Romans 9 is considered to be the “hammer” in the debates on Predestination and Free Will in terms of the salvation of the individual. Hank makes this point clear in his post, My Comfort in Romans 9. In this post, he expounds upon verses 9:11 and 9:14. It is Hank’s contention that only assuming a Calvinistic interpretation of Paul, does one raise the objections that Paul raises in the cited verses. If one adopts a Arminian position, one would not encounter the objections and because the objections are in fact raised, only the Calvinistic interpretation is the correct viewpoint.

Henry Thomas is correct… only if that section of Romans 9 is dealing with the salvation of the individual. If, however, the theme of Roman’s nine is different, if it speaks, say of the predestination of service, then one can hold an Arminian position and raise the objections that Paul raises.

In the beginning of Romans 9, Paul is writing about the seed of Abraham and how God chose that the line was used as a tool. This sets the tone for Romans 9, that the election that God uses to unfold his plan of history. Paul then goes on to write about the line of Christ and its election, one that God decided apart from any merit on any person’s part. The call that is written about here is not towards faith in Christ or God, but it is a call to service. This is then expanded from a discussion on Jacob and Esau to a discussion of their descendants, as noted by Paul by his quotation of Malachi; writing, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” In Malachi, this phrase is denoting the nations of Jacob and Esau – Israel and Edom. It should also be noted that the terms “loved” and “hated” misstate the issue. Translated properly, it should read “loved more” and “loved less.” Malachi, and thus Paul is not speaking about the election of salvation, but on the lineage of the Messiah. That is what depended upon God. Dr. Reese writes about this passage in his commentary on Romans.

Paul’s argument, so far, is one with which few Jews would find fault. The Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael who was a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham; but the Jews would never dream of saying that the Arabs are included in the “seed.” The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and Esau was a true son of Issac, and the twin brother of Jacob; but no Jew would ever have included the Edomites in the “seed.” They could hardly disagree with Paul’s emphasis that God has been making choices all through history, selecting this one and bypassing that one, without being unfaithful to the promise about “seed” that He made to the patriarchs¹

In verses 9:17 Paul further emphasizes the theme of the passage; the election in God’s formation of history, not salvation, with a discussion of Pharaoh. Paul quotes Moses’ conversation with Pharaoh to show that God acted in Pharaoh’s life to spare him from the plagues so that Pharaoh might be a mouthpiece of God - through Pharaoh’s life, God’s name might be proclaimed throughout the earth. Reese notes that the turn of phrase here indicates that God spared Pharaoh’s life, he did not create nor change Pharaoh as or into a monster, writing, “[b]oth in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, the idea is that Pharaoh had been kept alive instead of being cut off, that God’s power might be displayed in him.²” Was God doing injustice via this choice? Paul says no. But once again, the theme is the service and use in history, not of personal salvation.

Exactly how is this injustice denied? There is mention of God hardening the heart of Pharaoh, both in Exodus and in Romans. What does this mean? Reese notes that there is no mention of God making Pharaoh’s heart being hard to begin with. Reese explains the idea of hardening in the footnotes to his commentary on 9:18:

God himself is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart… [i]t is thus certainly declared to that this hardening is from God. But even so, it is nowhere said that God had made Pharaoh’s heart hard from the first, so that, after a willful resistance to appeal, final obduracy was sent on him as a judgment.³

We see evidence of this in Pharaoh hardening his own heart in Ex 9:34 and Ex 7:15-21; in other places it is said that God further hardened his heart. Therefore, one can conclude that once Pharaoh decided to act against God’s plan for him, instead of striking Pharaoh down, God decided to use him anyway, although through alternative means. The Bible does make it clear that God is sovereign in everything, yet does decide to allow humans to have the exercise of free will.

Thus, the charge brought by the objector in 9:11 and is answered in 9:14, that God is unjust in his selections in history, does come up within a Arminian interpretation.

Footnotes:

1) Reese, Gareth. New Testament Epistles: Romans p.386.
2) Ibid. 391.
3) Ibid. 391.

Was Augustine’s transition from a libertarian to a determinist?

Abstract:

This post is taken from a paper submitted for my class on the life and works of Augustine. It posits a forum where three people are invited to give their interpretations of Augustine’s works. The papers are then followed up by a discussion on how or if Augustine’s thought developed throught his life.

Henry:

(more…)

In the letter, “To Simplician – On Various Questions,” Augustine wrestles with the question of why Esau was rejected by God and Jacob was accepted by God in conjunctions with Paul’s treatment in Romans 9.10-29. This creates a whole heaping mound of confusion for Augustine, but does lead him to several important doctrines, or at least lays some of the foundations of later doctrines. It is absolutely fundamental that humans are saved solely by God, so that none may boast. Augustine beings with the idea that God hated Esau and loved Jacob from before the time they were born. He then presents arguments on why this could not have been due to any deeds that they did, because the calling preceded their birth. Similarly, it was not done on account of their faith, for the same reason. Augustine then examines if God based the calling on his foreknowledge of either’s works. This cannot be the case, for this would imply that God does choose on the merit of the individual. It also could not have been a result of God’s foreknowledge of faith because grace precedes belief. For Augustine, the path of salvation follows the following sequence:

Calling → Birth → Grace → Hearing → Believing → Faith → Justification → Power to do good works

Augustine cannot find any reason for God to choose one over the other. He can find no reason for God to reject on over another. They are twins, so there is no ontological difference between the two. Augustine does maintain that God can have mercy on who he decides to have mercy on. There is a freedom there because all persons are sinners. He concludes that while there is a reason that God chose to love Jacob and not Esau, it is left unknown to humans. There is some discussion about God calling more than are chosen, but I was not able to ascertain his final position on the matter. The question here is, “Can a person reject the calling of God?” Augustine seems to think that a person can reject the calling, but not being chosen. How this works out exactly, I am not sure. The last section of the latter deals with the idea that the only people with true free will (the will to do good) are those that God elects. No other humans are able to truly do good works.

This short paper will seek to examine and refute Augustine’s view of Original Sin and the ability of the will to choose to turn towards God. It was Augustine view, and the view of the reformers after him, that if one denies these tenants, then one is forced to adopt the views of Pelagius, namely that Jesus was just an enlightened man. I will employ three arguments to discount Augustine’s above claims. The first one involves a logical extension of the personhood of Jesus. The second argument demonstrates the need for a total free will as a prerequisite for sin. The third argument gives an alternate understanding of how God can cause faith and at the same time, faith can be freely chosen. Finally, an alternate view of soteriology will be given. |inline

Why did Luther find the bondage of the will to be a comfort? The short answer is that it allowed him to be incredibly abrasive to his opponents and get away with it. The long answer is that it, along with the rest of his metaphysics, allowed him to be sure in his salvation. Luther seems to hold that we, as humans are completely enslaved to sin. He writes that “free-will without grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good .” Therefore, for Luther, in order for a will to be truly free, it must be able to always choose the good. Thus the “ineffective power” of the will to choose good renders it as “no power ”. The only way for the will to choose God is by the grace of God enabling. It is evident that only some men choose to seek God, therefore God predestines some to receive this enabling grace and must therefore also choose to not give it to the others. These special individuals that receive grace are called the elect. Luther places an extremely high value on the will of God. For Luther whatever God wills comes to pass. God does not suspend his will for the sake of others like Denck suggested. When God wills that the elect receive grace and are saved, this willing cannot be altered or changed by anyone, even God, because it would be outside of His nature. So, in the realization of the bondage of the will to sin and to God, Luther can be comforted that his salvation is not in jeopardy by any sins he might commit, such as the sins of the false dichotomy and of the straw man.

As part of my class on Augustine, I have to do a one-page relfection on the reading for that week. This week’s reading is books 1-5 of the Confessions. This was my reflection for this week.

An interesting topic that I would like to know more about Augustine’s worldview is his view of God. I do not want to inquire about the religious aspects of God. Augustine makes very clear in passages such as 1:11 that describe God’s holiness, goodness, mercy, and wisdom. Instead what I would pick Augustine’s brain about is the metaphysical aspects of God, such as his views on the problems of omnipresence, pantheism, free will, necessary simplicity and God’s relation to time.

Augustine at once maintains that God is separate from His creation and is present everywhere in it. Being everywhere would seem to imply that God pervades through everything. This idea of God pervading through everything sounds a lot like pantheism, which is impossible since Augustine says that God is separate from His creation. I am not sure how he would reconcile those two ideas.

From what I can tell, Augustine seems to have God being completely outside time, holding to “B Time”. This is into contrast to “A Time” where God is contained within the same time that His creation is in. One first encounters God relationship to time in 1:9, “You are before the beginning of the ages, and prior to everything that can be said to be `before’.” The phrase, “before the beginning of the ages”, puts God at least in sequential order to creation, but still allows for God to be within the realm of time. The last part of the sentence implies that God has existed before there was a time to speak of. If this is so, how is it possible for God to intervene within the realm of time?

Furthermore, Augustine seems to be very concerned with freewill as a necessary component of salvation and in the human condition. At the same time, God is very active within history and within each individual’s life. This is evidenced by the constant God’s prodding and positioning of things in his life that ultimately lead to Augustine’s conversion at Milan. If God is actively manipulating events, how can one say that they have chosen something of their own metaphysical free will?

Lastly, I wonder how Augustine would reply to the idea that in order to be perfect, God must be simple. In order to be simple He must be unchangeable. But if God does hear prayers and decides to act on them, then He must have changed His mind and as such is not simple and therefore not perfect.

Cross posted at the Theology for the Masses and Hundiejo.com