Amillennialist

Romans 9 shows God’s compassion and mercy, not His capriciousness and malice

In Atonement, Calvinism, Christ, Christianity, Double Predestination, Limited Atonement, Trustworthiness of Scripture on September 1, 2008 at 7:43 AM

In response to courteous comments here.

. . . God being malicious is something that you’ve drawn out of a Calvinist view, not Calvinists.

I don’t think I’ve written that Calvinism says God is malicious and capricious.

Several of Calvinism’s doctrines contradict the Word of Christ in ways that make its god malicious and capricious.

Attributing such characteristics and attitudes to YHWH blasphemes Him.

God works on a scale of just to merciful, unjust or malice don’t enter his character at all.

YHWH is fully both at the same time. In Christ’s body on the cross, He punished all men’s sins and had mercy on all.

Calvinism denies that mercy to many.

I don’t think the parable of the sower has anything to do with predestination.

The Parable of the Sower is relevant because it doesn’t show God creating bad soil or never sending the Word to some (both Calvinist heresies).

It shows that the responsibility for unbelief is ours.

. . . Romans 9 especially verses 14-24 . . . clouds the issue of God’s will in choosing and man’s role in accepting. As well as whether people can actually be destined for Hell. I’m still considering my thoughts on this passage, but when considering how God chooses I think it’s essential to include this passage.

God says:

“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” (John 15:16),

“. . . God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all” (Romans 11:32).

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).

he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2: 8 and 9).

“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28).

He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . .” (2 Corinthians 5:19).

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you kill the prophets and stone to death those sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you were not willing” (Matthew 23:37)!

What does Romans 9 say? Paul shows that despite Israel’s rejection, God’s promises are sure and are received by faith.

Regarding Jacob and Esau, Paul writes, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call . . .” (Romans 9:11).

Paul’s point here is not that God hates (or rejects) people just because He chooses to do so (Calvinism’s Double Predestination), it is that God’s blessings depend on His mercy and are received by faith, not by works.

Being the older and favored son, Esau was to receive his father Isaac’s blessing. Isaac asks Esau to hunt and prepare a “delicious meal,” after which he would bless him. While Esau is out obeying his father, Jacob’s mom, having overheard their plans, conspires with Jacob to deceive Isaac into obtaining the blessing.

So, the one who received the promise, Jacob, did not deserve it. Like Jacob, we receive the Promise not because we deserve it (we deserve condemnation!), but because of His mercy.

Romans 9 also mentions Pharaoh. Is the fact that God says of him, “I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (Romans 9:17) evidence of His creating people for destruction? Is Paul’s statement that God hardens whom He hardens proof of this?

Paul does not state that the hardening God did was His “sovereign choice” (that subtitle in the ESV and NIV is human commentary, not Divine revelation) to condemn someone; rather, he declares that its purpose was to show His power to the entire world.

Does God’s patience with “objects of wrath prepared for destruction” (Romans 9:22) mean that He created people for Hell? No, since we believers are by nature, “objects of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).

And God is patient with those “objects of wrath” in order that they too might repent. Paul writes, “do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4).

Calvinism denies God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience to many.

Most importantly, Paul shows us that the reason Israel is rejected is not because of “God’s sovereign choice,” because of its unbelief, through which they reject Christ:

. . . Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works” (Romans 9:30-32).

Advertisements
  1. Merely a question. Since you affirm strongly that all sin is paid for and God shows mercy to all, how do you avoid universalism — everyone is saved?

  2. Merely a question. Since you affirm strongly that all sin is paid for and God shows mercy to all, how do you avoid universalism — everyone is saved?

  3. Jesus said, “I longed to gather you . . . but you were not willing,” and, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

    Christ has paid for all sin and gives that gift freely to all.

    Rejecting His sacrifice leaves only one payment for sin, and that comes out of the sinner’s pocket.

  4. Jesus said, “I longed to gather you . . . but you were not willing,” and, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

    Christ has paid for all sin and gives that gift freely to all.

    Rejecting His sacrifice leaves only one payment for sin, and that comes out of the sinner’s pocket.

  5. Amillennialist, do you have a “denomination”? If you are not Roman Catholic or a Calvinist, what are you? (Yes, I realize there are others, I just didn’t feel like listing them all). Where/how did you develop the basis for your faith?

  6. Amillennialist, do you have a “denomination”? If you are not Roman Catholic or a Calvinist, what are you? (Yes, I realize there are others, I just didn’t feel like listing them all). Where/how did you develop the basis for your faith?

  7. Hi, Jack,

    Thank you for visiting and leaving a comment.

    I am Catholic, but not Roman.

    I was taught to say what God says, no more and no less.

    We are all beggars,

    Amillennialist

  8. Hi, Jack,

    Thank you for visiting and leaving a comment.

    I am Catholic, but not Roman.

    I was taught to say what God says, no more and no less.

    We are all beggars,

    Amillennialist

  9. Hello Amellennialist,

    Been some time since I have stopped by. Glad you are still working hard. I had to look up Calvinist. I did so because the atmosphere seemed to be about interpretation of the Bible. Recently read a Catholic book connecting the Catholic Church (Catholisism) with Jesus and his teachings. IN it were why ‘man’ should not interperate the Bible on his own whithout guidance by the the Church or of course those ordained there of. Reason: A lot of Jesus’s teachings were verbal and the recorded words of the apostle’s and other books were meant to guide and make the individual ‘think’ but in conjunction with Church ‘traditions’ which were started with the Jesus’s verbal guidance. The book also admitted as time and man go things get flawed. So to get a proper picture of the Catholic religion you have to study the first five centeruries (1-500ad). In a nut shell and not to get wordy. Correct church ‘traditions’, the ‘Bible’ have to go hand in hand and the Calvanist merely tried to put only certain words in stone for their own interpretation as they wanted to make the doctorine themselves.

    I guess that’s enough. I got a lot to learn though still.

  10. Hello Amellennialist,

    Been some time since I have stopped by. Glad you are still working hard. I had to look up Calvinist. I did so because the atmosphere seemed to be about interpretation of the Bible. Recently read a Catholic book connecting the Catholic Church (Catholisism) with Jesus and his teachings. IN it were why ‘man’ should not interperate the Bible on his own whithout guidance by the the Church or of course those ordained there of. Reason: A lot of Jesus’s teachings were verbal and the recorded words of the apostle’s and other books were meant to guide and make the individual ‘think’ but in conjunction with Church ‘traditions’ which were started with the Jesus’s verbal guidance. The book also admitted as time and man go things get flawed. So to get a proper picture of the Catholic religion you have to study the first five centeruries (1-500ad). In a nut shell and not to get wordy. Correct church ‘traditions’, the ‘Bible’ have to go hand in hand and the Calvanist merely tried to put only certain words in stone for their own interpretation as they wanted to make the doctorine themselves.

    I guess that’s enough. I got a lot to learn though still.

  11. Hi, Arloray,

    It’s good to hear from you.

    You raise some interesting points.

    We have the authentic, unspoiled teachings of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament: Jesus said in prayer to God the Father, “Your Word is truth.” Paul wrote that, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

    Thus, all we need for doctrine and life we find in the Word of God, by which He creates and sustains faith in us.

    However, no man is an island. God gave the Church (all Christians) pastors and teachers to guide us in properly understanding Scripture.

    Any traditions which add to or contradict what God has revealed already through the Apostles and Prophets should be rejected utterly.

    Regards,

    Amillennialist

  12. Hi, Arloray,

    It’s good to hear from you.

    You raise some interesting points.

    We have the authentic, unspoiled teachings of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament: Jesus said in prayer to God the Father, “Your Word is truth.” Paul wrote that, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

    Thus, all we need for doctrine and life we find in the Word of God, by which He creates and sustains faith in us.

    However, no man is an island. God gave the Church (all Christians) pastors and teachers to guide us in properly understanding Scripture.

    Any traditions which add to or contradict what God has revealed already through the Apostles and Prophets should be rejected utterly.

    Regards,

    Amillennialist

  13. Hi Amillennialist,
    Thanks for your response. I didn’t want to post my reply elsewhere, but it got rather lengthy and didn’t want Blogger to spit it back at me. So I’ve posted it on my site.

    ArloRay,
    I think that the claims of the Roman Catholic church that tradition has as much weight as the bible and is needed to know what the bible is saying are completely unfounded. Even if you did study those centuries in a seminary or something, you would be studying historical documents from that exact same oral culture. What gives those documents any more insight into God that his own word, breathed out by him (2 Tim 3:16)?
    It’s great that you want to keep learning. Might I suggest reading something by Graeme Goldsworthy, Lee Strobel (perhaps the book ‘The Case for Christ’)? I think they have some solid things to say about the historical aspects of the bible and its authority.

  14. Hi Amillennialist,
    Thanks for your response. I didn’t want to post my reply elsewhere, but it got rather lengthy and didn’t want Blogger to spit it back at me. So I’ve posted it on my site.

    ArloRay,
    I think that the claims of the Roman Catholic church that tradition has as much weight as the bible and is needed to know what the bible is saying are completely unfounded. Even if you did study those centuries in a seminary or something, you would be studying historical documents from that exact same oral culture. What gives those documents any more insight into God that his own word, breathed out by him (2 Tim 3:16)?
    It’s great that you want to keep learning. Might I suggest reading something by Graeme Goldsworthy, Lee Strobel (perhaps the book ‘The Case for Christ’)? I think they have some solid things to say about the historical aspects of the bible and its authority.

  15. Didn’t see Amillennialist’s reply to ArloRay… I agree.

  16. Didn’t see Amillennialist’s reply to ArloRay… I agree.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: