Here’s the post on Reasonable Faith. He’s responding to a questioner who is an atheist,and who thinks that Calvinism makes belief in Christianity impossible.
Part of the question:
In Romans 9, Paul describes Jacob and Esau as being judged as loved and hated (or “loved less”) before they did any good or evil. Paul then goes on to liken all of us as clay molded by a potter, and states that it is not the will of he who runs but of He who shows mercy which saves us. Paul relates God telling Pharaoh: “for this purpose I have raised you up …” and then discusses an idea that the vessels God made for “common use” are there only for the purpose of showing His patience to his more special pots.
Many Reformed think this passage shows double-predestination and unconditional election, and I am forced to agree with them – as is Christ Himself in John 6:65! The Reformed God is something I view as tyrannical and unworthy of worship, and indeed it is tough for someone outside the faith to respond to the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 with anything but hatred: as the prominent Reformed scholar James White describes this very chapter, “I understand that the only way one can believe this is by an act of grace.”
In my view, this defeats your position of molinism, since one cannot freely choose God on his own in any potential setting without God’s prior help. Furthermore, the context of the related story in John 6 has disciples abandoning Christ, prompting what He says in 6:65 and proving that Christ is not offered as a free gift to all! What is left for the freedom of man to choose Christ given these passages?
Part of the answer:
Second, let’s talk about Paul’s doctrine of election in Romans 9. I want to share with you a perspective on Paul’s teaching that I think you’ll find very illuminating and encouraging. Typically, as a result of Reformed theology, we have a tendency to read Paul as narrowing down the scope of God’s election to the very select few, and those not so chosen can’t complain if God in His sovereignty overlooks them. I think this is a fundamental misreading of the chapter which makes very little sense in the context of Paul’s letter.
Earlier in his letter Paul addresses the question of what advantage there is to Jewish identity if one fails to live up to the demands of the law (2. 17-3.21). He says that although being Jewish has great advantages in being the recipients of God’s revelatory oracles, nevertheless being Jewish gives you no automatic claim to God’s salvation. Instead, Paul asserts the radical and shocking claim that “He is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is of the heart, spiritual and not literal” (2. 28-29).
Paul held that “no human being will be justified in God’s sight by works of the law” (3.20); rather “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (3. 29). That includes Gentiles as well as Jews. “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one” (3. 29-30).
Do you realize what that meant to Paul’s Jewish contemporaries? Gentile “dogs” who have faith in Christ may actually be more Jewish than ethnic Jews and go into the Kingdom while God’s chosen people are shut out! Unthinkable! Scandalous!
Paul goes on to support his view by appeal to the example of none less than Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation. Abraham, Paul explains, was pronounced righteous by God before he received circumcision. “The purpose,” says Paul, “was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised [i.e., the Gentiles] and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised [note the qualification!] but also follow the example of faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised” (4.11-12).
This is explosive teaching. Paul begins chapter 9 by expressing his profound sorrow that ethnic Jews have missed God’s salvation by rejecting their Messiah [= Christ]. But he says it’s not as though God’s word had failed. Rather, as we have already seen, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants” (9. 6-7). Being ethnically Jewish is not enough; rather one must be a child of the promise—and that, as we’ve seen, may include Gentiles and exclude Jews.
The problematic, then, with which Paul is wrestling is how God’s chosen people the Jews could fail to obtain the promise of salvation while Gentiles, who were regarded by Jews as unclean and execrable, could find salvation instead. Paul’s answer is that God is sovereign: He can save whomever He wants, and no one can gainsay God. He has the freedom to have mercy upon whomever He wills, even upon execrable Gentiles, and no one can complain of injustice on God’s part.
So—and this is the crucial point—who is it that God has chosen to save? The answer is: those who have faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul writes in Galatians (which is a sort of abbreviated Romans), “So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3. 7). Jew or Gentile, it doesn’t matter: God has sovereignly chosen to save all those who trust in Christ Jesus for salvation.
That’s why Paul can go on in Romans 10 to say, “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For ‘everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved'” (10. 12-13). Reformed theology can make no sense at all of this wonderful, universal call to salvation. Whosoever will may come.
Paul’s burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God’s election but to broaden it. He wants to take in all who have faith in Christ Jesus regardless of their ethnicity. Election, then, is first and foremost a corporate notion: God has chosen for Himself a people, a corporate entity, and it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members of that corporate group destined to salvation.
Of course, given God’s total providence over the affairs of men, this is not the whole story. But Molinism makes good sense of the rest. John 6. 65 means that apart from God’s grace no one can come to God on his own. But there’s no suggestion there that those who refused to believe in Christ did not do so of their own free will. God knows in exactly what circumstances people will freely respond to His grace and places people in circumstances in which each one receives sufficient grace for salvation if only that person will avail himself of it. But God knows who will respond and who won’t. So again the fault does not lie with God that some persons freely resist God’s grace and every effort to save them; rather they like Israel fail to attain salvation because they refuse to have faith.
My view of election and Romans 9 is corporate election. Like middle knowledge, once you understand the concept of corporate election and re-read Romans 9, it turns out that the whole thing reads naturally. If you reject corporate election and middle knowledge because you like Calvinism, then there are lots of problems with the rest of the Bible, as William Lane Craig described here.
If you’d like to see Bill take on an atheist professor from the prestigious University of Michigan – Ann Arbor, who argues that Calvinist theology disproves the existence of a benevolent God, then read this debate.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“Once you understand the concept of corporate election and re-read Romans 9, it turns out that the whole thing reads naturally.”
You know, of course, that there are a lot of us who would disagree. ;)
LikeLike
Of course!
LikeLike
As Stan has been kind enough to bear with me and help me understand why he disagrees, I wonder, WK, if you have any posts of Craig debating this issue with a Calvinist? That would be helpful. To me, anyway.
LikeLike
I have debates linked in this post:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/understanding-calvinism-with-this-funny-little-quiz/
LikeLike
“God knows in exactly what circumstances people will freely respond to His grace and places people in circumstances in which each one receives sufficient grace for salvation if only that person will avail himself of it.”
The fact that there are still people who reject God, means that God (who is omniscient) put them in their circumstance even though He knew that they would reject Him. Hence: not all are meant to be saved.
Are we making our own decisions or are we merely acting in accordance to our preexisting circumstances?
The real question is; given that evil exists and it is because of evil that some people choose to reject God, and God allows evil to exist, means that some were not meant to be saved.
Hence: election still stands.
LikeLike
This is the approach of the Arminian/Molinist that always gives me concern. It appears the motivation for their approach, at least for some, is to produce a view of election, grace and salvation that is more palatable to, 1)the depraved who suppress the truth and, 2)those that don’t want to appear intellectually out of vogue with those who are depraved and suppress the truth.
I have always seen this approach as originating in philosophical presuppositions instead of biblical ones.
I would love to see James White debate WLC or Kenneth Keathley on this issue!
LikeLike
That’s quite a trick, divining the motivations of an entire class of theologians without a lick of support shown. Perhaps you could help us troglodytes a bit by providing some support?
Or perhaps, since you have “always seen this approach [..] originating in philosophical presuppositions in stead of biblical ones,” is it possible that you’ve never actually engaged with any Arminian ideas rather than Calvinist strawmen presentations of them?
LikeLike
Well, he’s right about me though… I really am a troglodyte. That’s why I didn’t say anything.
See:
I also bash my victims with my club and then gnaw their bones. Rrrraaaaaarrr!!!
LikeLike
Sorry to offend. Certainly not my intent.
First off, WLC is not a theologian he is a philosopher. As such, most of what I have read of his and heard of his does begin with philosophical presuppositions. And I am glad for this. His evidential apologetics is fantastic. And his philosophical argument for middle knowledge (along with Plantiga) is credited by many with reviving an interest in Molinism.
Secondly, Kenneth Keathley is a theologian, and in his book on Molinism, his very first chapter addresses the critique I alluded to in my post.
In fact, Keathley admits that, “Molinism is a precise philosophical system that arose out of a commitment to certain principles clearly taught in the Bible”. Keathley even goes on to say of WLC that WLC states that “middle knowledge is a reasonable inference from the witness of Scripture”. In other words, WLC believes his philosophical presupps on middle knowledge (not biblical presupps) can be inferred from the Scripture.
Keathley himself states that if “Molinism were simply the overlaying of a philosophical grid on top of Scripture, then it would be a very bad idea and should not be done”. The rest of his book is his argument that Molinism, while philosophically based, is not a bad idea and can be found in the Bible. Now, how well he makes that case is up to the reader.
Finally, I was just stating my opinion (which is not an uncommon one given the fact that Keathley addressed it in the first chapter of his book). Certainly not a reason for a fellow believer to take your tone and question my level of engagement. If I have misinterpreted your tone, I do apologize.
God Bless!
LikeLike
Sir, William Lane Craig has one of his Ph.Ds in theology. And one of his M.A.s is in Church History.
Philosophy is nothing but the application of the laws of logic to thinking.
LikeLike
I think you contradict yourself there.
“I have always seen this approach as originating in philosophical presuppositions instead of biblical ones.”
“In fact, Keathley admits that, “Molinism is a precise philosophical system that arose out of a commitment to certain principles clearly taught in the Bible”.”
Help me out here… That sure looks like biblical presuppositions looking for a philosophy that fits, rather than the other way around…
LikeLike
“Like”
LikeLike
Here’s something else that Brian will like:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/three-debates-on-calvinism-molinism-and-middle-knowledge/
James White! He’s your guy!
LikeLike
One thing of note any time a Calvinist brings up Romans 9, is to pay close attention to the verses they are using. Top Calvinist theologians (Carson, Grudem, Erickson) will all pull the same sleight of hand, and so those who are following do as well:
They end their verse selection at 9:23. Pick a language, any language, and you’ll note that they’re breaking up the section to best support their idea in the middle of a sentence. It divorces the text from the context which provides them a pretext for their proof-text. But good hermeneutics it is not.
I’ve confused a classroom full (well, 80% full) of reformed seminarians recently by pointing this out.
LikeLike
James, I have a question for you…
How do you interpret John 12:32?
LikeLike
I would interpret it alongside the entirety of the rest of the bible. :p
Here’s the problem with proof texting of finite verse sets, just as WLC was pointing out the problem of Romans 9 misuse above: Scripture is to be interpreted in light of scripture.
So when Jesus says that, “when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (ESV) we must understand this in the light of all of Scripture.
A Universalist/Unitarian would take that verse and say it means everyone goes to heaven. Weee!
Of course that would be a problem if we included in our bibles a saying of Jesus that if people don’t do what he commands then they will be cast out where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth… …oh. :(
So: The primary and most clear interpretation of John 12:32 is given in John 12:33, he was speaking of being raised up from the earth, to show what kind of death he was going to die. That said, we can’t ignore that he will be drawing *all* people to himself.
I think John 12:32 is but one of many instances which speak to an offer of salvation to all mankind (all being a very important word in. this verse, as well as others). I would also look at it alongside other verses that speak of atonement in much less particular terms than Calvinists systematize: Is. 53:6, Matt. 11:28, John 3:16ff, 1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10, Titus 2:11, 2 Pet. 2:1, 3:9, Rom. 5:12ff, 1 John 2:2.
LikeLike
James, you took offense at CMA assigning motivations to “an entire class of theologians”. You must know that comments like “Top Calvinist theologians … will all pull the same sleight of hand” will also be perceived as an unfair, unwarranted comment, right?
Personally (that is, without trying to insult anyone), I’m trying to figure out the concept of “corporate election” without “individual election”. So God ordains that there will be a “group” that is elect … but not that there will be any specific individuals in it. Who will they be? And if this “group” is ordained but not the individuals, wouldn’t it tend to nullify some of the promises to the elect? I mean, take, for instance, “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect?” (Rom 8:33). Well, that’s all well and good, but it means nothing to any individual because “elect” references a group, not a person, so individuals don’t have room to be assured by such a certainty. I also have trouble making sense of other Scriptures like Acts 13:48 that tells us “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Wait … I thought that no one was “appointed”; it’s just a “group”.
On the other hand, if individual election is true, then corporate election also makes sense. That is, if God chooses individuals, then, of course, He chooses a group comprised of those individuals. And all of those problems go away. At least … for me. But when I read Paul explaining biblical truth using the names of individuals, I assume he is talking about individuals. So when I read Paul explaining election in Romans 9 in terms of individuals, I assume he is talking about individual election … which consummates into a group (in the verses that follow). So I’m baffled at the accusation of “sleight of hand”. I’m not entirely sure that’s fair.
LikeLike
Touche and well stated.
That said, can you find me a Calvinist theologian who has developed their arguments using Romans 9 and who *doesn’t* cut the passage used at v. 23?
I wrote a research paper dealing with the fairly confused Calvinist responses to James Arminius’ accusation that Calvinism makes God the author and ultimate agent of evil. I assumed when I started said paper that the Calvinists would have a good response. I do not think it is so.
So it is by observation of actions of the named theologians, among others who are Calvinists but some might object to the title theologian (like John Piper), that I see that sleight of hand being used. It is also through classroom interaction on numerous occasions, both with Calvinist profs and students, in an institution that is ~80% faculty and ~60% students Calvinists, that indeed, every time Romans 9 comes up, it ends at 9:23.
So…. I’m not trying to divine intentions and motives as CMA does, but I’m reporting experiential observations.
So is it overstated to say that all will pull the same sleight of hand? Yes, I concede the point.
It would be much better to say that every single Calvinist prof and seminary student I have interacted with who uses Romans 9 to defend Calvinist dogmatics, cuts off the passage cited at 9:23, which is the middle of a sentence.
Better?
LikeLike
hmm. though, I do love WLC as a debater and a philosophical apologist, I do not agree with him theologically. Being a Calvinist myself, I obviously would haha. Though, I used to be an Arminian and advocated for it quite harshly…but that’s neither here nor there, I’m not going to appeal to my past experiences.
What I do want to point out though, 1 thing the atheist stated, and 1 thing that you, Scot, stated.
The Atheist: He argues that God is not benevolent because He did not save him, and argues that the Calvinist view of God is not loving at all. I think this stems from the humanistic view that all humanity has to hold a standard of ourselves that we are due something, that God owes us something of some sort. Scripture clearly teaches that the Cross would be a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles and it seems as if this person is using the Calvinistic view of God for the basis of his statements that Christianity is foolishness…if Scripture is true, I do think that this would give somewhat validity to the Calvinistic view of God since the unbeliever things Christianity is foolishness based upon the Reformed view of God (though, this doesn’t give full validation, but at least enough to make one think).
2) Scot, you stated, “My view of election and Romans 9 is corporate election. Like middle knowledge, once you understand the concept of corporate election and re-read Romans 9, it turns out that the whole thing reads naturally.” I, as a Calvinist, believe in corporate and individual election, and it reads naturally to me as well. Let us take the presupp apologetics view. Pressups deal with worldview apologetics, stating that it is not about the evidences but rather the thought process that interprets the evidences…usually used in the debate for the existence of God (used by Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen…etc.) but I would like to use it right now if I may. You, as a non-Reformed Christian, use your worldview to interpret the Bible, as I do a a Calvinist, though we see the same verse, though we both pray going into Scripture, we still yet get a different view…which shows that either one of us or the both of us do not leave it at only Scripture and prayer but rather bring in other baggage into the Scriptures to define them for us. Whether it be our too high view of humanity, whether it be our want for all people to know the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether it be a gospel of fairness…whatever it may be…we take these things and eisegete them into Scripture. So, all I wanted to say was that as a Calvinist and as a right view of individual election (not what some who are not Reformed claims it to be but rather what it actually is) reads naturally as well.
Hope y’all have a great day!
LikeLike
I think WLC completely misunderstands “free will,” by not understanding “desire” in it’s context. Does God take us kicking and screaming to the cross? No. Rather, God changes our heart, that is, our will, that we desire Him. Our eyes are opened by the Creator and we can see Him and know Him. And to know Him is to love Him.
LikeLike
Hi, WLC is spot on with his exposition in Romans 9. What many Calvanists refuse to accept is that God here is speaking about the election of the nation of Israel and not individuals. R9 starts with ISrael in the first six verses concludes with Israel in the final verses, and the flow of thought never shifts from Israel to indivduals anywhere in the chapter. The context calls for proper exposition, and not preconcieved ideas of fallible man. Rom 10v13 “Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” Calvanists can never reconcile the two concepts… NEVER! Why? Are the scriptures irreconcilable? The fault always lies with faulty interpretation and never the bible itself.
LikeLike
Yeah, um, no, any sound exposition of Romans 9 would show it to clearly speak of individuals, not Israel. The passage is chocked full of language that would only make sense if speaking of individuals. Read: “12 Reasons Why Romans 9 is About Individual Election, Not Corporate Election” http://bit.ly/OcANtC
LikeLike
I think the reason why so many struggle with the notion of corporate election is that they don’t have a good understanding of Old Testament election. Even Piper had to admit that the thrust of OT election is corporate. Individuals were chosen to serve a purpose.
It is that concept an understanding that the NT authors would have written from.
It took me reading Romans 9 five times consecutively with the admonishment not to read in individual salvation before I finally saw what was really happening.
LikeLike
I KNOW! At the very least Calvinists should be AWARE of this interpretation of Romans 8 and 9 when they are reading it. It works fine, I think.
LikeLike