Q: DIDN’T YOU SAY THAT CALVINISTS ARE WORSE THAN MUSLIMS?
A: Yes, absolutely. For a small portion of these people, just daring to question the Bezian movement is heresy. They will blog and e-mail incessantly. I call it a “Calvinist Jihad,” because just like Muslims, they believe they are defending the honor of their view. They can discuss nothing else. I have even had a few call for my head! Dr. Falwell and I have laughed about it, because they are so insistent, and they miss the point completely. There are plenty of schools to which the neo-Calvinists can go, but Liberty will be a lighthouse for missions and evangelism to the “whosoever wills.” Period.
The difference is, Muslims know when to quit – for these guys, it is the only topic about which they can talk.
-Ergun Caner
(Taken from Ergun Caner’s website: http://erguncaner.com/blog/?p=72)
First, let me just say that I am grateful to Dr. Caner for his commitment to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is known for his outstanding zeal in wanting to make the name of Jesus Christ famous in all the world. For that, I commend him.
Despite my accolades for Dr. Caner, I want to call him out on what he said above. I don’t think there is such a thing as a “neo-Calvinist.” Dr. Caner fails to accurately define what this group believes in distinction to the typical “Calvinist.” At any rate, I think in today’s age calling someone “worse than a Muslim” is tantamount to calling them a terrorist. Maybe that is not what Dr. Caner intended. I don’t know. But he should have known it would have been taken that way.
Second, I want to say that I think Dr. Caner is a bit insensitive to the Calvinist side of this whole debate. We Calvinists defend it so much so because we truly believe that we are defending the glory of God in the eyes of men. Likewise, non-Calvinists are really passionate about their view because they feel they are defending the dignity of man as well as the idea of a “loving” God (as opposed to the “non-loving” God of Calvinists). So it seems that both sides have their reasons, and both sides should show the other a little grace. Quite frankly, Dr. Caner’s statement does not disclose that kind of grace, and this is unfortunate for someone of his standing in the evangelical community.
Furthermore, I want to swerve a little off topic for just a moment. I pose to anyone of Dr. Caner’s defenders the following challenge: Give me one instance of Dr. Caner actually giving a sound exegesis of the Scripture concerning his anti-Calvinistic position. What does he say regarding Romans 9? I have never heard him give one exegetical-friendly exposition of that text or any of the texts that speak of election, predestination, or any other reformed term that is found in the Bible. I’m not saying there isn’t one; I’m just saying I haven’t heard one.
Furthermore, I want to comment on the following quote by Dr. Caner on whether or not Baptists fall under that category of Protestant:
“Secondly, as a Baptist, I do not stand in the “Protestant” tradition. Historically Baptists are dissenters, and were hunted by many of the Reformers. I do not believe, as the longer version of the Manifesto reads, that “evangelical is synonymous with Protestant” (p. 10)” (Taken from http://www.erguncaner.com/home/news/manifesto.php)\
I think that statement by Dr. Caner is unfortunate, too. Let me dispel some common misconceptions that might be prevalent among Dr. Caner’s supporters.
First, while it is true that the present-day Baptist can trace their theological lineage back to some of the “dissenters” of the Reformation, I think it would be huge mistake for the contemporary Baptist to identify more closely with the radical Anabaptist movement during Luther and Calvin’s time. If the present-day Baptist identifies more with the Anabaptist, then we have other problems. For the Anabaptists were a little on the not-so-cool side of Christianity. (I highly recommend an article by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon for a good exposition on this movement: (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonRiseAnabaptists.htm)
As Dr. McMahon has laid out, the Anabaptists did not want a reform of the current church; they wanted their own branch. Of course, Luther did not want to break away from the Church at Rome; he merely wanted to reform it.
I would have to say, the only thing in common with the Anabaptists that the present-day Baptist should have is the affirmation in believer’s baptism (in fact, the term “Anabaptist” means to “re-baptize”). Everything else that the Anabaptists stood for should be discarded. It was the reformers who began the movement away from the Catholic heresy, and it was the reformers who brought back the heralded notions and traditional beliefs of sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and sola scriptura. It seems to me that the Reformers were more right than they were wrong, and the Anabaptists were more wrong than they were right.
So the question remains. Should Baptists consider themselves Protestants? Well, that depends. Do we embrace Protestant principles that were inherent to the Reformation? That is, do we embrace salvation by faith alone, by grace alone, through Christ alone, for God’s glory alone? Do we adhere to the doctrine of Scripture alone? Luther said the church stands or falls on the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura. Those two doctrines were what drove a wedge between Rome and the reformers. Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, face a crucial question that must be answered. Do we align more with Rome or with the reformers? There is no other alternative. Either you believe in salvation by faith alone, or you don’t. If you don’t, then you are not Protestant. If you do, then you fall under the reigns of Protestantism. There is no other choice.
So, Dr. Caner, since you are not “Protestant,” are you Catholic? Surely not.
I think this is once again a time when Dr. Caner has stuck his foot in his mouth. Having not considered the consequences of his words, he has driven a deeper, more elongated wedge between those of the Reformed ranks and those who are not necessarily Calvinists. This is unfortunate. We should pursue peace when possible. And Dr. Caner, it is possible. Don’t drive the wedge any further.
As a last note, I will agree with my non-Calvinistic brothers and sisters on one thing. One’s stance on Calvinism does, indeed, determine where one stands on evangelism and missions. For example, Charles Finney has been heralded as a great man of God by people like Jerry Falwell (Liberty University’s founder). It was Finney’s anti-Calvinism that led to his error of trying to argue people into the Kingdom. Finney’s denial of penal substituionary atonement and original sin was only one of his many problems. Finney also thought a sinner had the ability and goodness in himself to not only want God, but also desire Jesus Christ. So, Finney concluded, a sinner can be argued into the Kingdom. That, my friend, is the logical conclusion of anti-Calvinism. If God does not do the drawing, the evangelist must. And if a person does not choose salvation, then the evangelist hasn’t argued good enough. This would be very difficult (and depressing!) evangelism.
May our cry always be…
“Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory” (2 Timothy 2:10, NIV).
The salvation of the sinner is our mission, and may we always be about that mission. May God get His way.
soli Deo gloria
Matthew
n
22 responses so far ↓
Ergun Caner // December 4, 2008 at 10:37 pm |
My friend- Having read your blog, I think you and I would find ourselves on two sides of the same field, at least in Baptist life. I am unashamedly Anabaptist kinship, much more than English puritan, or even Lutheran. The Radical Reformers, as Estep so rightly notes, were HUNTED by all forms of “Reform” movements. They stood for a BELIEVER’S CHURCH, accountability, church discipline, every member ministry, and no external control over the local church. The Schleitheim Confession (1527) stood in stark contrast to so many others who were Magesterial Reformers- they had external control.
The reason i say this is, in SBC life, there are two very strong branches- represented by the differences you very clearly noted above. Your assessment of the differences is clear. I would disagree with your assessment though.
Let me clarify- I use the word “neo” because the type of lockstep uniformity these bloggers demand is NOT Calvin’s calvinism. Dr. Kennedy’s dissertation at SWBTS illuminates the clear struggle Calvin hand with predestination vs. general atonement. Perhaps I could call it “Bezian Calvinism,” as Dr. Patterson has publicly.
Your question is the “Law of the Excluded Middle.” It is NOT a choice between just Protestant or Catholic. There were dissenter groups that fit in neither category. Some were just insane (Munster). However, the Anabaptists were not. Hubmaier, Marpeck, et. al., gave the Protestants and the Catholics something in common– they BOTH hated the Anabaptists, because they were local-church-centric.
So am I.
There IS, in fact, another option between the two- RADICAL REFORMERS. Many of us in Baptist life hold to this stance historically and theologically, and always will.
Smyth’s London Confession borrowed heavily from the Anabaptist Waterlander 1580 confession. This is NOT a new theory!
Very insightful article, my brother- I enjoyed reading it in the middle of exam week- I don’t think I put my foot in my mouth however. I am just not comfortable with the SBC ignoring a HUGE part of our theology. The logical conclusion of the “neo” Calvinism (to use the Finney illustration in reverse) would be the end of missions altogether. The elect will get saved whether we tell them or not…
I am simply embracing the joyous tension we face. Calvinism is a philosophy first. When entire Scriptures get in the way of the philosophy, then some Calvinists live with the tension. Others, however (“Neo”) completely twist the Scriptures and hermeneutics to fit their system (“For God so loved the elect”)
Dispensationalists do it as well.
I do not mind the tension, and see no need to define myself by anyone’s system. Theologically and historically, I believe Baptists borrowed from many Free Church movements.
That is why I say emphatically- I am NOT a Calvinist. I am NOT an Arminian. I am a Baptist. We are neither, and we are both.
Pointing out the fight does not divide. The division is already there.
Again- very well written article- I really enjoyed the discourse!
emc
Patrick // December 5, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
I love how Ergun Caner so eloquently blew past your request at an actual exegetical response to Romans 9. Spurgeon summed it up best when he stated that as long as Romans 9 is in the bible, one cannot (perhaps this should be ’should not’, since people obviously still are) be Arminian.
Patrick
http://www.TheologyOfOmaha.com
Jim Miller // December 5, 2008 at 8:07 pm |
I’m impressed with both of you. I don’t think either of you were rude, although there may have been a few toes stepped on in the middle of the game. Dr. Caner’s response was a very good “agree to disagree” reply.
I think I know what he’s saying about “neo” Calvinists, and you would do well to avoid them. What he is talking about has been otherwise termed as hyper-Calvinism. I like that expression better because it’s extremely descriptive. It is people who apply Calvinist philosophy (to use Dr. Caner’s terms) to scripture verses that don’t call for it. Some of the most hateful people on the planet are Calvinists. The people who protest at servicemen’s funerals with the God Hates Fags signs are Calvinists from Kansas. Calvin himself allowed the town elders in Geneva to kill chronically disobedient children because they didn’t appear to be elect. He even defended the practice in a treatise.
Always remember that the greatest enemy is the untrained ally in your own camp. When the bullets start flying, you sure don’t want him behind you.
On a semi-related note, I don’t have time to look up all the verses (sorry, but I’m at work right now and break is almost over.), but here is a quick synopsis of what the Bible says:
We are not to judge non-believers by the same standards we judge believers. (That is to say, we probably shouldn’t judge them at all.)
We ARE to judge our brothers and sisters according to biblical standards, in the sense that we need to discern their actions and intentions insofar as we have relationship with them to do so.
However, we are NOT to condemn them. Condemnation belongs to God.
That’s why, for the purposes of misdeeds, I treat non-believers as non-believers, but for the purposes of salvation, love, and grace, I treat non-believers as believers. That is to say, if I don’t know who is and who is not condemned, I would do well to treat all as if they are lovingly chosen by God.
I believe if we Calvinists spend more time seeking and saving the lost and less time trying to defend God’s glory, we’d all be better off. God is perfectly capable of defending his glory. I don’t recall anywhere where we are called to defend anything. In fact, I think everything from turn the other cheek to Paul calling himself the chief of sinners is the exact opposite. The whole model of Christ is not to win by winning, but to win by losing. That’s why I love the movie Cars so much.
If you re-read Dr. Caner’s thoughts with these things in mind, you’ll see that he’s not including you among the jihadists. And if those bastards (I mean that literally, not as a swearword) from Kansas aren’t terrorists, I don’t know who is. Dr. Caner knew what he was saying, and he’s right.
Ergun Caner // December 5, 2008 at 8:09 pm |
EXEGETICAL RESPONSE TO ROMANS 9
Patrick- I didn’t blow past anything- most of us who do not hold to your view of Romans 9 have addressed it often:
1. Did God CREATE Esau hated- meaning that God CREATED him predestined for hell? My answer: NO
2. IF, in fact, the reading as the reprobation view holds, that God loves some, and hates others, intrinsically, then the exegesis of most of the others texts must be reworked.
3. Again, these are the same texts thrown back and forth. 1 Tim 2: 1-8, 2 Peter 3:9, etc.
4. IF Esau was created for damnation, then can anyone say for certain that God loves them? Could they not logically be reprobate? Sheer numbers would have to suggest that MOST people would be created for damnation.
5. Since Luke 14: 26 and Romans 9: 13 BOTH use the exact same word for hate (miseo), is our hatred for our father and mother required for salvation? OR, it is just hypothetically possible– both usages are by comparison, as so many biblical scholars have held?
6. Since we all throw Spurgeon around to suit our fancy, I will happily quote- as long as John 3:16 is in the Bible, no one can hold to double predestination.
Since I am not Arminian (see my previous entry), and I am not Calvinist, I am not concerned with either term.
Given the tension between the verses we all spout toward one another, if I err, I will err on the side of God’s omnibenevolence. I hold to general atonement, and Romans 9: 13 causes me no trouble.
emc
Jeff Peterson // December 5, 2008 at 10:05 pm |
Full disclosure: I am a Calvinist. I attend a Baptist church (not SBC).
Dr. Caner’s book (Unveiling Islam: An Insider’s Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs ) has been of immense help to me. Over the past 12 years I have spent approximately 3000 hours within Michigan state prisons sharing the Gospel and discipling prisoners. Many times I encounter Muslims – not usually observant Sunnis or Shiites, but typically men who have joined the Nation of Islam, the Moorish Science Temple of America or claim to be Five Percenters or who are “Melanic Muslims,” a sect that was unique to Michigan prisons for many years.
My first concern is when we start labeling people within the family of faith with whom we disagree. I serve within a ministry that is made up of volunteers who are primarily Arminian (approximately 90% of them). They know I come from and vice versa. Could I, though, be a “Neo-Calvinist?” Here we need to be careful. Do I disagree with those “Arminian?” Sure. That’s why we all attend churches with different names on them, right? My issue arsies when we are inconsistent with our statements. I have heard men march up to a microphone and say things like, “The only thing more powerful than God is our own free will!” Well, then, if that’s the case, there’s not much God can do if and when we pray to Him for intercession if the intercession involves the restraint of evil in people’s lives or to change a hardened heart, is there? Or when a man marches up to a microphone and gives a wonderful discourse on Romans 8 and how nothing can sepearte us from the love of God and how nothing means “NO THING!”, then 30 seconds later he says the only thing that can separate us from the love of Christ is ourselves. Are we, then “nothing?” Evidently so if he was consistent with his own proclamation.
But, do I call them “names?” No. Do I question them on their statements? Yes. Do they question me? You bet. If I had a nickel for every time they say, “If you believe in predestination, then why evangelize?” Of course, I answer with, “I evangelize BECAUSE I believe in predestination.” Those men are my friends and my brothers, though, and vitriol doesn’t accomplish anything.
This will be good practice for me, a rookie/amateur/redneck theologian from the boondocks. Here goes. (sfx of throat being cleared…ahem…)
In response to a few of Dr. Caner’s points:
Pt. 1) First, “hated.” Even if we assume it means a different level or degree of love, then we do have to work through John 3:16 – does God love every single person “equally” (or as many say, “unconditionally,” which is a whole ‘nother discussion)? Even if you ascribe to the “foreknew” view of predestination (God knew in advance who would respond to the Gospel and chose them to be saved on that basis) then we have an issue with God still creating people whom he knew would not respond to the Gospel and would be condemned. Was that “just?” Creating people who He knew would ultimately end up in Hell? Unless one is ready to go the Open Theism direction, then we have to address this issue.
Pt. 2) Paul certainly seems to be doing in Romans 9 what he does multiple other times in Romans – making a point, then bringing up the objection/question that he knows will arise (e.g, Romans 3:1, 5, 9, ch. 4:1, 9-10, ch 6:1, 15, ch. 7:1, 7, 13, ch. 8:31, 33, ch. 9:14, 19, 30).
Pt. 4) Let’s go back to the discussion above of God’s “knowledge” of people’s destinies when they were created. Doesn’t 1 Peter 2:8 say, “They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.” Who are those people? I don’t know. I do know I am to tell everyone the Gospel story, though, because the knowledge of who will end up in Heaven or Hell isn’t mine (Deut. 29:29). My responsibility is to love my brother and my neighbor and part of that love is expressed by sharing a Gospel that is offensive to the natural man. His sheep will hear His voice.
5) Is it not possible for the same Greek word to have multiple meanings/implications (e.g., “kosmos”)? Again, though, even if “by comparison” is the only meaning in these two passages, then we need to examine just what John 3:16 means and how it relates to a statement that there are different degrees of God’s love.
Pt. 6) Though I’m not necessarily in A.W. Pink’s camp on John 3:16, if God is indeed omniscient, and He created each life (as we say especially when we want to defend our Christian argument against abortion) and in Him we live and move and have our being per Acts 17, then again we need to go back and examine God’s part and knowledge in each act of conception – did He “know” that people would be created who would never respond to the Gospel?
Praise God for men like Dr. Caner, his brother and others who have made much greated scarifice than I in having bowed the knee to Christ. Let’s just be careful in how we handle our disagreements – of which we will have many until Jesus comes again.
In closing, I have a relative who attends Liberty. He’s a Calvinist. And he believes in the command for evangelization just like Dr. Caner and I do, because if we get past Romans 9, isn’t Romans 10:5-15 true?
Matthew Halsted // December 5, 2008 at 10:22 pm |
Greetings, all!
Thanks so much for the comments. I know there is a lot to be said, and I will do my best to present my views in Christ-exalting way, so I will post a formal response to Dr. Caner’s post on Romans 9 sometime real soon. I appreciate everyone who took the time to weigh in on this subject. And I agree with the last post that we should definitely watch out what we say and how we say it, for Christ, our supreme Lord, is watching.
Will be posting soon…
soli Deo gloria,
Matthew
M Burke // December 7, 2008 at 6:56 am |
Dr. Caner,
The theme of Romans 9 is found firstly in the verses well before the mention of Jacob and Esau. Paul’s point here is “They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”
The flesh/promise ~ flesh/Spirit ~ slave/free theme is one that Paul reiterates throughout his writings and they’re all connected. For example, Romans 8 Paul just finished stating:
Rom 8:6-9 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
The difference between the person who Paul identifies as being in the flesh and hostile toward God, unwilling to submit to God’s Law, unable to submit to God’s Law and unable to please God and those who are the opposite of those things, those in the Spirit, is the fact that the Spirit of God dwells in them.
Now, this means, plainly, that those without the Spirit dwelling in them cannot please God and are unable to submit to God’s Law. One must have the Spirit dwelling them FIRST before they can do those things. This brings us to Romans 9 where Paul again expresses the distinction between the flesh/Spirit or those of the flesh vs promise. Paul is explaining in Romans 9:6-8 that not all those who are of Abraham’s descent are of Israel. He is referring to the truly unbelieving of Israel, like the Pharisees and like “Jerusalem, or she is in slavery with her children” (Gal 4:25). The children of promise, then, are the true children of God. What then is the difference between them? How does one get to be a child of promise vs a child of flesh? Paul continues in Romans 9 to express this distinction.
Rom 9:10-13 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
As astounding as this is, and as difficult as it is to swallow, the difference between the child of flesh and the child of promise, according to Paul is “God’s purpose according to His choice”. Regardless of what one thinks of God hating Esau, the fact of the matter is that God’s attitude toward Esau was not predicated on anything Esau did or did not do, but simply on the basis of God’s choice.
Now, you may have exegeted this passage elsewhere, and assume the readers of this blog have seen it. I have not, but I note that you do not in fact explain what this passage means, only what it cannot mean on the basis of your presupposition.
The fact of the matter is that, according to Paul’s Gospel, all men are sinners and equally deserving of hell from the moment they have breath. What we therefore see is God dispensing justice to Esau and mercy and grace toward Jacob. Paul’s final point, Dr. Caner, is that no one has the right to ask God why this is the case.
Psalm 5:5 states: The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.
We’ve all sinned in Adam, and therefore we come forth into this world as iniquity-doers. God’s righteous indignation, or hate, if you will, is expressed toward all mankind on the basis of Adam’s representation of them in Eden and their own sinfulness expressed in their actions.
The other texts need no “reworking”, rather, they simply do not say what you and others want them to say. What is shocking here is that Calvinists have provided ample exegesis of these texts for many years and you have failed to address them in any meaningful manner.
Might you please listen to Dr. White and others who have answered you and other Arminian-esque preachers on these proof-texted verses and address the contextual and grammatical issues therein?
Where have you addressed the reply of the Calvinists to the canard that these verses teach a universal desire of God to save each and every person who ever lived? Is it truly your position that God desired to save the millions of people who never heard the Gospel?
Long before the colonization of North America, people lived here and not one heard the Gospel preached to them. Are you really saying that God desired their salvation but was impotent to save them? Or are you going to suggest some other method of salvation?
All those who are in Christ can say, with genuine trust, that God loves them. For God’s saving love toward mankind is shown only in the Savior, Jesus Christ. All those outside of Christ must be told that they’re under wrath and face God’s wrathful indignation.
The Gospel in Scripture is never expressed in the often assumed “Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”, but rather “God’s wrath is upon you” (John 3:18-18, Rom 1:18- etc) “and if you repent and believe in His Son, you will have eternal life” (John 3:16, etc).
It is in fact true, that currently “MOST people would be created for damnation”, but the world is not yet over and the possibility exists that God will, at some point in the future, save more people than have ever been damned. Since it is the preaching of the Gospel that God uses via His Holy Spirit to open the ears and renew the hearts of the Spiritually dead, it is imperative that the Gospel go to all mankind.
Again, until only very recently, historically speaking, the Gospel was not heard by a majority of mankind. I ask again, is it truly your suggestion that God wanted to save those who never heard the message, but was unable to?
Are you serious? This is a ploy most often used by atheists in Christian-baiting using the same verses and the same intent. Surely, Dr. Caner, you know that there are no contradictions in Scripture, and these verses say exactly what Christ intended them. The parallel passage explain better: Mat 10:37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
Do you know of a verse that likewise limits God’s intent toward Esau (and the rest of those children of the flesh)?
Where in John 3:16 is predestination mentioned? Where in John 3:16 is the intent of God in atonement mentioned? Where in John 3:16 is the extent of atonement actually mentioned?
Surely you, of all people, should know that we should go to passages actually dealing with the topic at hand to best understand such things, not to passages that do not actually deal with our query. It is therefore improper of you and your ilk to keep chanting John 3:16 without actually explaining what the text means in context of the rest of the passage, book and indeed the rest of Scripture.
Someone of your academic background and position should be ashamed mishandling the Word of God in this manner.
Finally, what do you make of Isa 46:9-11?
Isa 46:9-11 “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;
Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
Can you tell us, Dr. Caner, if God states for us that He has in fact declared “the end from the beginning” and “My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure”, what exactly does God desire that He fails to bring to pass?
Micah Burke
rey // December 8, 2008 at 12:08 am |
A Hyper-Calvinist is a Calvinist who admits to believing what all Calvinists believe. A regular Calvinist is a Hyper-Calvinist trying to convince non-Calvinists by lies that he doesn’t believe what all Calvinists believe. All Calvinists believe that their god is the author of evil and that this god causes each and every sin that is committed then punishes the puppet for doing what he made it do, but that he also arbitrarily elected some puppets to escape punishment for what he made them do.
rey // December 8, 2008 at 12:54 am |
“I love how Ergun Caner so eloquently blew past your request at an actual exegetical response to Romans 9. Spurgeon summed it up best when he stated that as long as Romans 9 is in the bible, one cannot (perhaps this should be ’should not’, since people obviously still are) be Arminian.” (Patrick)
I’m not Ergun Caner, and I’m not a Baptist, but I’ll give you an “exegetical response to Romans 9.”
The point being addressed by Paul is the position of a Jewish opponent that race is the basis of salvation and damnation, that God is under obligation to save all the Jews and damn all the Gentiles, regardless of who believes and who does not. In other words, ethno-centric salvation for Jews (believers and unbelievers) and ethno-centric damnation for all Gentiles (believers and unbelievers).
Paul begins by showing that in the past dealings with Israel God excluded some descendants of Abraham from the blessings. Ishmael was not the heir but only Isaac! But lest they should retort that this was merely because Ishmael was half Egyptian or the son of a slave or illegitimate offspring, you moves on quickly to the example of Esau. Esau and Jacob were twins, both conceived by the same act of conception. Yet before their birth God chose Jacob and rejected Esau. This could clearly be based on no ethnic difference, since they were twins. Also, it could not be based on prior works, since it was before they were born. As we move on down we find that the election is based on faith, on foreseen faith, but let’s continue before we get to that.
Salvation is proclaimed to be by mercy. The example of Moses being shown God’s glory, not because he earned it but by mercy is used, which showing of his glory to Moses, God justifies by saying “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” Thus mere will on man’s part cannot save, for God must show mercy. The unbelieving Jews therefore cannot be saved by wishing that salvation were ethno-centric, for they need God’s mercy (which mercy, we will soon see is for believers only).
Now comes the example of Pharaoh to show how one ends up being damned. Paul says that Scripture says to Pharaoh “Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up [as if from the dead], that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” The word for raised is exegeiro meaning to raise from sleep, unconsciousness or death, not to raise to the throne nor to create. See the passage in context from the Old Testament!
Exodus 9:15-16 NRSV “For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth. But this is why I have let you live: to show you my power, and to make my name resound through all the earth.”
Note the whole tone is one of mercy. Whereas God could have killed Pharaoh (with massive overkill) by massive plagues, God instead spared him (raised from the dead is used to figuratively mean spared).
Now Paul uses this mercy that God showed to Pharaoh as an example of hardening, thus summarizing “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” He had mercy on both Moses and Pharaoh, but in Pharaoh’s case the mercy was also hardening, for Pharaoh interpreted God’s mercy as if God did not mean business and thus hardened his own heart! God knew he would do so, of course.
Now, Paul says “You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? for who has resisted his will?” Paul sees that the ignorant Jewish opponent will misinterpret his teaching as Calvinism. Thus Paul responds, “Nay but, O man, who are you that makes accusation against God? Will the thing formed say to him that formed it, ‘Why? You made me like this!’?”
The translation “Why have you made me like this?” is dead wrong. It is really ‘Why? You made me like this!’?” That is, the “why” repeats the original question “why does he still find fault?” So Paul is retorting on the Jewish opponent:
“Nay but, O man, who are you that makes accusation against God? Will the thing formed say to him that formed it, ‘Why [do you still find fault]? You made me like this!’?”
That is, Paul is attacking the Calvinism of the Jewish opponent, not teaching Calvinism himself.
Now, Paul says “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
He means it in the same sense of Jeremiah 18, not of arbitrary election. For in Jeremiah 18:6, God says “O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter?” but he shows what this means in the next few verses when he says that if he determines to build a nation up but it rebels against him he will tear it down instead, and if he determines to tear down a nation but they repent they he will instead build them up!
The meaning then is plain, that God will build believers into vessels of honor and unbelievers into bed-pans. Yet the categories even, as with Jeremiah 18, are not determined by God himself but by the men, for he appeals to them in Jeremiah 18:11 “return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”
Now Paul says “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fit for destruction” which in doing also, he allows change from vessels of wrath to vessels of honor, even as Paul teaches in 2nd Tim 2:21 “If a man therefore purge himself from these [i.e. iniquties], he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” In 2nd Tim 2:19 the departing from iniquties is clearly defined as requiring that we first accept Christ. So here, God’s longsuffering towards the vessels of wrath allows them time to accept Christ and be changed to vessels of honor! So also, Peter interprets this passage!!! 2nd Peter 3:15 “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;”
But Paul continues “And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
He prepared them by electing them based on foreseen faith, which is clearly enough shown by Romans 8:28-29, for election is said to be based on foreknowledge, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate”. Anyone trying to define both verbs as meaning “fore-ordain” is clearly insane. “For whom he did fore-ordain he did also fore-ordain” is redundant, so don’t even bother trying it Calvinist liars!
So clearly, faith was forseen and men elected based on it. Not foreseen as a static necessity but on a conditional, obviously. “If I get the gospel to this person, will they believe?” Thus is God’s priority in salvation even protected! And, this is clearly the meaning of “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose,” for he means that God has arranged circumstances to be such that all he foresaw would believe if He got the gospel to them will hear the gospel!
Such is the preparation of Romans 9:23-24.
Now the rest of Romans 9 deals with proving that the call of the Gentiles was prophesied of, which again shows that Paul is not attacking Arminianism to establish immoral Calvinism! Rather, he is attacking Jewish ethno-centric salvation to establish salvation by faith for both Jews and Gentiles, which is the topic and main theme of the entire book of Romans!
Now when he gets to verses 31-32, he shows that the Jews did not seriously peruse righteousness by the Law. For he says “Because they sought it not by faith, but AS IT WERE by the works of the law.” They did not really even peruse righteousness by the works of the Law but only pretended to, only made “as if” they sought righteousness by the works of the Law. Really they did not seek it, but counted in Abrahamic descent to save them, even as John the Baptist warned them against! When John said “Think not to say within yourselves ‘We have Abraham as our father’ for I say to you God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones!”
Thus, Paul is dealing with an ethno-centric Calvinism that asserts unconditional election of all Jews. And he blasts it apart by showing that election is based on faith and is for both Jews and Gentiles, whoever believes.
rey // December 8, 2008 at 12:55 am |
I am a baptist in the sense of believer’s baptism by immersion only, just not a Baptist by denomination.
M Burke // December 8, 2008 at 7:30 pm |
Wow, Rey, did you actually read the other posts? How about addressing my reply? Your claim that “The point being addressed by Paul is the position of a Jewish opponent that race is the basis of salvation and damnation” is denied by the theme of Romans, Paul’s discussion of flesh/spirit flesh/promise in Rom 8, Gal 4 etc.
Why is it that folks have to divorce Romans 9 from the thread of thought in the rest Romans when addressing the Calvinist claims? Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ishmael are types exemplifying those of flesh vs Spirit (or promise in Rom 9) theme that Paul is establishing in Romans. Previously in Romans 8 Paul already established that the difference between the two is the indwelling Spirit, apart from which the individual is “does not submit to the law of God and is even unable to”. This is not only applicable to Jews, but to Gentiles as well, and this is why Paul uses the same language in Galatians.
There is no basis for this claim in the text, the whole point of Jacob’s election vs Esau is based NOT on the fact of either of them doing anything good or bad, including having faith… which is arguably something good. Foreknowledge then has nothing to do with God looking through some crystal ball to see who would and would not believe, rather, it is about God’s purpose and plan, knowing how and why He put specific people where He does.
Remember, as I noted in my previous post, God has declared the end from the beginning, and all that He desires comes to pass.
Again, building from Romans 8 (the chapter just before!!!) the mind set on the flesh (mentioned here again in Romans 9) cannot submit to God’s Law and even is unable to do so. Your mention of John the Baptist’s exclamation regarding God raising up children for Abraham from stones should clue you into something, stones cannot believe and those who have stones as hearts cannot change them to hearts of flesh, God must first do that before one can believe. Also, the stones to whom John is talking about are the Gentiles, again demolishing any suggestion that this has anything to do with etho-centrism.
Paul’s whole point here in Romans 9 is that there is nothing differentiating Jacob and Esau that would cause God to elect one over the other, including some supposed foreseen faith. Rather, God’s election is based on “God’s purpose in election”, not upon anything within men. God’s electing therefore is completely gracious because no one deserves salvation.
The claim that this passage is dealing with “ethno-centrism” flies in the face of Paul’s mention of Pharaoh. Pharaoh was no Jew. What purpose would Paul have for mentioning Pharaoh if this was all about Jews? No, the whole point is that God has “mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” from all nations.
rey // December 9, 2008 at 2:23 am |
I don’t even see the need to respond to such tripe, considering that anyone who has ever read Romans realizes that the whole point is to establish that Jews and Gentiles both have equal access to salvation by faith and that neither group has a right to boast against the other. From chapter 1 and the natural state of the Gentiles in idolatry having rejected the light of nature, to chapter 2 and the Jews who boast in the Law dishonoring God by breaking the Law, to chapter 3 where he demolishes a bunch of Jewish claims that the Jewish Law breaking helps establish God’s righteousness and is thus ok, to chapter 4 illustrating that Gentiles can be saved apart from physical circumcision just as Abraham was, to chapter 5 showing that all men both Jews and Gentiles inherit mortality and the inclination towards sin from Adam. Now, what will you make of Romans 11 and how the Jews are not to boast against the Gentiles since many Jews have been cut off the olive tree for unbelief? And yet the Gentiles are not to boast against the Jews, since they too can be cut off if the cease to believe? There is no Calvinism being taught. Anyone who does not recognize that Romans is about the equality of Jew and Gentile for salvation by faith and about a petty malevolent deity saving people by a capricious lottery, simply refuses to accept the truth. These are the people to whom God has sent “a them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Th 2:11-12) For Calvinism is all about using this concept of a divine lottery to excuse your unrighteousness and your rejection of Christ’s gospel.
rey // December 9, 2008 at 2:25 am |
Typo above. Should read “for salvation by faith and NOT about a petty malevolent deity saving people by a capricious lottery”
M Burke // December 9, 2008 at 4:58 am |
Nice ad hom.
Indeed, because both groups are alike under sin, under Adam, and by nature children of wrath… children of the flesh, and are in desperate need of grace.
It seems you’re not reading, and have no real sense of what Calvinism teaches to rebut it.
All men are alike, under sin, and in desperate need of a grace found only in the Savior. Calvinism’s primary point is the equality of all men… in their depravity and inability and unwillingness to do anything to avail themselves of God’s mercy.
Election therefore, properly understood is not “a capricious lottery”, but rather part of the glorious Gospel in which God graciously saves rebellious sinners, not because the sought Him, but because He first loved them and came to seek and save them.
jun kaddy // December 10, 2008 at 2:44 am |
“All men are alike, under sin, and in desperate need of a grace found only in the Savior.”
Right.
“Calvinism’s primary point is the equality of all men… in their depravity and inability and unwillingness to do anything to avail themselves of God’s mercy.”
Wrong. The fact that we are sinners does not mean that we are not willing to do something to avail ourselves of God’s mercy. Calvinists are all unwilling to avail themselves of God’s mercy. But everyone is not.
M Burke // December 11, 2008 at 1:30 am |
Why is it that the only responses coming for from the opposition are “I know you are but what am I” types of retorts?
As Paul states in Ephesians:
Eph 2:2
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
All men are alike under sin, and, as I stated in my response to Dr. Caner, this means that they are, in Paul’s vernacular, those with minds set on the flesh.
Paul speaks of them thusly:
Romans 8:7-8
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
The difference between those with minds “set on the flesh” and those with minds set on the Spirit is explained in the very next verse…
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Thus, if one does not have the Spirit indwelling FIRST, they do not submit to God’s Law nor are they able to do so. The fact that we’re sinners does in fact mean that we’re UNWILLING to “avail” ourselves of God’s mercy… unwilling and unable… so says Paul.
Finally, consider what you’re saying.
When you stand before God on judgment day, what will be the reason God judges you “not guilty”?
Will it be because YOU were better than others and availed yourself of the possibility of salvation? Will you ultimately be able to laugh at those who go to hell because you were smarter then them?
Will you declare “I am saved because I CHOSE to be saved!”?
See, the Biblical message of salvation is evident throughout Paul’s writing in that every one is in need of a Savior. We’re all rebel sinners who gladly and willingly sin. We are, as Jesus said, “slaves to sin”.
Thus it is written that Jesus came to “seek and save the lost”, the lost don’t seek Jesus. We’re dead-hearted sinners who need resurrection to life.
Now, might you actually address the Scripture’s I’ve posted and commented on, or is tossing insults all you’re capable of?
jun kaddy // December 11, 2008 at 2:46 am |
“Will it be because YOU were better than others and availed yourself of the possibility of salvation? Will you ultimately be able to laugh at those who go to hell because you were smarter then them?”
I’ll be laughing at you most of all.
jun kaddy // December 11, 2008 at 3:32 am |
“Thus it is written that Jesus came to ’seek and save the lost’, the lost don’t seek Jesus. We’re dead-hearted sinners who need resurrection to life.”
And if election is based on foreknowledge of faith, “If I get the gospel to John Smith, will he believe?” then Jesus will seek out and save all whom he foresaw would believe if he sought them out. The very fact that Jesus is pictured in Scripture as seeking rather than rolling dice, disproves Calvinism. The god of Calvinism cannot seek, but only manipulate. Even the necessity of a seeking proves the reality of totally non-deterministic free will.
M Burke // December 11, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
Consider what you’re saying here… you’re claiming that God elects those who elect themselves… God saves those who, in essence save themselves. Thus you view Christ as “seeking and saving those who found themselves.”
Scripture tell us rather that God raises dead sinners to life in Christ, by giving them new hearts and a new spirit. (Eze 36, Eph 2:1-9)
Election then cannot be based on foresight (which is really what you’re saying.) God doesn’t passively know the future but, as He told Isaiah, has declared “the end from the beginning” saying “My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure”.
God does not look through some crystal ball to see who will be smart enough to save themselves.
And here is the humbleness of the Arminian.
jun kaddy // December 11, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
“Consider what you’re saying here… you’re claiming that God elects those who elect themselves”
That is sorely lacking logic, considering that election is based on the condition of whether God gets the gospel to them or not. You can’t elect yourself if you aint got the gospel. But since God elects all who he knows will believe if he gets the gospel to them, he is still the elector. The individual in question only makes his election sure, as Peter says.
“And here is the humbleness of the Arminian.”
No, here is the abominable obstinance of the Calvinists. I will be laughing at you because you thought you could set up a false a malignant idol, a god of lotteries, and save yourself by a putrid god created in your imagination. You will be lost for your putrid evil heart, not a lack of smarts. You are smart enough to know that your system is feces. You just hate the true God and want to imagine for yourself a god as wicked as you are. Because of this, you are simply unredeemable.
M Burke // December 11, 2008 at 6:43 pm |
So… they DO elect themselves… if they get the Gospel?
You believe God wants to save all men, right? So… why doesn’t He send the Gospel to them all?
daveowie // January 15, 2009 at 8:00 pm |
I have often been amazed at how a philosophical system can come to taint a command. Here we see two brothers in Christ get so tied up in their “doctrine” that they begin to attack one another. How Satan must gleefully read these posts!!! When philosophy trumps love, there is little wonder that confusion reigns in the church. Why not respectfully agree to disagree and love one another as Christ has loved you. If either of you believe that you can resolve this debate, you are more arrogant then knowledgeable. This debate has raged for almost 500 years and won’t be tamed this side of heaven. Name calling shows the pettiness of your philosophy and should teach you that some arguments are just not worth the effort. You basically agree on fundamentals of Christian Doctrine, why not give this a rest. Remember faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. PREACH THE WORD and quit arguing philosophy.