**This is a response to a Calvinist friend of mine in response to his question of how I can reject Calvin in light of Romans 9.**
Well, Romans 9 is actually a challenge against Calvinism more than anyone else if you actually read what it clearly says rather than what Calvin said ABOUT it:
First of all in verse 22, the "prepared for destruction" is in the middle/reflexive voice. Which simply means that the object prepared ITSELF for destruction. If Paul was so intent on making the point that Gods sovereign choice was the "star player" of this argument he would have never used the middle but would have used the passive. He wasnt that weak with his Greek;) He then goes on and says about the "objects of his glory" that "he prepared in advance for glory." So we have a very clear picture in the Greek that one group is prepared for glory BY God and one group is "prepared BY themselves" for destruction. If these people were damned BECAUSE of God's sovereign choice then Paul would have never said they were damned because of their own choices. If God chose for them to be damned then they are damned because of HIS choice and not theirs. In that case they would be prepared for wrath by HIS choice would be in the passive voice in the Greek. The Greek makes Calvin's interpretation impossible.
Second, at the climax of the whole argument in verse 30-33, Paul makes clear what his point was - and its not sovereign choice:
"What shall we say, then? That 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."
At the big "WHY?" we expect to see a big "they were not called" but we see nothing of the sort. It says that they failed not because they were not called but because they pursued it in the wrong way: works verses gift. Romans is about works vs gift and not about chosen vs unchosen. The chosen are those to pursue by the gift of grace: the unchosen are those who pursue by the works of the law. If you change your approach, you can change which group you are in.
Paul goes on in Romans 10.12-13 by making his point even clearer that he is NOT trying prove that some are chosen and some are not, but that "there is NO DIFFERENCE between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
He goes on in verse 14 by clearly explaining HOW one is able to call on the name of the Lord. Again, we would expect to hear something about the sovereign choice of God enabling only some to call if we are to believe Calvin. Again, we see nothing of the sort. Here's the progression Paul sets out:
1. How can they call on who they dont believe
2. How can they believe in the one they've never heard of
3. How can they hear unless someone preaches to them
He says nothing about the CHOICE of God but simply talks about the INVITATION of God: to ALL.
He goes on with his argument in Romans 11 by talking about how Israel is not part of the "elect", not part of the "elect chosen by grace." But then he says in verse 11 that they did not stumble beyond recovery but had the possibility of being re-grafted back in. This doesnt work if you view people as being part of two distinct groups: called and uncalled. There is a clear picture of people being able to go from one group to the other...that is not possible if our positions were all decided by God before hand. Romans 11.21-24 says,
"For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again...how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree."
Paul talks over and over about how the Jew's can come back into the "chosen" even though he clearly said in Romans 11.7 that they were "not in." If there were two distinct unchangeable groups, chosen and unchosen, then this would not be a possibility. If we really are not able to be thrown out of the "chosen" or moved from the "unchosen" to the "chosen" then Paul was lying when he warned the people that it WAS a possibility. Perseverance of the Saints teaches us that it is completely impossible for the chosen to be "unchosen" and for the "unchosen" to be "chosen." Romans says that both are clearly possible. You cant believe in perseverance of the saints and accept Romans. I choose Romans over Calvin. Either Paul is lying by saying that it IS a possibility, and is therefore a false prophet, or Calvin was misled when interpreted Paul as saying that it isnt actually a possibility in reality.
Paul reaches a climax in his argument in Romans 11.32:
"For God has bound ALL men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them ALL."
Romans, without reading it through Calvin's eyes or Arminius' eyes, is very clear. ALL are bound in disobedience: ALL are under God's mercy. Any other reading of the text is a twisting of what it clearly says. Calvin tries to say that 'all' means "all who God has chosen." The text doest say that. It says "all." Everyone.
Calvin was obsessed with the secret will of God. But if it is secret then doesnt he misstep by even worrying about it? If God has kept it a mystery and a secret then how is Calvin building a whole theology on this "unknowable" thing? I am more concerned with the revealed will of God I suppose, since there is no speculation there.
God says that it is His revealed will that "all be saved" according to 1 Timothy 2.3-6:
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."
We dont have to guess...here's God's will right here: All be saved: None be damned.
Matthew 23.37 says,
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Your people have killed the prophets and have stoned the messengers who were sent to you. I have often wanted to gather your people, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you wouldn't let me."
It doesnt say "you werent empowered or chosen by me" but simply "you wouldnt let me."
Now, we know that ALL will not be saved in the end so we are forced to reconcile these two Biblical ideas that seem to be in conflict.
I see two options, and Calvinism in not even one of the choices available if you are going to remain true to what the text actually says:
Choice 1: God is too weak to get what he wants since he has clearly said what he wants but then reveals that it will not take place exactly as he wants it to in the end since there will be people in the fires of hell.
Choice 2: God is NOT too weak to get what he wants but, in his sovereign will has given us the ability to "tap out" of his love death grip he has latched onto this entire world.
I chose number 2.
Its like in wrestling. The guy who taps out does not somehow violate the strength of the guy who has pined him. The stronger one honors the choice of the weaker to choose defeat not because he is overpowered by the tap. God is not made weaker by sovereignly allowing us to reject his death grip. He proves that in doing so that HE IS LOVE.
Love, by very nature, requires at a surrender of some sort.
Forced love = rape.
I believe that "GOD IS LOVE." God is truly all-powerful but the Bible doesnt spend much time on that idea...it doesnt seem as important to God as the fact that HE IS LOVE.
Love necessitates a choice - the ability to choose is given as a gift and achieves no merit but it has to be there or the love is rape and not love at all.
GOD IS LOVE = I cannot accept Calvin.
