2 Cents

In this series of blog posts we are examining Romans 9 - the chapter in the Bible most often used to prove Calvinism - to show that it does not actually support Calvinism at all.  You can read part one here, part two here, and part three here.

In today's post I'd like to examine Paul's use of Pharaoh as another Old Testament example of God unconditionally electing certain individuals to play special roles of service in his kingdom as opposed to God electing them for salvation or unconditionally condemning them to hell as Calvinism teaches.

Let's look at what Paul says in Romans 9:17-18:

(17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

If you remember, in the book of Exodus, when God appeared to Moses in a burning bush and told him to go to Pharaoh and demand that he let God's people go, he also told Moses that he would harden Pharaoh's heart.

But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you.  Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment.  The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel form among them.  - Ex. 7:3-5

It will not do to say that Pharaoh only hardened his own heart.  Yes, the Bible mentions this happening, but it also mentions God actively hardening Pharaoh's heart in the passage above as well as in Ex. 9:12, Ex. 10:1, Ex. 11:10, and Ex. 14:8.

And as v. 18 says above, God hardens whomever he wills.

But does this necessitate that God condemned Pharaoh to hell?  Absolutely not.

Did you catch the reason why God hardened Pharaoh's heart?  Ex. 7:5 reveals it is because he wants the Egyptians to know that he is the Lord!  He wants to increase his glory among those people and 10 plagues will increase God's glory in their minds more than simply one and done (or perhaps succeed and proceed? Wink, wink).  The same idea can be seen above in Rom. 9:17.

So God hardens Pharaoh's heart so that he may bring more glory to himself.  This does not necessitate that Pharaoh automatically was condemned to hell because his heart was hardened for a short period of time.

Indeed Paul's entire point in Romans 9 is that God is not unjust in the way he has dealt with Israel because his unconditional election of them had nothing to do with salvation but only special service in his kingdom!

The same is true of Pharaoh.  Pharaoh was unconditionally elected for this very purpose - to serve as the heart-hardened villain in the God-glorifying story of the 10 Plagues and the Exodus.

As Rom. 9:21 clearly states,

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?

While it might seem unfair that Pharaoh got unconditionally chosen to play the dishonorable part, it has nothing to do with Pharaoh's eternal destiny.  It was simply God's desire for him to play this certain part in his plan for history.

Finally, one thing that trips people up in our original passage above is verse 18.  Calvinists like to create an unnecessary dichotomy here placing on the one hand those on whom God has mercy and on the other those whom God hardens.  But this is a false choice and is unnecessary.

Could not these two actions of God (having mercy and hardening) be referring to the same individual or group?  Of course.  God could have mercy on someone and also harden them at different points in their lives.

Indeed this must have been the case with Pharaoh as God, in his mercy, did not strike him down despite his horrible treatment of God's chosen people as slaves.  God had mercy on him and also hardened him.

So the point of verse 18 is not that there are two different groups of people - one who receive unconditional election to salvation and the other who are hardened and condemned to hell.  The point is that God can use whomever he wills!

It does not matter if they have done good or bad.  It does not even matter if they are a believer or not.  God can unconditionally choose anyone he wants to serve in his plan for history.

Check back soon for more posts on why Romans 9 does not support Calvinism.  Special thanks to Dr. Jack Cottrell and his work in the College Press NIV Commentary on Romans. 

In this series of blog posts we are examining Romans 9 - the chapter in the Bible most often used to prove Calvinism - to show that it does not actually support Calvinism at all.  You can read part one here, and part two here.

In yesterday's post we saw that a key component to Paul's argument in Romans 9 is that God unconditionally elected the physical nation of Israel to service and not to salvation.

Now let's turn our attention to verses 10-13.

(10) And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, (11) 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 him who calls - (12) she was told, "The older will serve the younger."  (13) As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

When I was wrestling with the possibility of Calvinism in my college years verse 13 was always the one that stood out most in my mind.  God hated Esau?  Before he had even been born or done anything good or bad?  God unconditionally hates people?!

As I studied I had to be honest with myself and honest with the text.  If this were true, that God arbitrarily chooses to hate some people and not others, then I would have to admit that Calvinism was correct.

And a straight-forward, literal reading of these verses would seem to lead us to that conclusion.  However, I've noted previously the dangers of taking every verse in the Bible literally.  There's more here than meets the eye.  Let's take a look.

First, we must mention again that Paul is indeed speaking of unconditional election here, but it is not election to salvation but to service in God's kingdom.  In fact, look through that passage again.  Do you see any reference whatsoever to salvation?

Second, any time you see a phrase like "As it is written," it would be helpful to go examine the place the author is referring to.  A quick glance at your cross references in your Bible will show that Paul here is referring to Malachi 1:2-3, which reads...

"I have loved you," says the Lord.  But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord.  "Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated."

A quick read over the first chapter of Malachi will show clearly that here God is using the names of individuals to refer to entire people groups.  Jacob, whose name would later be changed to Israel, represents the entire people group of the Israelites, while Esau represents the Edomites.

If, perhaps, you think that this is an unbiblical interpretation conveniently used to suit the needs of those in the free-will camp, may I also refer you to a storehouse of other passages in the Bible where an individual's name is used when in actuality the author, or God, is referring to the entire people group: Deut. 32:9; Isaiah 29:22-23, Isaiah 27:6, Isaiah 27:9, Isaiah 9:8, Isaiah 14:1, Isaiah 17:4; Jeremiah 30:18, 31:11; Lamentations 2:2; Ezekiel 39:25; Hosea 12:2.  

Here in Romans 9 Paul is speaking of Jacob and Esau both as individuals (clear from v. 11) as well as representatives for entire people groups (clear from Malachi).  We cannot say Paul is not speaking of them in individual terms because verse 11 is too clear.

But again, this poses no problem, for God's unconditional election of Jacob to eventually serve as his chosen one and not Esau was an election to service and not to salvation.

The fact that God chose the younger son and not the firstborn would have been another surprise to Paul's readers (as well as OT believers) and would further highlight God's sovereign freedom to choose whomever he wills to be part of his ultimate rescue plan for sinners via the Messiah.  

Finally, what should we do with the phrase "Esau I hated"?

Did God unconditionally decide to hate Esau before the twins were born?  No.  That is not what Paul is saying.

Paul is simply using the passage in Malachi to prove his case that God unconditionally chose Jacob to be part of his redemption plan and not Esau.

Although here in Romans Paul is speaking of the individual twins, the "Esau I hated" phrase in Malachi is talking about a people group and not Esau as an individual.

So Paul is not saying God hated Esau the individual.  Only that God hated the Edomites as a group.  And yes we must go so far as to say God had significant disfavor for the Edomites.  Anything less would soften the force of Mal. 1:2-5, which we should not do.

But note that this does not necessitate that all Edomites were sentenced to eternal condemnation in hell.  Rather it simply means God was going to show special favor to the Israelites in their earthly lives and special disfavor to the Edomites in their earthly lives to highlight his unconditional choice of Israel for special kingdom service and his rejection of Edom.

To add another layer of support to the case, Jack Cottrell notes that in numerous OT passages, God's disfavor laid upon the Edomites was actually conditional based upon their treatment of his chosen nation Israel (See Psalm 137:7; Jer. 49:7-12; Ezek. 35:1-15; Obadiah 1:10).

So Paul is using an OT example of God showing favor to one people group and disfavor to another to bolster his case that God unconditionally chose Jacob for his redemption plan and rejected Esau.

God did not hate Esau.  In fact, in Genesis ch. 36 we get the exact opposite impression, namely that Esau experienced significant blessings from God!  We also see in Genesis ch. 33 that Esau forgave Jacob and reconciled with him after being wickedly deceived twice by his younger brother.  So the biblical picture God gives us of his relationship with Esau as an individual is actually a positive one, not a negative one.

In conclusion, Romans 9 in no way teaches that God unconditionally hates individuals or unconditionally condemns them to hell.

Check back later in the week for more posts on how Romans 9 does not support Calvinism.  Special thanks to Dr. Jack Cottrell and his work in the College Press NIV Commentary on Romans.

In this series of blog posts we are examining Romans 9 - the chapter in the Bible most often used to prove Calvinsim - to show show that it does not actually support Calvinism at all.  You can read part one here.

(6) But it is not as though the word of God has failed.  For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, (7) and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."

Verse 6 begins by saying God's word has not failed.  The whole point of this section of Romans is to show us that God has not been unfaithful to his promises regarding Israel simply because now that Jesus has come some have rejected the gospel and are now cut off from God.  

Why is this the case?  Because God never promised that all Israel would be saved!  He only promised that he would use them in service to his kingdom to bring the Messiah into the world.  Israel was unconditionally elected to service not to salvation.

Next, in the latter half of verse 6 we see that there are really two Israels.  One is physical Israel composed of anyone who is a physical descendant of Israel (Jacob).  But the other is spiritual Israel - those who in the OT placed their faith in God, and now that Christ has come, those who have placed their faith in Christ.

And Paul is saying, Just because you're a physical Israelite does not automatically mean you're part of spiritual Israel.  God doesn't have to save you just because you are physically descended from Israel.  

So Paul's point in verse six is that physical Israel was unconditionally chosen for service, not for salvation.  This is very important to understand and keep in mind as we move through the rest of Romans 9 in future posts.

Then we come to verse 7.  Jack Cottrell notes in his Romans commentary that the most common error here is to think v. 7 is talking about the same thing as the last half of v. 6 - spiritual Israel.  But that's not the case.  While the last half of v. 6 talks about spiritual Israel, "children of Abraham" in v. 7 does not refer to those who are saved but to those whom God unconditionally elected to service - physical Israel.

We see this because Paul says they are not all his children simply because they are his offspring, but rather his children are the one's that came through Isaac.

What Paul's talking about here is the fact that Abraham had descendants through multiple women.  He fathered Ishmael through Hagar (See Gen. 16:15) and he also had children through a woman named Keturah (See Gen. 25:1-2).

But it was only the descendants that came through Sarah and through Isaac that God chose to serve him and become physical Israel - the nation through whom eventually the Messiah would come into the world.

Finally let's look at Romans 9:8...

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise who are counted as offspring.

In other words it is not the children Abraham had in the natural way that end up being God's chosen people, the Israelites.  Rather it is only the "children of the promise," who are chosen - God's promise to Abraham and Sarah (See Rom. 9:9) - the children Abraham had as a result of the miracle God worked in the body of Sarah.

 So this sets an important foundation for us going forward as Paul introduces the idea that God has unconditionally elected the physical nation of Israel to service and not to salvation.

Check back later this week for more posts on how Romans 9 does not support Calvinism.  Special thanks to Dr. Jack Cottrell and his work in the College Press NIV Commentary on Romans.

When I was in college and just figuring out this whole Calvinism/Arminianism debate I always kept coming back to Romans 9.  Romans 9 is the one chapter in the Bible that I would say Calvinists most often use to support their view of salvation.  It's also the one chapter that makes Arminians (free-will people) the most nervous.

Here are a couple verses that Calvinists love and Arminians get squeamish over:

"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 him who calls..."  - Rom. 9:11

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."  - Rom. 9:13

"For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."  - Rom. 9:15-16

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."  - Rom. 9:18

"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?"  - Rom. 9:19-20

"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..."  - Rom. 9:22

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

My favorite preacher in all the world and uber-Calvinist, John Piper, loves, loves, loves to preach on this chapter, to the point where I've only heard the man speak live three times in my life and two of those times he preached on Romans 9.

Again, when I was in college and just getting introduced to this debate Romans 9 was particularly problematic for me.  I say problematic because I grew up being taught the free-will perspective and I must honestly say I wanted that to be right and Calvinism to be wrong.

But I just couldn't shake Romans 9.  It seemed to me that there were parts of the Bible that clearly spoke of our responsibility to choose to put our faith in Christ, to choose to repent, to choose to give our lives to God and deny ourselves.  It seemed there were parts of the Bible that clearly spoke of God's goodness and how he could not even tolerate sin, would never tempt us to sin, and (heaven forbid!) would never cause us to sin.  It seemed there were parts of the Bible that clearly spoke of God's desire for all people to be saved, not just some that he had chosen long ago to be saved, and the rest had no chance and no hope.

But Romans 9... UGHHHH!

No free-will believer could explain Romans 9 in a way that satisfied my free-will-desiring heart.  And I asked a lot of them!  They always dodged the deep, foundational questions.

Then I read Dr. Jack Cottrell's Romans commentary.

To this day this is the only satisfactory free-will explanation of Romans 9 I've heard.

But not only is it satisfactory... it blows the Calvinist explanations out of the water!  In fact, even though the score on explanations of Romans 9 seems to be 1000 to 1 in favor of the Calvinists, this 1 is so much more convincing than all 1000.

(And yes I realize I'm predisposed to want that to be true.  But I sincerely believe it after reading so many explanations from the other side and trying to weigh them honestly.)

So over the next few weeks I'll be posting a series of blog posts using Dr. Cottrell's Romans commentary to help us understand why Romans 9 does not support Calvinism.

And also... if you've never listened to John Piper preach... go download some stuff right now.  Makes me love God more every time I listen!  Just don't believe the man on Romans 9.

Here's a question you're sure to get if you hold that the Bible is God's word.  

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Take that literally and you will be breaking some other commandments in the Bible such as Exo. 20:12 and 1 John 4:20-21.

Jesus did not mean for us to take his statement literally.  Rather he was using a figure of speech to highlight the drastic difference that should characterize our love for God versus our love for our family and ourselves.

Then there's the book of Revelation, which is different than every other book of the Bible (besides perhaps the last half of the book of Daniel) in that it is Apocalyptic Literature.  Apocalyptic literature is characterized by an over-abundance of symbols to the point that almost everything you read in the book of Revelation is not meant to be taken literally but rather as a symbol being used to teach a different lesson.

For example, in Rev. 5:5-6 Jesus is described as both a lion and a lamb - hardly meant to be taken literally.

Now of course this does not mean we never take the Bible literally.  There are many commandments and teachings in the Bible that are very straight forward and clear.

It also does not mean that we should actively look for allegories or symbols and try to find deeper meanings in passages that never intended them.

I believe the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 was literal, as were the seven days.

I believe that Jesus literally performed all the miracles the gospels record.

I believe the Song of Solomon records literal, intimate acts of love between a husband and a wife.

I take the Bible literally when it speaks of the resurrection of Jesus, the reality of hell, the second coming of Christ, Judgment day, and numerous other things that non-Christians are unwilling to believe.

But I cannot give a simple "YES" answer when someone asks if I take the Bible literally.  And neither should you.

In my last post I outlined why I think the Bible is clear that baptism is something God requires of us to be saved.

One of the most common questions people raise after such a claim is that the Bible itself gives us examples of people being saved or having received the Holy Spirit before their baptism, after baptism, or without ever being baptized!  So how could anyone claim baptism is a condition for salvation?

Let's take the examples one by one.

The Thief on the Cross

The clearest example is the thief on the cross from Luke 23:39-43.  The thief defends Jesus to his fellow criminal and then asks Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom.  Jesus replies in v. 43:

Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

It seems very clear the thief was not saved until the very last moments of his life.  And since he was hanging on a cross, about to die, it was impossible for him to be baptized.  So clearly this is an instance of a person who was saved without being baptized!

But this alone does not make a case against the biblical requirement of baptism for those who now want to be saved.

Why?  Because Christian baptism had not yet been instituted at this point in time.  Not until after Jesus' great commission in Matt. 28:19-20 do we have the official institution of Christian baptism and thus only after Jesus' death and resurrection is baptism required of someone to be saved.

Passages like Rom. 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12 make clear that in baptism we are being buried with Christ in his death and also raised with him to a new life.  That would not be possible if Christ himself had not yet been buried and raised!

Now, am I saying that if someone wants to repent today on their death bed and it is physically impossible for them to be baptized, that God will refuse them eternal life because of that technicality?  Of course not.

I'm simply saying the thief on the cross is not a good example of salvation apart from baptism because Christian baptism was not yet a requirement for salvation at that point in history.

The Samaritans in Acts 8

In Acts 8:14-17 we read:

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Here it seems that the pattern of Acts 2:38 is not followed and the Holy Spirit was not given to these believers at the time of their baptism, but later.  How can this be?  Does this mean that baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit are not connected?

By no means.  Rather this was a special circumstance that God used to set an example to the Jews.

Jews and Samaritans had much animosity toward one another in general.  This is why the story of the good samaritan that Jesus told was such a shock to his hearers.  Jews took pride in being the chosen people of God and often thought that anyone who was not ethnically an Israelite could not be saved.

But, as we know, when Jesus came he extended salvation to anyone, Jew or Gentile (Rom. 1:16) and taught that the gospel was to go not only to Jerusalem, but also to extend to Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

By having Peter and John go personally to these baptized believers and granting them the Holy Spirit in the presence of these two prominent Jewish Apostles, God was revealing to the entire Jewish community that salvation was indeed being offered to those outside of ethnic Israel, even Samaritans!  It seems as though God intentionally gave the Holy Spirit to these believers in an unusual way just to make this point.

So the story of the Samaritans in Acts 8 should not be seen as a case against baptism being the time at which we receive the Holy Spirit, but should be seen as a special circumstance during the beginnings of the church not meant to be normative for believers today.

Cornelius and His Household in Acts 10

Much like the special circumstance God used to teach the Jews a lesson in Acts 8, there is a similar occurrence in Acts 10, which God uses to teach Peter and the rest of the Jewish leaders an important lesson - that salvation has indeed been offered to the Gentiles; it is not reserved exclusively for Jews.

Through some divine circumstances Peter and some of his Jewish friends arrive at the household of Cornelius, a Roman military officer and a non-Jew, but someone who loved God and believed in Christ.

In Acts 10:44-48 we read:

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.  And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.  For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.  The Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.  

Here we see the reverse of what happened in Acts 8.  These people received the Holy Spirit before they were ever baptized, again shedding doubt on the connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and baptism suggested in Acts 2:38.

Yet again, however, this is not a case proving there is no connection between the Holy Spirit and baptism, but rather a special circumstance in which God intentionally broke the normal pattern in order to show the circumcised believers (Jews) that Gentiles had indeed been accepted into the church and could be saved!

We see this clearly in the passage above when we read, "The believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles." (v. 45)

It is also important to note here that there were other things that happened that are not normative for a salvation experience like the people speaking in tongues and the Holy Spirit falling on them in a visible manner.  These things give even more evidence to the idea that God was intentionally doing something out of the ordinary to prove a point.

Conclusion

After examining all three of these passages it should be clear that they are not proof-texts that can be used to sever the biblical connection between baptism and salvation or baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 2:38 God makes clear that baptism is the time at which we receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Rom. 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12 make clear that we are buried with Christ and raised to new life with Christ in baptism.  And as we discussed in the previous post, 1 Peter 3:21 shows us that the time at which God saves us is our baptism.

If you look at the beliefs of numerous denominations across the country one thing you will certainly find is wide disagreement on the subject of baptism.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Before moving on, just so we're clear, the "this" to which baptism corresponds according to Peter is the flood of Noah.

Baptismal Regeneration

Now the real issue I want to address is the phrase used here, "now saves you."

Recently, on the Ask Pastor John podcast, (which is consistently very good by the way!) Baptist preacher, writer, and theologian John Piper said of this phrase that it "sounds kind of dangerous... sounds kind of like baptismal regeneration," and then he went on to quote the rest of the verse and explain why it's not actually dangerous.

I disagree with Piper on what baptism actually is and does, but in this one statement he's exactly right and I'd like to use it as a jumping-off point to explain what Peter means by "now saves you," in the verse above.

First, Peter does not mean that the physical act of getting dunked under water is what brings about your salvation.  No... Christ's death on the cross did that.  Not everyone who has ever been baptized is automatically saved.  That's what "baptismal regeneration" means.

There have been and will always be people who get baptized for the wrong reasons (their friends were doing it, they felt peer pressured into it, they wanted to be liked, etc.) and baptism does not save those people.

A youth minister I knew once fell into the baptismal pool while decorating for VBS.  He was completely immersed.  Was he re-baptized?  Absolutely not!  It's the same as if he fell in a pool.

Salvation By Works?

However, what Peter does mean when he says "baptism now saves you," is that baptism is part of the salvation process.  Many denominations of churches today simply gloss over this fact and act as if baptism has no part in salvation whatsoever.

A statement as clear as "baptism now saves you," can only mean one of two things.  Either (1) baptism is what does the saving (which is clearly unbiblical, God does it), or (2) we are saved in the act of baptism or at the time of our baptism.  It would be dishonest to read such a statement, even with the caveat that comes immediately after, and conclude that Peter meant the exact opposite of what he says, that baptism does not save you.

Is this a type of works-righteousness and therefore heresy like that described by Paul in the book of Galatians?  Absolutely not!  Rather God has given certain conditions that all people must meet if they want to be saved.  Being baptized is simply obediently meeting one of those conditions.  The biblical phrase is "obeying the gospel." (See 2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17)

It is not salvation by works simply because we do something God told us to do to be saved!  God tells us to believe (John 3:16), to repent (Luke 13:3), and to confess (Rom. 10:9-10) in order to be saved.  Would anyone claim that it is salvation by works to require repentance of someone for them to be saved?  Hardly.

The Bible shows us, in many books and in many ways, that being baptized is one of God's conditions for salvation (Mark 16:16).  Baptism is the God-ordained time at which we receive the forgiveness of our sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  It is the point in time in our conversion where we cross over from death to life (John 5:24).  In it we are buried with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4) and in it we are raised to new life (Col. 2:12).  It saves us (1 Peter 3:21) in the sense that God saves us when we get baptized.