The God Who is There - Romans 9:1-10:4 (Part 2)
Image
(Read the series so far.)
Recognition of God’s sovereignty in His work with people can be a tough subject to tackle. Even believers can become so earthly minded that we forget that God is not an elected leader Who seeks our approval. He is the Supreme. He is the Creator. All answer to Him, and He answers to none.
That can be deeply offensive to the American mind, but that makes it no less true. God is God—and as such, He is the Planner, the Author and the King. Don’t skip what Paul wrote and focus only on the offense: Paul made the point that God had (and has) a plan. He is at work. He has decided on the basis of His own desire to work through some people, and that wasn’t based entirely on them—but on His sovereign right to make such a decision.
Before you dive into what seems objectionable about those words, look at them. If you have a relationship with the Living God, you can celebrate the fact that you are not a cosmic accident. God has a plan He is working. He wanted you, and He chose you! How can that not be an exciting reality?
To be fair, any sensitive believer immediately thinks beyond their own chosen status and considers those who don’t know God. The converse of the choosing of God seems harsh. As a result, almost in the same breath, Paul recognized the objection of people to this stark truth about God, so Paul offered a bit of further explanation…
Because in God’s Plan He Chose to Have Only Some Relationships, Has God Been Unjust?
“What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” (Rom. 9:14).
Paul un-spooled answers to this objection along several lines of reason.
- He attacked an “underlying presupposition” (that people deserve a relationship with God).
- He unraveled an “approach error” (that people can sit eye to eye with God and call His judgment into account).
- He suggested a “limitation error” (that we may not fully grasp what God is doing in His choices).
The objection was over the justice of God. Let’s take a moment and see how Paul responded.
First, he made clear there was a “Presupposition Error.”
Such a challenge to God’s justice begins with the notion that people deserve a relationship with God—but that is wrong! Look at Paul’s writing for a moment, and follow the words closely:
For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Rom. 9:15-18)
It is easy to frame these words in the harshest way, and make God look uncaring and unloving in His justice. That is a mistake. The qualities of God are so deeply intertwined that they do not separate from one another. God isn’t merely just—His being defines justice. God isn’t merely good—His being defines goodness. God isn’t merely merciful—His being defines mercy. Christians need to stop viewing life through dualism There isn’t “good” and “bad” and God falls into conformity to doing good. God defines good and evil. He is the beginning template of all things. No one loves more than His love—since He is the core definition of love. No one is more just than He, since His character is the basic form from which the idea of justice flows.
We believe the Bible explains God’s revealed perspective of humanity. In the beginning of the human experience, the Bible explained that people began with a relationship with God and after a time they rebelled against Him. Given an opportunity to stand with God against the temptation of God’s enemy or follow that enemy—man chose rebellion. He didn’t do it because He was underprivileged or ignorant of God’s will—it was a mutiny pure and simple. That set the tone for the entire story of the Bible between man and God.
Don’t think of people in terms of innocence anymore—that isn’t the biblical view at all.
Think of the woman who walks into the house and discovers her man with another woman for the fifth time. Later, you meet the man and the line of his reasoning is that “He deserves more chances from her.” Do you agree? His desire for a renewed relationship overcame his memory of infidelity—but she remembered! HE abandoned the relationship, and now HE feels he is entitled to more chances. That is the kind of mutiny men pulled on God in the Garden. It isn’t right to blame God and assume people have a right to a relationship after a mutiny.
God wasn’t heartless—He made a way to bridge the gulf of man’s mutiny. Yet, here is the interesting thing: even today, a great many men seek another way to God that isn’t according to His plan.
They choose religion or good deeds over the plan God revealed of the gift of Jesus’ full payment at Calvary. When they attempt an alternative way to God, they continue their mutiny. Mutiny is a willful rejection of God’s plan in favor of our own. It happened in the Garden of Eden, and it is happening in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and philanthropic pursuits around the world even now. When men make their own way to God, they continue to deny His absolute right to set the rules for all things—including how He is to be accessed.
Let’s be clear: God loves more than any of us. God is just in the purest sense of the word. Yet, God has been snubbed. Men are not innocent. They cheated on Him. They have no right to claim they deserve God’s changing of the plan to overlook their mutiny.
Randall Smith Bio
Dr. Randall Smith is Teaching Pastor at Grace Church of Sebring, Florida; Director at Global Vision Outreach, Inc.; and a teacher at Great Commission Bible Institute. He bogs regularly at The Wandering Shepherd.
- 85 views
Consider that the Scriptures say that repentance is granted by Jesus:
- Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
I’d like somebody to correct me if they disagree with this. I translated it myself, and I don’t see any way around this:
- “He [Jesus] has God exalted as Captain and Savior to His right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”
- The infinitive δοῦναι is being used to give the grounds or reason why God has exalted Jesus Christ - so Christ can give both repentance and forgiveness
- We do have to repent and believe, but Peter says the ultimate cause of our repentance is Jesus Christ, Who sent the Spirit to convict us in the first place!
Food for thought …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Som if it is Jesus who causes the repentance and faith, the sinner has nothing to do with it but to respond because he is under another’s control.. You can’t have it both ways: either the sinner does something, because God has made a human response necessary for salvation, (and this destroys your premise), or Jesus does it all, and the sinner bears no responsibility. I can’t see that your exegesis of the verse is correct. Yes, because God exalted Jesus to be a Prince and a Savior, there is ground for Israel to repent and believe. If the resurrection had not occurred, no amount of the sinner’s repentance would have produced the result of salvation. Paul said it: “If Christ be not raised from the dead, ye are yet in your sins.”
Please explain what Acts 5:31 means. The intent of the infinitive δοῦναι, in this instance, is to explain the reason why God has exalted Jesus Christ. The reason is supplied in the second half of the verse - so that Jesus could grant both (1) repentance and (2) forgiveness.
This verse has nothing to do with the grounds for repentance. It has to do with Jesus giving both (1) repentance and (2) forgiveness. God exalted Him so that He would give both to sinners. This verse clearly attributes the ultimate source of a sinner’s repentance to Jesus. Once all the layers are stripped away, the only reason why people repent and believe is because they’ve been granted repentance by the Holy Spirit, who is sent by Christ.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
This is a very weak verse to prove your argument. The context is Peter’s words to the Jewish Council (Israel). It is an indictment on the leaders of Israel who demanded Jesus’ crucifixion. After they killed Jesus, He was buried (2nd element of the gospel), thinking that they were finished with Him. God overruled their evil deed. He raised Him up to be Israel’s Prince and Savior, and through him to grant repentance and forgiveness (to Israel). Though God grants repentance to Israel, He also does to all those who obey Him. Though it is God who gives repentance and faith, the rest of Scripture is consistent in laying down the conditions of both — human response of contrition and believing faith. The capacity for both is granted by God, but He does so without partiality or being a Respecter of persons. His will is that “all should come to repentance.” He desires all men to be saved. He thus makes it possible for all to be saved in that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all.
That was a good try, but it went beyond the general tenor of Scripture. I wish people would stop trying to limit salvation to only a few, when God says He wants it to be available to all the world, and to prove the sincerity of the offer, He commanded His disciples to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, i.e., to make the offer available to all without exception.
Help me here. You wrote:
Though it is God who gives repentance and faith, the rest of Scripture is consistent in laying down the conditions of both — human response of contrition and believing faith. The capacity for both is granted by God, but He does so without partiality or being a Respecter of persons.
According to Acts 5:31:
- Do you believe Jesus Christ gives repentance to everybody, or only certain people?
- Are you saying that “human response and believing faith” is a pre-requisite to the granting of repentance and faith? That’s what you seem to be saying.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
They are absolutely right. On this, we both find agreement.
I’m remembering now why I usually don’t participate in exchanges on these topics.
As a (probably) last contribution this time around, it’s pretty clear to me that starting out with particular ideas of what’s fair, loving and “being a respecter of persons,” then working from there to conclusions about the nature of man and God is backwards.
The better course is to start with what Scripture clearly reveals about God’s nature and man’s—without reference to soteriology—and then, having gotten straight what the natural man is actually like, and what God does and does not owe him… things fall better into place.
- That human beings are not neutral toward God is quite clear in Scripture.
- That they do not all become neutral when hearing the gospel is clearly absent from Scripture.
- That nothing is free to transcend its own nature is self-evident.
So… once we get free of Pelagius and his derivatives, most of how the saving transaction must work is really pretty obvious.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ grants a changed heart when people respond by turning to the Lord and believing in Him. You are implying in your argument that only some sinners may repent because God does the repenting for them, i.e. He changes them without the operation of their will„ i.e. He makes unwilling people willing because He, for some reason unknown to man, prefers one over another. I don’t believe that is consistent with Scripture.
The example you cite in Acts specifically relates to Israel, a covenant people.
I am saying that human response to the Gospel by repentance and believing faith in Christ are pre-requisites to salvation. The divine order is “Repent, and believe the gospel.” Why would you want to distort the message given to sinners in order to support some extraneous theology that was not preached by the Apostles?
Since you insist on wanting to exegete Acts 5:31 in a way that it becomes the principle guide for interpreting how repentance is dispensed, i.e., to show that repentance is a gift from God, and man has no part in repenting, and since you want me to answer your question solely on the basis of Acts 5:31, then let’s be specific. Acts 5:31 says that God grants repentance unto Israel. When God deals with Israel in the OT about repenting and restoration, He does so on a national basis. Times of declension in the Judges were punished on a national basis, and the following deliverance was also on a national basis. The passage in Acts 3:12-26 should enlighten on this subject. Peter there is addressing Israel and its leaders. Verse 19 addresses repentance in the manner of commanding Israel to repent of having rejected and killed Jesus Christ. God is commanding repentance (human side) and promising the result of repentance (Divine side) to produce conversion. Acts 5:31 is consistent with this passage. God will grant repentance, forgiveness, and restoration to Israel in the sense of accepting their returning to the LORD, and times of refreshing will come from the presence of the Lord.
I believe it is a big mistake to make Acts 5:31 the primary verse on repentance and thus to cause all other references to the human response of repentance contingent upon this verse which you want to make support a Calvinistic position.
Acts 5:31 is not a “go-to” verse for me on this topic. I simply encountered it during my sermon prep this week, and wanted to know what you thought about it.
Please help me understand:
God is commanding repentance (human side) and promising the result of repentance (Divine side) to produce conversion. Acts 5:31 is consistent with this passage. God will grant repentance, forgiveness, and restoration to Israel in the sense of accepting their returning to the LORD, and times of refreshing will come from the presence of the Lord.
Are you saying that repentance is something granted after men return to the Lord? What is your ordo salutis?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
This is a horrible forum for discussing this kind of issue. All I hope to do, for people who care, is to get you to think about the other side. I hope that those of you on the other side can at least understand where we’re coming from. I hope some of you are at least willing to spend 0.99 and buy one of the books I mentioned on Kindle. You may not ever agree with a Calvinistic soteriology, but at least you’d understand the other side.
Jim - you simply don’t understand Calvinist soteriology. There’s a difference between not understanding it, and disagreeing with it. You don’t understand it.
I’ve spent time trying to understand Arminian theology. Many conservative Christians are functioning Arminians, whether they realize it or not. The idea of so-called “prevenient grace” is a common one. Many conservative Christians hold to it, whether they’ve ever heard the term or not. I’ve taken the time to try to understand that position, and will keep trying to understand it better. I wish folks on the other side would reciprocate.
Jim - to your continued remarks about God “violating our free will,” etc, I will reply with a quote from Edwin Palmer (one of the authors of the books I recommended in the above link):
-
“So, in the name of God, I command and invite you: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s up to you. But if you do believe, then thank God for making you want to believe,” (Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism: A Study Guide [reprint; Grand Rapids, Baker, 1996] , 113).
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]This is a horrible forum for discussing this kind of issue.
Answered: Healthy place and good discussion / Not sure of a better place!
You asked me to answer your question “according to Acts 5:31. If you wish me to establish a truth on that one verse alone, I would have to answer that, based on that one verse, it would appear that God grants repentance only to Israel. You want to make it a treatise on whether “Christ gives repentance to everybody, or only to certain people.” That verse all by itself doesn’t answer your question. This is the danger of trying to base a doctrine on one verse, as you well know. Alone it doesn’t answer your second question either.
Here is a verse that is more all-encompassing than Acts 5:31, that speaks of the the universality of the offer. It is Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us…” It doesn’t say that God’s grace saves all men. It is not teaching universalism. It says that God’s grace has appeared to all men. It is that grace that brings salvation, i.e., it opens the door for all to be saved. By the words, “teaching us,” it seems to show that “us” distinguishes between those who have received the grace and those who have not.
I will admit that none can repent but those to whom make His grace is available. Repentance does not lie in the realm of any man’s ability to do on his own. Where you and I seem to differ is that I believe the Scriptures teach that God’s grace has been made available to all men and that God has not excluded any person from His loving provision of Jesus Christ to forgive their sins, no matter how depraved they are. God is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him (Heb. 7:25).
How is God more glorified if He excludes from the offer of salvation anyone on the grounds that they just don’t measure up to some standard that man doesn’t know or understand?. His grace is not limited. No one’s depravity disqualifies him from the capacity of God to save him. How is it understandable that God would select by some standard known only to Him some for heaven and others for hell?
From the beginning of the story of redemption, did God select Abel over Cain by some arbitrary method known only to Him? It appears not. He chose Abel because he responded in faith and brought the bloody sacrifice. Cain He rejected because he would not. Was it because Cain could not? Absolutely not! God scolded him for being angry that his sacrifice was not accepted. Then He offered him a second chance to come in the right way. He was warned that if he would not (not could not), “sin lieth at the door.” From the very beginning, salvation required a human response, and the soul’s destination depended upon that response. Cain was lost, not because he wasn’t chosen, but because he wouldn’t surrender his will to God’s. Isn’t this how you see it?
The best beginning point is with the character of God. One of His character attributes is Justice. Another is Love. God’s attributes do not contradict each other. When we talk of fairness, we are talkiing about a Just God. A Just God is revealed in Scripture as one who always does good, always is righteous, never violates the principle of right and wrong, always deals with His creatures in a fair and just manner. Because of man’s sin and rebellion, that Justice also demands retribution.
At the same time He is a God of Love. His love extends to all His creatures. He rains upon the just and the unjust. If in the material realm this is true, how much more in the spiritual. The Scripture plainly and incontrovertibly declares that God’s love encompasses all mankind. “For God so loved the WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth….” There is no unrighteousness with God. He saves “all who come unto God by Christ.” He condemns only those who finally reject His provision for their salvation.
Who says that “human beings are neutral towards God”? Humans are an enmity with God. None become neutral when hearing the gospel. There are all sorts of responses, ranging from obstinate resistance to an easy compliance. Of course, man’s nature influences and controls his responses. Yet man does possess a capacity to respond to the reasonings of God’s Word. And the Scriptures teach that God holds him accountable for doing so.
It seems to me a very self-serving comment to accuse those, who do not understand Scripture to teach Election as taught by a Calvinistic view of salvation truth, to be followers of Pelagius. One might just as fairly say that, once we get free of Augustine and his heretical derivatives, we might understand how salvation truth is presented in Scripture.
Since God is Sovereign, He can establish whatever rules are consistent with His character and attributes for saving lost mankind. And He will be glorified by the rules He establishes. He has established that salvation will be by grace and not by works, lest any man should boast. Requiriing man to repent, to believe, to be converted does not make salvation partly of man nor does it rob God of the glory, majesty and honor that is due him. It does place the responsibility of man’s condemnation on man himself. It does not make man his own savior. Man might repent all he wanted or was capable of, but if God had not provided the death, burial, and resurrection of His Son, all that human effort would be of no value. Those human responses, which God commands, do not save man one iota. It is Christ alone Who saves. To Him be glory forever and ever. Amen.
Who says that “human beings are neutral towards God”? Humans are an enmity
with God. None become neutral when hearing the gospel.
I only have a second this AM, so a quick thought or two.
A position can suffer from problems of principle/premises or problems of reasoning, or both. In this case, it may be that the problem is mostly with the reasoning. You’re affirming at least some of the same premises I do, but not seeing where they necessarily lead.
If indeed human beings are at enmity with God and those who hear the gospel are not brought to a neutral state, there are conclusions that these truths force us to accept, whether we want to or not.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion