Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Romans 9:13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Romans 9:13 As it is written and forever remains written, "JACOB I LOVED (chose, protected, blessed), BUT ESAU I HATED (held in disregard compared to Jacob)." [Mal 1:2, 3] |
Subject: explain the doctrine of predistination |
Bible Note: Dear Tim, Ah... the "self evident" argument! ;-) I was afraid you might have be erroneously implying that such was a doctrine of the Reformers. I have a familiarity and intimacy with the theology of Calvin which permits me to speak with some specificity on the subject. Consequently, I hope you won't think me presumptuous to instruct you so that you might more correctly represent that thinking in the future. Calvinism acknowledges the antinomy of both doctrines: God's will that all men be saved and the unconditional election of some men. Both doctrines are Scriptural. Whereas some have erred on the side of denying one doctrine over the other, Calvinism is left with the unenviable task or reconciling them. Consequently, excepting both doctrines leaves us with the implication that there are two kinds of "wills" or "two ways of willing". (This certainly wouldn't be entirely alien to the human experience.) If you spend some time digging a little deeper you will find much early church deliberation on this topic, and a revival of interest in it from the time of the Reformation. Augustine, for example, spoke of the voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure). Since then, there are other phrases used: "the efficient will and the permissive will," "the secret will and the revealed will," "the will of decree and the will of command," "decretive will and preceptive will," "sovereign will and moral will." Most well-read Arminians are aware of these discussions. Did you -- or was it someone else -- cite Clark Pinnok recently? He is highly critical of this perspective. But such criticism is hardly new. Jonathan Edwards wrote, "The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say He may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of His contradicted another." However, the Arminians do not universally disagree. Howard Marshall wrote, "To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what He actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will." There's a lot that could be said on this topic. It is not my aim to defend it or to fully define it. I simply wanted to correct the misrepresentation of John Calvin and the divines who wrote the Westminster Confession. Thank you for the opportunity. :-) In Him, Doc |