In Greek Bible, Romans, today, we read Romans 9, as well as the last part of chapter 8. The primary goal was to improve our skills at reading the Greek NT. But of course these are also the verses where Paul talks the most baldly about predestination.
One of the questions I perennially ask myself of Romans 8:29 is what the relationship was in Paul's mind between foreknowledge and predestination. Paul presents it in a foreknowledge then predestination format, but what is being foreknown and what is being predestined.
1. I do feel relative clarity that what is being predestined is resurrection. The expression "conformed to the image of His Son" evokes images of other passages like Philippians 3:10-11--
"I want to know the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death if somehow I might attain the resurrection of the dead."
also 1 Corinthians 15:49--
"Just as we have born the image of the earthly man [Adam], we also will bear the image of the heavenly man [Christ]"
The context of Romans 8 in the lead up to this verse is about how the sufferings of this present time don't hold a candle to the glory that is coming (8:18). And Paul has been talking about how we await the redemption of our bodies (8:23). And of course Jesus is the firstborn from the dead (1 Cor. 15; Col. 1), imagery that echoes in Rom. 8:29 when it says that our [later] conforming to his image makes him the firstborn among many brothers [and sisters].
So I feel a high degree of confidence that what God has predestined here is the resurrection of those He foreknew.
2. Of course he has also called, justified, and will eventually "glorify" these as well.
I presented the problematic syllogism:
1. If God completely determines who will be saved.
2. And God wants everyone to be saved, then
3. Everyone will be saved.
The typical Wesleyan and Calvinist both deny 3, which is universalism--everyone will, in the end, be saved. But using the logic of this universe, that means that they must deny either 1 or 2. The Wesleyan-Arminian denies the first. The multi-point Calvinist denies the 2nd.
I did not mention it in this class, but I have suggested as a possibility at other times another option, which I do not embrace but at least consider a possibility. That is that God might be able to reconcile outside this universe what is logically impossible within this universe. When I have drawn this picture, I draw a universe and a horizon above the earth. One dotted line I draw going up at an angle is that of predestination. Another dotted line going up at the opposite angle is free will. Then I draw the two dotted lines meeting above and outside the circle of this universe in God.
Of course we haven't got there, but we will see in Romans 11 that those who were "hardened" in Romans 9 can still be saved in Romans 11.
Greek Romans class, Friday, March 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Here is how I would put it.
1. God has revealed His "nature" as one that "desires" the entirety of creation to be reconciled to Him.
2. God has also revealed that He "desires" even more than this not to force the human part of His creation either to be reconciled to Him or not to be reconciled to Him.
3. Therefore, God does not force reconciliation, with the result that some are reconciled and some are not.
By the way, I'm the one who allows God to do what He pleases. Your God couldn't allow people to have free will even if He wanted to... ;-)
Hello Ken,
Thanks for playing along and your overall recent good nature.
1. God has revealed His "nature" as one that "desires" the entirety of creation to be reconciled to Him.
Romans 8 speaks of this in reference to the created order.
2. God has also revealed that He "desires" even more than this not to force the human part of His creation either to be reconciled to Him or not to be reconciled to Him.
If God foreknew that they would or wouldn't be reconciled then when the time came for them to be or not be reconciled they could do no other then what God had foreknown, and so they were 'forced' by foreknowledge. ('Forced by Foreknowledge' -- sounds like a name of Rock -n- Roll 'Album.')
Second, it seems difficult to see how people, if it is the case that God doesn't irresistibly draw, couldn't glory in their virtue in coming to Christ. I mean if God desires all men to be saved and doesn't irresistibly draw any to be saved, then that which differentiates the reconciled from the unreconciled is something in the creature -- a something in which the creature could boast.
3. Therefore, God does not force reconciliation, with the result that some are reconciled and some are not.
First, your verb force is wrong here. It should be,
'with the result that some do reconcile and some do not.'
The reason that your verb force is wrong is that 'are reconciled' denotes a passive posture on those reconciled. Since God doesn't irresistibly draw, people are not reconciled but rather they actively reconcile themselves and so the active verb 'do' is more appropriate then the passive verb 'are.'
Here, reconciliation is absolutely dependent upon the active agency of those, 'dead to God' and not on the active agency of the Reconciler.
By the way, I'm the one who allows God to do what He pleases. Your God couldn't allow people to have free will even if He wanted to
If you will go back and reread our correspondence you will see that I have never denied that fallen men have free will.
What I am trying to say here in terms of free will is that men's imprisoned spirits long lay fast bound in sin and nature's night until God's 'eye' diffuses a quickening ray whereupon they awake.
OAW
Interesting...I think it was Moltmann that emphasized the immanance of God, not separating God's creation from God (but not in a pantheistic way). Our existence is "in Him". Alienation is not recognizing Him in the present, which is a lack of faith. It reminds me of Colossians. We are resurrected by faith in Christ, this is not a future resurrection, but exists now. We are therefore, are not subject to religion proper, conforming ourselves to "rules, regulations, and ordinaces". We are "in Him" by faith. It seems that we are so time-bound in our understanding and thinking....and the Greek concepts of eternity and temporality are Western in nature. The "rest" that God promises is not a striving for perfection of any kind, or is it a measuring oneself by human standards. The rest of God is recognizing Him in all things and recognizing one's dependence on Him, walking responsibly before Him by and in faith. So, faith results in "works", as we are walking in faith...Even the concepts of predestination, free will, and foreknowledge is understanding things from "time". God is not outside of time; for time is irrelavant to Him. So, there is no outside of time or inside of time. He is and we are because of Him. Paul used "Greek" concepts to re=frame Judiasm, so that all men might be included in the "people of God". The "people of God" are people of faith.
It seems that we are so time-bound in our understanding and thinking....and the Greek concepts of eternity and temporality are Western in nature.... Even the concepts of predestination, free will, and foreknowledge is understanding things from "time". God is not outside of time; for time is irrelevant to Him. So, there is no outside of time or inside of time.
Yes, let us do give up this Western notion of time! Let us instead go east, where all is 'Maya,' including Time and build our Christianity on the belief that since God is supra-rational all that He has said here may be illusion.
For those who have been confused by OAW's frequent references to everyone having free will, he means free to act in accordance with their will, in other words, what is called soft determinism. This is not what I mean by free will, however, which is the God given power to will something different from the will that would result strictly from all the deterministic forces on you.
I believe, first, that OAW's own position on this matter is inconsistent and second that he has not correctly understood Calvin's position (although I am open to legitimate correction on Calvin, who if I have misunderstood, he would also be inconsistent on this issue).
From what I can tell, Calvin believed that it was a real possibility that Satan and Adam might have freely chosen a different outcome than the one they did. However, after Adam no one can chose an option other than the one they did. For the elect, grace is irresistible and thus a chosen person cannot possibly chose any outcome other than salvation. For the non-elect, their fallen nature makes it impossible for them to chose any outcome other than damnation.
Calvin, however, as OAW, did not believe that God predestined the damned to be damned--they were damned already. This is coherent position for Calvin, since, as I understand him, Adam is the culprit for their condition rather than God. I might point out that on OAW's reading of Romans 9, I don't see why he doesn't go for double predestination, since God is said to harden Pharoah's heart as well as to chose Jacob favorably. If you are going to take this as straighforward determinism, I hardly see why Calvin or OAW stop with the elect.
But OAW does not seem to think that the nature of Adam's free will is any different from ours. In my understanding, this is not Calvin's position. OAW does not seem to agree or understand with the distinction I am making between 5 and 7 point Calvinists.
But if Adam was not free not to sin, if God determined his sin, as Satan's, then God has indirectly chosen both those who will be saved and those who will be damned. In other words, the single predestination position seems incoherent if one does not allow for a true freedom of Adam's will.
For those who have been confused by OAW's frequent references to everyone having free will, he means free to act in accordance with their will, in other words, what is called soft determinism. This is not what I mean by free will, however, which is the God given power to will something different from the will that would result strictly from all the deterministic forces on you.
Actually, I hold that all men are free to act according to their natures.
What Dr. Schenk opts for is called libertarian free will. The problem with Libertarian free will is that whatever proportion one gives to fallen man one must deduce that much libertarian will from the exalted creator.
For example... If man has libertarian free will to deny God His desire that the one who is denying him be reconciled then God has lost the libertarian free will that could achieve for himself (freedom to reconcile the denier) what the denier is now achieving for himself with his libertarian free will (freedom to deny any attempt to reconcile the denier). In Dr. Schenk's theology it is God's will that is in bondage and fallen man's will that is free.
Dr. Schenk provides us with a man with libertarian free will at the cost of a castrated God.
I believe, first, that OAW's own position on this matter is inconsistent and second that he has not correctly understood Calvin's position (although I am open to legitimate correction on Calvin, who if I have misunderstood, he would also be inconsistent on this issue).
From what I can tell, Calvin believed that it was a real possibility that Satan and Adam might have freely chosen a different outcome than the one they did. However, after Adam no one can chose an option other than the one they did. For the elect, grace is irresistible and thus a chosen person cannot possibly chose any outcome other than salvation. For the non-elect, their fallen nature makes it impossible for them to chose any outcome other than damnation.
John Calvin responds,
"When we come to speak of the first man in our discussion of the doctrine of predestination, my teaching is that we ought ever to consider the solemn case to be this: that he, having been created perfectly righteous, fell of his own accord and willingly, and that, by that fall he brought destruction of the his whole future race. And though Adam fell not, nor destroyed himself and his posterity, either without the knowledge or without the ordaining will of God, yet that neither lessens his own fault nor implicates God in any blame whatever."
I might point out that on OAW's reading of Romans 9, I don't see why he doesn't go for double predestination, since God is said to harden Pharoah's heart as well as to choose Jacob favorably. If you are going to take this as straighforward determinism, I hardly see why Calvin or OAW stop with the elect.
Well, we might point out that Scripture also teaches that "Pharoah hardened his heart.' Opting for single predestination IMO allows for a clearer culpability on the part of those who refuse God's graciousness.
But OAW does not seem to think that the nature of Adam's free will is any different from ours. In my understanding, this is not Calvin's position. OAW does not seem to agree or understand with the distinction I am making between 5 and 7 point Calvinists.
I've been around Reformed people quite some time now and I've never heard of '7 point calvinism.' I'm sure this must be a Arminian distinction that Calvinsits laugh at.
Adam's free will was different from ours in as much as before the fall he was created
posse non peccare
posse peccare
Whereas before regeneration we are
non posse non peccare
But if Adam was not free not to sin, if God determined his sin, as Satan's, then God has indirectly chosen both those who will be saved and those who will be damned. In other words, the single predestination position seems incoherent if one does not allow for a true freedom of Adam's will.
Adam
posse non peccare
posse peccare
Hope that clear up any confusion.
OAW
I read an article on Piper's website in which he jokingly called himself a 7-point Calvinist.
Post a Comment