As many know, the last two years I have been teaching a weekly women’s Bible study at RTS Charlotte designed to reach the community outside the formal seminary classroom. Every Wednesday, 120 plus women gather together to study the book of Romans, and it has been a delight.
We made it to the beginning of Romans 11 before stopping for the winter break, and we will resume in the Spring. If you are interested in seeing the videos and getting the handouts, you can go here.
Of course, as everyone knows, one of the major themes in Romans 9-11 is the doctrine of election. In fact, in Rom 11:7-8 Paul says again:
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened. As it written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see.
In light of a passage like this, it is natural for folks to wonder whether God really wants people to be saved. Why would he “harden” someone and send them a “spirit of stupor” if he wants to save them?
But, our answer to these questions depends on what we mean when we say that God “wants” something. And when we talk about what God wants we inevitably must talk about the “will” of God. And this is a subject that requires some careful nuance.
Historically speaking, theologians have distinguished between three different sorts of “wills” for God:
1. Decretive will. This refers simply to what God decrees or ordains by his sovereign will. And we know from Eph 1:11 that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. So, in this sense, we can say that a hurricane, for example, is God’s “will.”
2. Preceptive will. This refers simply to what God has commanded, his precepts. So, God’s “will” is that we honor our parents, keep the sabbath holy, not commit adultery, etc.
3. Dispositional will. This refers to that which pleases or delights God. E.g., “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord God” (Ezekiel 18:23)
When these three “wills” of God are considered, we can see that God, from one perspective, does not “want” (dispositional will) the wicked to perish. But, from another perspective, God has decreed that some will be saved and some will not (decretive will).
This is not that different than what we do even on a human level. A human judge in a court of law may not “want” to send a criminal to prison for life, but he will still do so because he is a just judge. So, in one sense he doesn’t “want” to do it; but then in another sense he does “want” to do it.
In the end, therefore, there is no contradiction between the doctrine of election and the fact that God does not delight in the death of the wicked. For this reason the second half of Ezekiel 18:23 is true: “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declare the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?“
John MacRobert says
Hi Dr Kruger. Any possibility of downloading audio files of your lectures? Here in Zimbabwe Internet is not good enough for watching videos. Thanks and grace to you
John
John Heth says
I think that the notion that God’s decretive will trumps His dispositional will displays flawed logic. While 1 Tim 2:4 (“who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth) would be an expression of His dispositional will in your view, His decretive will in your view would have Him assigning the vast majority of His created beings (95%+) to everlasting torment in hell because He failed to make Christ’s atoning death efficient for them by granting them repentance and faith. That’s a hard “truth” to accept.
Greg says
I agree with your last sentence, and it’s the hardest thing I grapple with in my faith. But I have to remember that (1) my difficulty accepting a fact doesn’t in any way affect whether or not it is true, and (2) if it is indeed true, I have no right as a creature to question the creator (which is the drive home point of Romans 9 on this issue).
What I can say for certain is this: We all deserve death, and punishing 95% of us is not wrong or mean. The fact that any are saved at all is what really blows me away, especially if the cost is the life of his Son.
Dingess Ed says
Does the logic appear flawed because it is a hard truth to accept or is it a hard truth to accept because the logic appears flawed? This goes to our reason for rejecting the doctrine of election. If we eliminate all paradox from Christian theology, there wouldn’t be much left. For instance, we would start with the Trinity, then the God-man, and so on and so forth. Does God possess the ability to decree that something He hates actually exist? We see clearly that God decreed the fall of man into sin, but that the fall of man was at the same time, displeasing to God. Both are true. How do we reconcile these? I am afraid they are beyond human reason. That is why revelation serves as our sole authority for truth, rather than fallen, finite human reason. We would say that our knowledge is analogical, not univocal.
Jennifer says
Thank you so much for this! If you can please help me to understand a little further because I am often a bit slow – in the case of the criminal in the courtroom, the criminal made a choice and must deal with the consequences of that choice. However, the Romans passage you referenced, and others, seem to support that we cannot choose to turn to God unless He wills it, thus, “the rest were hardened”. If His will is that all be saved, why does He not turn all our hearts to Him, similar to what He describes in Ez 11:19? I know, for myself, I would not have turned to Him unless He pursued me – is that not His desire for all people? Yet, Romans 9:21-23 seems to say that some are made for destruction and wrath. This is chilling, and the only way I have found to reconcile it is to trust is the WHOLE revelation of who God is. Your thoughts on this would be a blessing to me – but don’t feel the need to post this comment publicly if you feel it my trouble someone else. Thank you for your time!
Allen Barnes says
Pretty good article, but I don’t agree with your analogy of a judge not wanting to send someone to jail, yet doing so because He is a just judge, in the same way God’s will works. A judge upholds the law and acts against his disposition because he must do so – the law is above the judge and he is answerable to it. The judge did not create the law, and is himself subject to the law. Whereas with God – the law is not above Him. He is not answerable to it. He, in fact, created it, and IS the standard Himself. Whatever He does is good and just, simply because He does it. When He commanded Abraham to kill his son, it was good and right and just for Abraham to obey that, and it was good and right and just for God to command it. Those same principles do not apply to an earthly judge.
Nelson Banuchi says
Thoughts that pop up immediately in reading this:
– One need not deny that God wants all to be saved while at the same time affirming God gave certain ones over to “spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see,” especially when texts such as Romans 11:22-24,26,31-32; 1:21-32; Matthew 13:12; 25:29.
I’m not familiar with all the history and pros and cons about notions that slice up God’s will in two or three portions, but I will suggest that if you mean God never intended the salvation of a certain person because he willed to damn that person according to his “good pleasure” while, at the same time, he moans over the damnation of that same person, then you are positing a God who either seems at odds with his own self or whose feelings of love for lost men are feigned.
Mackenzie says
” then you are positing a God who either seems at odds with his own self or whose feelings of love for lost men are feigned.”
Exactly. God is either confused and schizophrenic (“I genuinely want to save this person, but I am also causing this person to be damned. Oh no!”), or just outright lying (“I SAY I want to save you, but in reality, i created you for the sole purpose of damning you from all eternity”).
it should be obvious to all that neither are acceptable.
anaquaduck says
In the first place we need to know our own state & how God sees us, we also need to know He is merciful & able to save & will not tolerate sin.
We do not hold God to account. God is not confused nor was Jesus when He wept over Jerusalem, neither is God a liar, that would be Satan.
Its easy to jump to a human mental condition & try to pin it on God but in reality there is so much we dont know & God certainly doesnt suffer a condition because of sin.
The gospel demonstrated in Christ is what we need to hear. If that is a lie then there is no point believing at all…but we know it is not a lie.
God is the judge of all the earth, turning to Christ can free us from the bond of death & decay with all its misery. In all of this it would be foolish of mere mortals in a fallen state to lecture God & take the higher moral ground, yet this is how humanity reasons when it comes to salvation.
This is what the Apostle Paul came to see after meeting Christ on the road to Damascus. God shows himself to be forgiving & merciful, not paranoid, confused & in need of medication.
And the beauty is God is following through on His promises. Sin will be defeated & there will be an end to suffering for the earth & its people living in darkness if we turn to Him. Thats what God wants us to know.
Can we really tell God what he should & shouldnt do as if we are the judge…?
nbanuchi says
No one is judging God’s behavior, advising what he should or should not do. First, you are essentially giving the worn out argument of “Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?” and do not realize that such an argument, if applied in defense of Calvinism, can be legitimately used to defend by any opposing theological argument. Second, and more importantly, we are not judging God character but explaining God’s character, his intentions and behavior, as he has revealed it in the Bible.
As you say, “God shows himself to be forgiving & merciful,” however, Reformed Calvinism, in their explanation of the varied wills of God, explain his character in such a way as to, at least, wonder if he is “paranoid, confused & in need of medication.”
anaquaduck says
Rom 9. & Eph 1. will never wear out as long as God is around…in other words it will never wear out.
Yes we can wonder about God but we should also wonder about ourselves & our own limitedness in understanding before jumping to our own conclusions.
Its not so much a “who are you to talk back to God”…we all do that anyway, at least in our hearts…Its God has said something that goes against our sense of justice. Even though he is right to hold humanity responsible for the original sin.
…………
Arminians have there own dilemma anyway…. can we really resist an all powerful God ? Why doesnt He just save everyone anyway if He wills none to perish. He has the power to soften the heart of the Apostle Paul…why not everybody else ?
So maybe things are not so straight forward…as we grapple with Scripture. Much we are agreed upon yet differences remain & God will reveal all at a time of His own choosing as we learn to conform to His will so mercifully revealed in Jesus.
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
ajaquaduck:
Arminianism may have some “dilemmas” but the question can we really resist an all powerful God is not one of them. Nor is the question; why doesn’t He just save everyone.
In Arminianism we reject the presupposition that God can only be sovereign if He has decreed everything that will ever happen (absolute/meticulous sovereignty or divine determinism). God is totally in control and sovereign yet has chosen to limit Himself in creating people with free will. The ability to make choices contrary to His will. That is the only reasonable explanation for sin and evil. It is also what makes true love and a relationship possible.
Thus God gives us grace to be able to respond and to understand our sinful condition and our need for a Savior but does not irresistibly and unconditionally save us. He saves us based on the condition He in His sovereignty set: faith, which is our grace enabled ability to accept and love God or to reject Him.
nbanuchi says
Agreed
Mackenzie says
Oh no, we don’t hold God to account..but surely we can do Him the honor of taking Him at his word.
We non-Calvinists take God at His word when he says he desires all men to be saved. We take Him at His word when he says that He wills that none should perish. We take Him at His word when He weeps for Jerusalem and wishes that they would come to Him. We take Him at His word when He tells us that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
We do God the honor of taking Him at His word. It is the Calvinists who do Him the dishonor of twisting His words so that they are no longer true, that he somehow “desires” a man to be saved while eternally predestining that same man to be damned.
Rob Dewar says
I see two ways out of the trap you’ve set for “Calvinists” – either we have to believe that no one will be damned (his desire for everyone to be saved will happen), or we have to believe that God is not all-powerful (his desire won’t be fulfilled because he for some reason can’t). Which are you following (or did you find another)? At first glance, it seems to me that either one is not actually “taking Him at his word”, but I want to know which one to pursue to see if it actually is or not.
Also, note that the Calvinist position incorporates all of the same things you do – we take Him at His word when He says that He wills that none should perish, etc, we just also take Him at His word when He says that some will perish. We take Him at His word when He wishes Jerusalem would come to Him – and we take Him at His word when He says that He was the one who blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. I’m not a Calvinist because I’m ignoring what the Bible says – I’m a Calvinist because I’m trying to follow the whole thing.
Mackenzie says
@ Rob Dewar
The trap is entirely of the Calvinists’ own making: It is they who posit a “secret” will of God which absolutely trumps His revealed will and makes His revealed will meaningless.
Throughout all of Scripture, we see humanity resisting the will of God, which God makes evident through lamentation and appeals to return: Genesis 5:7, Jeremiah 19:5, and Matthew 23:37-39 are simply a few of the most explicit. Note in Matthew 23 that Jesus EXPLICITLY states that the reason that he has not gathered Jerusalem in is that “[they] were not willing”…that is, that he DESIRED something for them, and that they RESISTED that desire.
God desires all to be saved, but he does not force. The whole Bible is God giving humanity the choice between life and death: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Deuteronomy 30:19 He desires us to choose life, and “choose” is the operative word there.
This is all I’ll say on the matter: Nobody will be convinced here, and anyone who is not already a convinced Calvinist will rightfully be repulsed by hearing that God both “desires” to save people while simultaneously creating them for the sole purpose of eternal damnation.
Greg says
If someone raises livestock for food, cares for them for years, and then is genuinely sad when selling them to the butcher (which was always the plan), would you consider that person to be inconsistent or false?
(Note: I don’t know that I would apply that analogy to God, but it does convey the type of situation I specifically wanted to ask you about.)
Mackenzie says
A couple problems with that:
1) Necessity. The livestock farmer MUST sell his livestock, or he has no livelihood and cannot live. Therefore he can feel the pain caused by a situation outside his control. In the Calvinist system, God is under no such necessity: He creates ALL situations.
2) Much more important. The livestock farmer is raising these animals up for the sole purpose of being sold and butchered. Therefore, if he said that he “desired for them to be saved” or that he “wished that none would perish,” he would indeed be lying, since his EVERY action, beginning with his acquisition of them, would be in direct violation of that supposed desire.
Nelson Banuchi says
Great response; wish I thought of it…especially #2!
Rick says
What if it was of necessity, once He chose to display His glory to His creation?
Greg says
1) I agree with Nick… there are aspects of God’s character–such as his justice–that could not be displayed without people being punished for their sin (which is the reason Romans 9 gives for Food doing what he does).
2) This is exactly what this article was written for, if I’m not mistaken. And it’s the reason for saying “this is a subject that requires some careful nuance.” I can easily imagine a farmer saying “I wish that none would perish,” but that doesn’t mean he will stop raising livestock. It is similar to me saying “I want junk food” and then eating a salad instead. Or I can tell my future kids “I want to let you play with your friends,” and then ground then when they continue to disobey. It doesn’t make me a liar, it just means that what I wish could happen must be subjected to what needs to happen.
Why it’s it so necessary to let so many perish? I don’t know, and it breaks my heart. It’s by far the hardest question I’ve ever faced. But at the end of the day, God’s thoughts are higher than mine, and I have to live with that and trust him.
Greg says
*Rick, not Nick
Mackenzie says
If God ultimately creates people SPECIFICALLY FOR damnation just to fulfill his glory, then it is false for God to explicitly state that he “desires” men to be saved, or that he “desires” for them not to perish…ESPECIALLY since the Bible uses those statements as motivation for actions.
2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
1 Timothy 2:3-4: After commanding Christians to pray for all people, Paul gives the reason: ” This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
The Calvinist must, by necessity, reduce these verses to mere “wishful thinking” on the part of God: “desires” in name only, that do nothing to impact God’s actual actions towards individuals. However, the verses themselves do not allow that. The verses themselves treat it as REAL desire, which serves as MOTIVATION for action: In 2 Peter, God’s actions are influenced by his desire for all men to reach repentance, and in 1 Timothy, that same desire on the part of God is meant to dictate OUR actions towards all men. This could not be the case if this “desire” was something that actually CONFLICTED with God’s ultimate purposes (as is the case with Calvinism).
For your #2…again, do you not see the problem? In the case of your child, your response is dictated BY CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE YOUR CONTROL. Let’s make it a bit more similar to the calvinist system:
1: You tell your child that you desire to let them play with their friends, but that if they disobey, they won’t be able to.
2 (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART): You so order everything in your child’s life, INCLUDING THEIR THOUGHTS AND MOTIVATIONS, so as to IRRESISTIBLY CAUSE them to continue to disobey.
3: You ground them as “punishment”.
Do you not see the crucial difference? Does that REALLY seem like your initial statement of desire is true, if you secretly manipulate events so as to render that “desire” impossible?
Greg says
I guess I’ll have to reply here, the threads are not infinite in depth. Also, feel free to reply for the sake of other readers, but due to time limitations this will be my last comment. Thank you so much for the conversation!
I see your point, yes. And honestly I’m not sure how to resolve the issue. Scripture clearly teaches that a person is saved if, and only if, he is chosen by God beforehand:
(John 15:16 ESV)
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
(2 Timothy 1:9 ESV)
who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
(Romans 8:28-30 ESV)
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
(John 6:37-39 ESV)
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
(John 6:44 ESV)
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(Acts 13:48 ESV)
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
(John 6:65 ESV)
And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
These verses are hard to explain away by Armenians. But then of course you have these verses, difficult for some Calvinists, which clearly show a free invitation, a genuine human choice, and a divine desire that all people choose life:
(John 3:16 ESV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
(John 7:37-38 ESV)
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
(John 11:25-26 ESV)
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 1:12 ESV)
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
And the two you shared…
(2 Peter 3:9 ESV)
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
(1 Timothy 2:3-4 ESV)
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
So here’s the big point: You cannot believe half of these scriptures at the expense of the other half. We cannot say “God desires all to be saved, so he can’t really say that all he chooses come to him, because not all are saved.” Neither can we say “God chooses the elect, and he doesn’t choose everybody, so therefore he must not really want all to be saved.” Both of those contradict scripture.
And past that, I’m lost. I don’t know how God desires everyone to be saved but doesn’t choose all. You could say he is a liar, but all other evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. You could call him unloving, but his sacrifice on the cross blows that out of the water. The truth I finally land on is that he is much, MUCH wiser than me, and I just don’t get it. And as a creature, it is not my place or my right to judge his decisions.
(Romans 9:19-24 ESV)
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Mackenzie says
Greg, I appreciate your gracious tone. I’ll just say one thing:
Arminians do not “explain away” the verses you bring up: We just explain them. Indeed, we believe we explain them better than the Calvinist interpretation: We believe that while they may seem to have one meaning when taken in complete isolation and when read out of the specific cultural and historical context, their correct meaning is entirely different.
I know that’s probably what you meant, but “explain away” implies that we’re willing to settle for ignoring these verses while just talking about the verses we like. I don’t know what, if any, research you’ve done on Arminianism, but I’d highly recommend that it include actual Arminians. You may be surprised!
nbanuchi says
Oh, so you are saying that God’s of self-contradictory wills; that on the one hand, it pleases him to intend by decree the eternal damnation of certain individuals, yet, on the other hand, does not please him to intend by decree the eternal damnation of those same certain individuals.
So, we can say God intends to do what he does not want to intend to do, is pleased to act in a way that he is not pleased to act, and joyfully decrees what he is anguished to decree.
And the God of Reformed Calvinism is not schizophrenic or, at least, a *little* confused?
I will happily note, that is not the character of God I read in the Bible.
Greg says
That’s why this article was written… to discuss the nuances between “intend” and “intend,” if you will. See my above reply, but it’s quite possible to genuinely want something and then not do it without having multiple personalities. =)
nbanuchi says
Just saw this now…
No, Greg, it is not an issues of “nuances between ‘inten[t]’ and ‘intend’,” primarily because in Reformed Calvinism, those God never had the intention to save those whom he elected for damnation by “passing over” them. So, God’s intent to damn certain individuals is consistent what with he intends to do to damn them eternally.
MC says
Hello,
I would say most theologians view Romans 9-11 as dealing with the theme of Jews and Gentiles being recipients of salvation and whether God has cast away His people (the Israelites) or been faithless in His promises to them. Paul mentions Jewish/Gentile issues (circumcision, Jews, Israel, Greeks, Gentiles) 79 times in Romans, more than grace and faith combined(!).
God decrees that all who yield to Him will be blessed in the dominant Potter metaphor of the Old Testament (Jeremiah 18). Those who resist Him will be shaped into a vessel of condemnation. As God gives the grace to turn to Him to all men (1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:1, John 12:42), some reject Him obstinantly in spite of His willingness to bless them, a point God makes in Romans 10:21 – “All day long I have stretched out my hands to a stubborn people.” So at a certain point, “God will not be mocked”, and He judicially hardens them. They are by their own obstinate refusal not formed into a vessel for blessing but are “marred in the potters hands” (Jeremiah 18), so “the potter form[s] it into another vessel as seemed good to Him.” He would rather be exalted in showing mercy (Isaiah 30:18), but He is willing to let them be hardened in their stubbornness and shattered as an object lesson to others (Jeremiah 19). There are many evil things God did not plan (Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5), but He did plan to give mankind real freedom, which we often abuse, and God will judge.
God is the Potter, and He won’t be mocked, but human clay does have a say. God initially desires to shape all for blessing, but will “change [his] intentions” (Jeremiah 18) and shape a vessel for condemnation. Persistent unbelief and resistance to the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51) will result in being “broken off” (Romans 11) unless they do not continue in unbelief, for “God is able to graft them in again.”
Cara Grant says
Do you suppose that by choosing not to clarify this issue (and He could easily have done so) God intends to keep us focussing on what really matters… our own personal response to Him?
Nelson Banuchi says
First of all, I believe God did clarify the issue; it is Reformed Calvinism that muddies the water.
Two, the notion that God wants us to focus on “our own personal response to Him” seems self-centered (which seems the gist of Calvinist teaching, anyway).
Three, if as you posit, the focus should be on our own salvation, that does not make sense seeing as how Reformed Calvinism adheres to the doctrine of a “perseverance of the saints,” which teaches that one’s salvation is secured and can never be forfeit to where he is damned eternally.
anaquaduck says
Perseverance of the saints is not to be looked at on its though, it is part of an overall summary in direct response to Arminius’s followers. Perseverance of the saints does not rule out human responsability as God calls his children to walk by faith & not by sight. Calvinism was a response to Arminianism not a Catechism on Scripture.The Heidelburg Catechism would better address reformed theology.
You havnt really stated how God has clarified the issue & how can focusing on walking in obedience be self centered. That seems really bizzare to me.God actually calls us to examine ourselves.
Scripture warns about being lax & casual when it comes to God & the deceitfulness of sin. Reformed theology focuses on God & gives Him the glory. Salvation comes from Him, the author & perfector of our faith.
Nelson Banuchi says
1. In the Calvinist Reformed scheme, one who is saved is automatically never to perish because, essential, (a) God decreed his salvation, and (b) God decreed all events and the acts of the person to secure the decree regarding his salvation.
2. You said, “our own personal response to Him?” Therefore, you are positing the focus on one’s own salvation rather than God’s glory and the salvation of others; and that is what makes it self-centered.
That is why the usual Calvinist Reformed response, which I receive, to God’s decree to damn others is basically, “That’s okay; I’m elect,” wherein follows, “Who are you, O man…?”
Respectfully, it seems to me that any claim to Reformed theology’s focusing on God’s glory is illusory.
3. The issue regarding eternal damnation is clearly revealed in the Bible; thatis, we are told why men as sinners are damned. It is mystery.
anaquaduck says
1. No its not automatic at all. It began before the creation of the world. God initiated it as he did with the Apostle Paul who had no intention of or interest in Jesus what so ever…in fact the opposite. Jesus began the good work & He will finish it.
2. The personal response is evidence of the Spirit at work…God making a new creation. It is recognition of regeneration, giving God the glory…hardly self centered.It doesnt say I decided to follow Jesus & I worked it all out by myself.
3. Romans 9.. Eph 1. Makes it very clear that before anyone has done anything good or bad (Jacob & Esua) God’s choice in election stands.Its what the Christians in Rome needed to hear.It is also very humbling & doesnt go around saying its OK as if nothing else matters. It is the begining of walking by faith & not by sight.
We do talk back to God, sometimes murmuring & complaining as we struggle with sin. but we also pray that the gospel call will go out into the world as God calls His children out of the darkness & into the light of His glorious kingdom.
Like I said, you would be better off exploring a reformed catechism or confession instead of using the debate regarding the followers of Arminius.Lest you keep creating false representation.
PS It’s really great the Dr Kruger is out & about sharing the gospel in the community. Sharing true hope in a world that has lost its way in knowing what is true & what is false.God has done great things.
Nelson Banuchi says
You say, “While it is true that he feels sadness, it is also true that it is his pleasure to defend and execute justice (e.g. 1 Sam 2:25).”
However, you are missing the point of the objection.
– We can agree that God is anguished (not just “saddened”) over the death of the wicked.
– We can agree that God wills to punish the wicked.
In these two affirmations there is no self-contradiction posited within the will and character of God.
The problem is the self-contradiction posited to the divine will and nature of God by suggesting that, according too Reformed Calvinism, on the one hand, it pleases God to decree the eternal damnation of certain persons and, on the other hand, be anguished at the damnation of those decreed for damnation.
Let’s put the problem in simpler terms:
– It is God’s pleasure to intend and execute the eternal damnation of Mr. Sinner.
– God does not take pleasure in his decree and execution of Mr. Sinner.
God’s will and desires may be multifaceted,, however, they are not self-contradictory.
Joey Henry says
Hi Nelson,
I encourage you to read the book by Dr. Piper and the article I’ve written. It may provide you information on why many Christians are reformed in thwir theology.
To answer your question regarding God’s decree, you may want to check what reformed christians believe under the sections God’s Eternal Decree, Providence and Free Will. See link:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
God chose to create a world where people perish. He could have created a world where such condition does not exist. Or he could have intervened in each and every person’s being so they would believe and be saved. He can do so! But he did not. This is God’s prerogative. And he tells us in his Word, that he takes pleasure in all he does. But, he also tells us that he is saddened (or anguished) when the wicked perish although we know that he chose a world where that condition exist and that therefore, he is pleased by that decision of his.
Now you argue that it seems that God is contradicting himself. God feels pleasure and pain at the same event: the perishing of the wicked. But even us, lesser complex emotional beings can have multifaceted emotions of a single event and we don’t consider it contradictory. For example, the on the death of my grandma, I feel sadness and pleasure at the same time. Sadness, because we will miss her so much. Pleasure because finally, she is relieved of pain from cancer. Complex emotional responses that may seem contradictory are not contradictory when properly seen in its context. God is far more glorious and complex than us and he reveals such complexity of his emotions in his word which moves us to worshio for such condescension. If I can allow humans to have seeming contradictory emotions to an event without labelling them schizophrenic, I can definitely accomodate what God tells me in his Word about how he feels when people perish.
Hope this helps you understand where we are coming from.
Regards,
Joey Henry
Joey Henry says
Thanks Dr. Kruger. I think Dr. Piper expounded the issues well in his book. For those interested, this is free:
http://www.desiringgod.org/books/does-god-desire-all-to-be-saved
In my own study, I wrote the following:
Ezekiel 33:11 says that God is not pleased for the death of the wicked. From this, we can deduce that God does feel sadness for the one that perishes. The complexity of God’s emotion should be taken into account. While it is true that he feels sadness, it is also true that it is his pleasure to defend and execute justice (e.g. 1 Sam 2:25). He will punish the wicked (Exo 34:6; Num 14:18). In Scripture, God’s will or desire seems to be multifaceted but ultimately God must follow his ultimate desire, i.e. his highest commitment that brings him glory. In other words, as long as God’s desires are not equal or that he has his highest commitment, there is no contradiction in saying that God feels sadness for the death of the wicked and yet God ultimately desired to rescue a people for himself.
http://thessalonians516.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/2-peter-39-and-gods-will-to-save-all.html?m=1
Nelson Banuchi says
(I may have posted this on the wrong reply box, so please accept my apology if this is a double-entry)
You say, “While it is true that he feels sadness, it is also true that it is his pleasure to defend and execute justice (e.g. 1 Sam 2:25).”
However, you are missing the point of the objection.
– We can agree that God is anguished (not just “saddened”) over the death of the wicked.
– We can agree that God wills to punish the wicked.
In these two affirmations there is no self-contradiction posited within the will and character of God.
The problem is the self-contradiction posited to the divine will and nature of God by suggesting that, according too Reformed Calvinism, on the one hand, it pleases God to decree the eternal damnation of certain persons and, on the other hand, be anguished at the damnation of those decreed for damnation.
Let’s put the problem in simpler terms:
– It is God’s pleasure to intend and execute the eternal damnation of Mr. Sinner.
– God does not take pleasure in his decree and execution of Mr. Sinner.
God’s will and desires may be multifaceted,, however, they are not self-contradictory.
Rick says
Where does it say that God takes pleasure in the damnation of sinners?
nbanuchi says
Did I say it said the Bible teaches it is God’s pleasure to damn sinners?
I don’t think so…if I did, show me where, please. Thanks!
Rick says
Well then there is no problem. And where does reformed Calvinism (or Calvin) make that assertion?
anaquaduck says
And yet God also laughs & scoffs at the wicked. Psalm 2:4. Is God wrong to laugh at something wicked, or contradicting himself. Or is He conveying the futility of going against His plan of salvation & expressing it in human terms like how we may scoff at something that appears ridiculous.
So we should be able to agree that God also laughs at the wicked.
Aaron says
Could you explain this for me, please?
“Now Eli was very old when he heard about everything that his sons used to do to all the people of Israel and how they used to have sex with the women who were stationed at the entrance to the tent of meeting. He said to them, ‘Why do you behave in this way? For I hear about these evil things from all these people. This ought not to be, my sons! For the report that I hear circulating among the LORD’s people is not good. If a man sins against a man, one may appeal to God on his behalf. But if a man sins against the LORD, who then will intercede for him?’ But Eli’s sons would not listen to their father, for the LORD had decided [willed; desired; pleased to do] to kill them.” (1 Samuel 2:22-25 NET)
anaquaduck says
Hi Aaron,
Can I explain 1 Sam 2:22-25 in relation to what ? Psalm 24 or Psalm 51 or Rom 9 ?
In light of Dr Krugers post I would say it is God’s decree & justice. Eli sons went against God’s precepts, their behaviour was wicked.In a broader context…not all Israel are Israel. Faith is not about a human birth right & faith & obedience go hand in hand.
But overall God’s grace as shown to David (despite personal sin) & to the apostle Paul as he persecuted the early NT church reveals God’s mercy & salvation.
I am not a trained minister & know little if not any Hebrew.
I would think there is a good taking pleasure in & a bad/evil taking pleasure or delight in. In terms of justice God would be pleased to cleanse the temple worship & punishment can set a good example to others like a warning or reminder.
Enter Samuel as Israel partakes in the ups & downs of spiritual warfare & eventually the Saviour comes to pay the price for justice must be done. God was also pleased to effectually lay down His life for those that God had given them.
I hope this helps
Aaron says
I addressed that to the wrong person, but thanks for the reply anyway! 🙂
Joey Henry says
Hi Nelson,
I encourage you to read the book by Dr. Piper and the article I’ve written. It may provide you information on why many Christians are reformed in thwir theology.
To answer your question regarding God’s decree, you may want to check what reformed christians believe under the sections God’s Eternal Decree, Providence and Free Will. See link:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
God chose to create a world where people perish. He could have created a world where such condition does not exist. Or he could have intervened in each and every person’s being so they would believe and be saved. He can do so! But he did not. This is God’s prerogative. And he tells us in his Word, that he takes pleasure in all he does. But, he also tells us that he is saddened (or anguished) when the wicked perish although we know that he chose a world where that condition exist and that therefore, he is pleased by that decision of his.
Now, you argue that it seems that God is contradicting himself. God feels pleasure and pain at the same event: the perishing of the wicked. But even us, lesser complex emotional beings can have multifaceted emotions of a single event and we don’t consider it contradictory. For example, the on the death of my grandma, I feel sadness and pleasure at the same time. Sadness, because we will miss her so much. Pleasure because finally, she is relieved of pain from cancer. Complex emotional responses that may seem contradictory are not contradictory when properly seen in its context. God is far more glorious and complex than us and he reveals such complexity of his emotions in his word which moves us to worshio for such condescension. If I can allow humans to have seeming contradictory emotions to an event without labelling them schizophrenic, I can definitely accomodate what God tells me in his Word about how he feels when people perish.
Hope this helps you understand where we are coming from.
Regards,
Joey Henry
Jerry Sambrook says
Great debate on God:s will ,well presented on both sides, of course one side is wrong.God is not willing that any should perish is also written in an epistle that starts out > To Gods elect>which in the case of this group is spot on. Jesus living and being in his human form was fully able to cry out for all people or rebuke those whom He wanted to.
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
After reading this post I decided to offer a response/rebuttal to Dr. Kruger’s defense of WCF and Calvinism.
In a nutshell:
It is not a contradiction to have conflicting desires. However, only one of these desires can be acted upon. God might desire that none perish, but He did not act on that desire. Instead God, according to the WCF, chose to act against that desire and planned to deliberately withhold mercy/grace so that some would perish.
…
We are all left puzzled as to why God would explicitly tell us about His good intentions if He chose to act against them.
The details:
http://deadheroesdontsave.com/2015/11/30/does-god-want-all-to-be-saved-a-response-to-dr-kruger/
anaquaduck says
1 Peter 2:8-10.
I dont accept the idea that humanity has free will but appreciate the dialouge.
I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew
he moved my soul to seek him, seeking me.
It was not I that found, O Savior true;
no, I was found of thee.
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
If we have no free will then why does anyone do what they do?
If we have no free will then why are we responsible for our actions?
Why do people resist the will of God (Matt 23:37; Acts 7:51)?
Why does God tell people to choose (Deut 30:19)?
anaquaduck says
God alone can measure the depth & motive of the heart according to Scripture. Rom 3. Jer 17:9. Pelagius argued that our hearts were not that bad, not really dead in & enslaved to sin & humanity was still pretty discerning spiritually, similar to Arminian thought in a way.
We are all accountable before God & stand condemned unless we repent & turn to Christ. That is the message that we all need to hear. We need to consider our actions (which cannot save) & consider Christ…there is no “I am not accountable for my actions”
The church is given that task, to proclaim the gospel, the spirit does the rest.
Saul on the road to Damascus was persecuting the early church. He had no desire or interest in Jesus yet Jesus revealed irresistible undeserved favour/grace.
God often gave His people a general call to faith but having said that not all Israel were Israel. Rom 9:6-16.
So many appear to resist the call(general) but others are effectually called. John 6:44. John 6:55.
Have you heard of the covenant of grace ? http://www.opc.org/cce/covenant.html
I appreciate proof texts dont always make it clearer. To get really into it I have a book which provides greater detail & argument. It has been a while since I have looked at this in depth….
http://www.amazon.com/The-Five-Points-Calvinism-Documented/dp/0875528279
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
@anaquduck
The the depth & motive of the heart would be the basis upon which people make decisions. We have the freedom to choose which of our (often competing) motives we will act upon, which become the basis for making a libertarian free will choice (LFW).
If every action is predetermined by God w/o the benefit of foreknowledge, then why do we do what we do? How does God insure our actions do not deviate from the plan?
You wrote:
Pelagius argued that our hearts were not that bad, not really dead in & enslaved to sin & humanity was still pretty discerning spiritually, similar to Arminian thought in a way.
Many Calvinists seem to confuse Pelagius w/ Arminian thought. They (Pelaigians and Arminians) are alike in that they acknowledge LFW decisions and reject divine determinism. They differ in that Arminian’s affirm “total depravity” (T) while Pelagians deny it.
Calvinists and Arminians are similar in not only affirming T. Both also teach that an act of grace must precede a person’s response of faith. This preceding grace is what operates within a person to overcome the effects of T.
Where Calvininsts and Arminians differ is whether the grace to overcome T is resistible. Arminians affirm that it is, Calvinists reject that idea. For the Calvinist anyone resisting the grace that precedes a faith response means that that person was not elect and therefore did not receive saving, irresistible grace. Instead the received common grace which does not enable a person to have a positive response to the Gospel.
Joey Henry says
You said:
God has repeatedly expressed His desire to save all because that is His strongest desire. He acted on this desire in providing Christ as King, Savior, and Priest for all people. His death is sufficient to cover the sins of all (1 John 2:2). Yet, not all are saved because God has also chosen to limit the expression of his power and grant freedom of choice to people. He decreed that the atoning power of Christ’s death would only be applied to those people who are in Christ (1 Cor 15:22; Eph 1:4-14; 2:13; 1 John 5:12). And only those who respond in faith will be placed in Christ (1 Cor 12:13, 27; Eph 3:6). People are not ordained, unchangeably, before creation as either saved or unsaved. They are able to decide (through enabling grace) their eternal fate, which is foreknown by God.
Response:
There seems to be a contradiction here. You said God acted on his strongest desire to save all but then contradictes yourself when you say: YET GOD ALSO HAS CHOSEN TO LIMIT THE EXPRESSION OF HIS POWER AND GRANT FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO PEOPLE. The simple fact that he abandons his strongest desire to save all in liue of pursuing the “freedom of choice” to his people is just another way of saying: the salvation of all people was never his strongest desire. Rather, the exercise of “freedom of choice” of people was his strongest desire allowing them to perish accordingly and to overrule his desire to save them all. It is as if he chose to be at the mercy of creaturely will who did everything he could and yet failed again and again and again to save them.
I’ve reflected a long time ago on this issue here:
http://thessalonians516.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/2-peter-39-and-gods-will-to-save-all.html?m=1
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
Joey:
Happy to discuss this just don’t want to do it over 2 blogs.
For those only seeing the discussion here was my reply in a nutshell.
Not sure I see a contradiction in these two premises:
– God wants all to be saved
– God wants people to have the freedom to accept or reject the Gospel
The problem with the Reformed view is that God does not actually act on His desire to save all if unconditional election is true. In the non-Reformed view He does act on this desire – just not with overwhelming and irresistible force.
The contradiction you propose would exist only if we add the premise:
– God always gets everything He wants
Thanks,
Mike