his homestead become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and
‘Let another take his position of overseer.’
 As much as Calvinists would like to argue, this passage does not support the notion that Judas was destined to betray Jesus.

This was not a prophecy about Judas that needed to be fulfilled.

The scripture is Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. Psalm 69:25 speaks of David's enemies in the plural, not singular as Peter quoted it. Peter modified it a bit to refer to Judas. Peter merged the two verses and applied them to his current situation because he believed there was an apostolic vacancy that needed to be filled. Peter was arguing the scriptures needed to be fulfilled, but not prophetically. They were fulfilled through parallelism.

Jesus similarly applied Psalm 41:9–about David's betrayal by (probably) Ahithephel–to his current situation with Judas in John 13:18.

The passage fulfills the OT language by similarity or applicability but they were not prophetic fulfillments.

Jesus said that the Father gave Judas to him but that he had lost him (John 17:12). Judas chose to be an apostle (Luke 6:13; John 6:70) but Judas fell from his apostleship by his own choice (Acts 1:25).

On Judas' salvation, consider John 17:12.
While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.
 Do not overlook the fact that Jesus says he lost Judas.

What scripture? Since there are really no prophetic passages regarding Judas in the Old Testament, the scriptures must have been fulfilled through similarity or applicability.

Note that Judas started out as a saved man but he lost his salvation due to his own choices.

Judas left everything to follow Jesus (Mark 10:28 = Matthew 19:27).

Judas was given authority to cast out demons, heal the sick and preach the gospel (Matthew 10:1-27).

Judas' name was written in heaven (Luke 10:20).

He had a throne in Heaven upon which he would judge Israel (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). Note: Luke places the saying after Judas' failure but Matthew places it before (Matthew 26:14).

Although Jesus called Judas a devil (John 6:70) he also called Peter "Satan" (Matthew 16:23).

Even Peter lost his salvation at one point (Mark 8:38; Matthew 10:33; cf Matthew 26:34). Peter's restoration to salvation required conversion (or repentance) (Luke 22:31-32).

On the word "fulfill," consider James 2:22-23
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God.
Note: Genesis 15:6 is not a prophecy. Neither are most of the OT passages that the NT says are "fulfilled."
cf.
Matthew 1:18-22 = Isaiah 7:14
John 19:24 = Psalm 22:18

It does not make sense to think of Genesis 15:6 as something that will someday come true.

"Fulfill" does not mean that the current point is a prophecy that is now coming true. It means that the current point matches a text in the OT. The usual reason a NT writer says that something fulfills an OT text is not because it was originally intended to apply in that situation or even that it has the same truth value or lesson. It is quoted for its rhetorical impact. Its meaning here is
When we, by faith, do good works, we fulfill the scripture that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Today, instead of saying "fulfilled" we would probably say "We might verbalize the current point in classical Old Testament verbiage" or, "I am reminded of the text" or "This idea gives new meaning to the Old Testament saying."

So, Matthew 2:17-18
Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:
“A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.”
becomes more clear as...
This terrible thing that Herod did brings new meaning to the words of Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah....."

Romans 3:7
But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?
This verse seems to support the notion that God authorizes sin in order to receive self-glory. The verse does not really make that point at all. Paul is actually arguing against the notion that God authorizes sin. If it were true, then sinners would not be condemned. Some people do a hat-dance around this one; but it just doesn't stand up. (Maybe it is a.... MYSTERY!) Paul is making a closely parallel argument in Romans 9:19.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.
Here is the HarperCollins Study Bible note:
The Spirit, whom believers receive at the time of conversion (see Gal 3.2–3), is the “down payment” that provides assurance that all God’s saving promises (v. 20) will be fulfilled (see Rom 8.11; Eph 4.30). (John T. Fitzgerald)

Compare the HarperCollins note with the Reformation Study Bible:
Those who are guarded by God in this way continue to trust in Christ throughout their lives (13:5; Col. 1:23; Heb. 3:14), because God protects them through the faith He gives them (v. 24). None of them can fall away. If one has been justified, one will most certainly be glorified (Rom. 8:28-30).
In other words, the Holy Spirit does not guarantee God's promise of salvation (i.e., to those who believe). It is, instead, salvation itself that is guaranteed irrespective of a person's choices. To place this passage under the heading of ultimate salvation misses the meaning of the verse. The problem with the "irresistible grace" take is that the passage deals with an aspect of salvation (Jesus is really coming again) but not salvation in its broad sense (suggesting that a predestined believer cannot ever become an unbeliever). It is easy to apply this verse too broadly and arrive in the wrong doctrinal place.

Ephesians 1:13-14
In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.
When this scripture is invoked to support Calvinism, it is conscripted to support the doctrine of Preservation of the Saints (that it is impossible to lose faith). It becomes important in our analysis to notice that Preservation of the Saints and Irresistible Grace are logically consistent. One implies the other.

If you must believe then you must continue to believe indefinitely.

If you must continue to believe indefinitely, then your beliefe is God's sovereign choice that also cannot be resisted. Thus the moment you first believed was also a result of God's sovereignty and thus irresistible.

This scripture actually refutes the second syllogism.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.
This verse may suggest that we are what God has made us because we had no other choice. The verse means that the death of Christ had purpose for our lives that are now covenantally intimate with Christ's resurrection and new life.

Thus, it does not mean a prior choice of individuals and not other individuals. It is a preparation of a kind of person... a kind of person who has accepted new life in Christ Jesus. All this preparation God intends for us is still resistible. The verse does not suggest otherwise.

Ephesians 4:21-24
For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus. You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
I may have made a mistake here. This scripture promotes the idea that a person's choice is required and teaching to be like God is resistible. Maybe readers can help me wrap my mind around the "irresistible" model in this passage. I don't see it.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Acts 4:28 commentary: What was predestined to take place?

Acts 4:28 is one of those pro-Calvinism proof texts. It is invoked to show that God predestined all the terrible things that happened to Jesus in The Passion events.

Act 4:27-28 (NRSV)
27 For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
It sure smells like this passage means to say the terrible things that happened to Jesus were predestined. If a person wants to quote this passage to show that The Passion was predestined, there are several problems with the argument.
(1) It is risky exegesis to draw critical doctrine out of something the Bible quotes someone as saying if the person is not speaking by divine inspiration. The exegetical method is more common than we might think. Consider John 9:31. A man was born blind and Jesus healed his sight. Jesus did not introduce himself; but the man was able to conclude that Jesus was a righteous man. He said that God does not listen to sinners. It is terrible exegesis to conclude that God does not hear the prayers of sinners based upon what this man said. He was not speaking from divine inspiration (Acts 10:31. See also 1 Kings 8:41-45). On a similar note, Peter's personal judgment in Acts 1:21-22 is frequently quoted as proof of the qualifications of an apostle. Peter was not speaking from divine inspiration. He decided on his own to set a precedent that there should be twelve apostles. He offered his short list of qualifications was a suggested rubric for selecting replacement apostles. Bad exegesis, although Paul seems to agree with qualification #2, that an apostle must have seen the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1).
(2) It is not clear how this passage should be punctuated. Greek scholar Adam Clark believes verse 28 should be read as parenthetical (see below).
Adam Clarke:
There is a parenthesis in this verse that is not sufficiently noticed: it should be read in connection with Ac 4:28, thus: For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, (for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done,) both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were gathered together.
It is evident that what God's hand and counsel determined before to be done was not that which Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, (Romans,) and the people of Israel had done and were doing; for, then, their rage and vain counsel would be such as God himself had determined should take place, which is both impious and absurd; but these gathered together to hinder what God had before determined that his Christ or Anointed should perform; and thus the passage is undoubtedly to be understood.
Clark suggests that verse 28 ought to be read parenthetically; but watch what happens when we remove the verse numbers and two commas.
For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.*
I believe this reading is how these two verses should be understood. We might even understand that Herod, et. al., actually worked to subvert Jesus' work that God had predestined. In other words, Jesus had more work to do and Herod, et. al., resisted that work.

In conclusion, this passage proves nothing regarding the existence of a divinely predetermined program for Herod's, Pilate's, the Romans' and the Jews' bad behavior.

* In fairness, the word order in Greek does not permit adding or dropping of punctuation in the way I have done with this NRSV quote (and is also possible with CSB, NET and Wycliffe). The word order in Greek is more closely followed in the ESV which reads a follows:
27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
Adam Clarke's view that 28 likely refers to Jesus' work rather than the actions of Herod, et. al., ought to be taken seriously. Even in ESV, it is not clear whose actions are in view in verse 28.

For more commentaries on confusing verses that are often invoked as proof texts, see https://godisopen.com/resources/verse-quick-reference/.