The doctrines of predestination and election

Many people, including myself, find Calvinism's doctrine of election and predestination to be morally repugnant.  In this paper, I will describe why I believe this doctrine is morally unacceptable and will propose a better way to understand those biblical passages dealing with election and predestination.

In this fourth of four papers where I interact with John Piper’s book, The Justification of God, I focus on Romans 9:19-23. For the reader who may not be acquainted with the first three papers, they were on Romans 9:1-5, 9:6-13, and 9:14-18. I created these papers as partial fulfillment for my Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.

In the previous papers, I disputed Piper’s Calvinistic interpretation of Paul’s words in Romans 9. It should be no surprise to those who have read my first three papers, that I dispute his interpretation again. In Romans 9:1-18, Piper set the trajectory of his interpretation. He had no choice but to continue on the path that he set as he exegetes 9:19-23. He believes 9:1-18 to be talking about unconditional election and God’s sovereign right to choose whom he wishes for salvation. He also believes that it was God’s sovereign right to choose some people for damnation. It is not just that he chose not to save some. Piper believes that God created people for the purpose of damning them in Hell. He believes this to be the basis of the objector’s questions in 9:19 and the content of Paul’s response in 9:20-23. Is Piper right and is Paul talking about this in 9:19-23?

Fr. Manuel Piñon, O.P., in his work Predestination and Salvation, insisted that it is imperative to clarify and rediscover the original features of the content of the doctrine of predestination,a doctrine that has engendered misunderstanding within the Christian circle in the pastinasmuch as it is at the heart of the theology of Christian revelation. This study on the above proposition of the said Dominican scholastic is carried out through a threefold discussion. It traces the development of the dogma by utilizing as markers the two major thinkers in the Catholic tradition, namely Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, making their respective theological reflections as the premise upon which M. Piñon's own exposition will be constructed. Moreover, the developments in the doctrine of predestination that had been introduced by thinkers reacting to the propositions of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas respectively are likewise to be investigated. It is in order to account for M. Piñon's insistence on the need to rediscover and rearticulate the original understanding of the said doctrine. Without discounting the implication to human freedom, this study takes the stance that the issue of predestination is concerned more about the right doctrine of God. The theology of predestination, as proposed by M. Piñon, will be explored around the question: How to reconcile the notion of God who is solicitous about the salvation of all, with the view that some will end up condemned for eternity?

Like a majestic peak, Romans 9 stands before the explorer of biblical truth. Its beauty beckons us, but its slopes present many dangers for the unfamiliar traveler.

Long a proof text passage for the Calvinist/Arminian debate, could it be that Romans 9 was really about something else? What was Paul’s aim in Romans 9? What was the story he was telling his generation?

Download or learn more at http://wgsministries.org/product/romans-9/.

What was Jesus' good news about the Kingdom of God and how should this shape the church's approach to its mission? Anglican scholar and clergyman N.T. Wright's views on the above are discussed and critiqued in the light of what the New Testament claims.

Compilation of Scriptures bearing on The Excellence and Essentialness  of The Sovereignty of God Considered Broadly and in Connection With
Election unto Salvation in Particular
[WITH OCCASIONAL INTERSPERSED COMMENTARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES]

I.      GOD’S ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY, INVOLVING:
          HIS SUPREME WILL AND CONTROL OVER ALL THINGS, HIS ETERNAL PLAN
          AND PURPOSE, HIS ETERNAL DECREE, HIS PREDETERMINATION, WITH
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

II.      GOD’S SOVEREIGN, UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, WITH
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON ACTS 13:48
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON UNCONDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL ELECTION
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE SALVATION OF THOSE WHO DIE IN INFANCY

III.    GOD’S SOVEREIGN FOREKNOWLEDGE, WITH
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON ACTS 2:22-24
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON ROMANS 8:28-34

IV.    GOD’S IMMUTABILITY

V.      FALLEN, NATURAL MAN’S CONDITION OF BEING TOTALLY LOST/RUINED AND
          COMPLETELY IMPOTENT TOWARD GOD, AS WELL AS THAT OF BEING
          SATANICALLY BLINDED, INVOLVING:
          THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR THE SOVEREIGN GRACE OF GOD IN
          THE DIVINE ORIGIN AND SPRING OF GENUINE SAVING FAITH, WITH
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE UNDENIABLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN
TOTALLY RUINED, LOST, IMPOTENT TOWARD GOD
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON FALLEN MAN’S ALLEGED “FREE WILL” TOWARD GOD
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON ACTS 26:18; COLOSSIANS 1:13; 1 JOHN 5:19;
REVELATION 12:9; EPHESIANS 2:1-3; 2 TIMOTHY 2:26; 2 CORINTHIANS 4:3-4

VI.    GOD’S EFFECTUAL, UNFAILING CALL OR SUMMONS TO SALVATION
          BY SOVEREIGN GRACE
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON LUKE 14:16-24 (PARABLE OF THE GREAT SUPPER)

VII.    MAN’S EXERCISE OF FAITH/REPENTANCE (GENUINE SAVING FAITH)—
          A GIFT OF GOD BY SOVEREIGN GRACE, WITH
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON JOHN 1:11-13
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON JOHN 6:37, 39-40, 44, 64-65
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON EPHESIANS 2:8-9
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON 2 PETER 1:1
(ALONG WITH REMARKS ON 1 PETER 1:5, 7)

VII.    [CONTINUED:] MAN’S EXERCISE OF FAITH/REPENTANCE (GENUINE SAVING FAITH)—
          A GIFT OF GOD BY SOVEREIGN GRACE, WITH
 SUPPLEMENTAL  NOTE  ON  MERE  HUMAN  FAITH, I.E.,  DEAD FAITH
(JOHN 2:23-25; ACTS 8:5, 9-24; LUKE 8:13;  JOHN 8:30-31, 37-47;
JAMES 2:17, 20, 26)
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON MATTHEW 11:20-24

VIII.  PRETERITION (OR NON-ELECTION), INVOLVING:
          THE PASSING OVER OF THE NON-ELECT, GOD RIGHTEOUSLY AND JUSTLY
          LEAVING THE NON-ELECT TO THEIR OWN SELF-WILLED WICKEDNESS AND UNBELIEF
          OVER AGAINST THE UNSCRIPTURAL NOTION OF “DOUBLE PREDESTINATION” OR
          “DECREE OF REPROBATION” AND THE PASSAGES ALLEGED IN SUPPORT THEREOF, WITH
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON 2 PETER 3:9
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON PRETERITION AND REVELATION 13:8; 17:8; 20:15:
“NOT WRITTEN” IN THE BOOK OF LIFE
 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON: WHAT ABOUT THE UNEVANGELIZED?

Evidence that Bonhoeffer incorporates and responds to portions of Barth's Church Dogmatics II/2 in chapters thought to have been produced without access to Barth's fresh treatment of election mandate a revaluation of Bonhoeffer's controversial ethic and a reconsideration of the hermeneutic proper to his Ethics. Bonhoeffer's conception of election underwent a development from his public academic genesis in Sanctorum Communio to his posthumously published Ethics. His treatment of election in ‘God's Love and the Disintegration of the World’ demonstrates the doctrine's prominent role in his final attempts at reforming Christian ethics and his critique of all previous ethics. Attending to the influence of election illuminates developments in Bonhoeffer's thinking about two of the primary concepts associated with his Ethics–Stellvertretung and Schuldübernahme.

After the Second World War, a renewed interest in the doctrine of election became evident.Several influential and leading theologians published monographs on divine election. One reason for this was the publication of the second part of volume two of Karl Barth’s Kirchliche
Dogmatik during 1942. Barth regarded the doctrine of election as the heart of the gospel. Fifty years after Barth’s death and in the year in which reformed churches all over the world commemorate the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), this contribution reflects on Barth’s revisionist
understanding of election and his critique of the Canons of Dort.

The New Testament speaks about God's act of predestination. The doctrine of predestination, which seeks to interpret this NT teaching, is a historically controversial one. To what does predestination refer? Is God's predestination compatible with human freedom? Or does predestination introduce fate into Christianity? Does predestination make God the author of evil, including the evil of eternal damnation? Such questions are far from new. In this talk, Dr. Nathan A. Jacobs will look at the historical development of the doctrine of predestination. He will begin by looking at its doctrinal roots in the West in Augustine of Hippo, and its developments in the medieval period, the Reformation, and beyond. Dr. Jacobs will show that the Western discussion displays considerable diversity and change over time. Dr. Jacobs will then contrast this Western trajectory with the discussion of the doctrine in the Eastern Church fathers, highlighting the significant differences between the positions of the West and those of the East.

In this third of four papers, as a partial requirement for my Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, I examine John Piper’s exegesis of Romans 9:14-18 in his book, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23.

The first two papers dealt with 9:1-5 and 9:6-13 and are available on this site. As with the first two, Piper seeks to give a coherent Calvinist interpretation of Paul’s words. In this section, he focuses on Paul’s quotations of the two Exodus verses (Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9:15 and Exodus 9:16 in Romans 9:17). His point is that God’s bestowal of mercy to sinful Israel and his hardening of sinful Pharaoh show his divine prerogative to show mercy to whom he will for salvation and to harden others to damnation. For those who have read my first two papers, you will know that though I greatly admire John Piper, I disagree with his exegesis and exposition.

You, the reader, must determine if I have a sound basis for disagreeing with Piper and if I have a solid understanding of Paul’s important words. Let me know! Some academic sites allow you to Message me on the site. Some do not, but you can always reach me at this address: jonathan@WGSministries.org. I would love to hear from you.

From these conference notes: "Lonergan's idea of doctrine as judgment has shaped the way I train lay people for ecumenical encounter between church and parish.  I have learned the following:
1. That healthy ecumenical dialogue—whether international or local—embraces doctrine;
2.  That lay people are much more capable of theological judgment than we give them credit for, especially where understanding precedes judgment;
3.  That honesty about the differing judgments of their traditions can bring local Christians together, rather than further separating them."

In the following pages, we will look at two of the oracles against Edom; Malachi 1:2-5 and Amos 9:11-12. The Amos oracle is noteworthy because of its use by James in the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. The Malachi oracle is noteworthy because of its use by Paul in his famous Romans 9 chapter and is a key piece in the Calvinistic Arminian debate.

The Lord said through Malachi, “Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated.” Paul quotes these words in his letter (Rom 9:13) to explain how the promised kingdom can be present when Israel largely has not believed in its Messiah. Calvinists have viewed these words as a clear example of God’s sovereign freedom to elect one to salvation and to bypass another. Bypassing is too soft a word. He loves and predestines one to salvation and hates and predestines another to eternal damnation. There it is in black and white, “Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated.” Those words, coupled with “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom 9:18) should be enough to convince everyone of the points of Calvinism, well, at least of the “U” petal in the Calvinist T-U-L-I-P, Unconditional Election.

But I am unconvinced.

The purpose of this brief paper is to help readers gain a fuller understanding of what Malachi, Amos, Paul, and James had in mind, and to see if what we learn has any bearing on what Augustine first advocated and what Luther, Calvin, and many other Reformers advanced in the theological world of Christendom. Were they correct, or did the struggles of their time misinform them and skew their understanding of the words written by apostles and prophets?

This book is about Roger Williams (ca. 1603-83), who was banished from the colony of Massachusetts Bay for advocating freedom of conscience, separation of church and state, Native American rights, and related matters.  He founded the town of Providence in what became Rhode Island on the basis of full liberty of conscience and complete separation of religion and government.  For additional information, see the uploaded PDF and links.

The book is available in paperback and Kindle e-book editions at Amazon websites throughout the world.  The paperback is also available at some other websites and bookstores.

See also my YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOlUZaehYk7WmwW8v9oBMzQ) about Roger Williams, including an interview (https://youtu.be/mGRl5lIbdYY) with me about this book.

For Errata and Supplemental Comments, see the separate document uploaded at https://www.academia.edu/13798228/Errata_and_Supplemental_Comments_to_The_First_American_Founder_Roger_Williams_and_Freedom_of_Conscience.

Alan E. Johnson

Jacques Maritain cited Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange as having been one of the Thomists who had worked toward a revision of the traditional Thomistic, Banezian treatment of providence, reprobation, and the permission of sin. For Maritain, it was specifically the antecedent permissive decree which made God out to be an indirect cause of sin and thus the one primarily responsible for it. Maritain thought that a rejection of the antecedent permissive decree was absolutely necessary to preserve God’s innocence. This paper attempts to show that Garrigou employed a new approach to the topic which is nonetheless completely consistent with the Thomistic tradition. Garrigou is concerned with safeguarding against an overly harsh treatment of reprobation which, in over-stressing God’s providential reign over all things (sin included) could make the traditional treatment vulnerable to modern concerns over theodicy. However, Garrigou utilizes the traditional treatment, formulating it in order to place emphasis upon man’s causal role in sin so as to speak to the concerns of his time, many of which are found within Maritain’s critique. The change in emphasis in no way negates the traditional treatment. Garrigou fully embraces the antecedent permissive decree and the robust sense of providence found throughout the earlier tradition.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.12379/full

Jacques Maritain cited Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange as having been one of the Thomists who had worked toward a revision of the traditional Thomistic, Banezian treatment of providence, reprobation, and the permission of sin. For Maritain, it was specifically the antecedent permissive decree which made God out to be an indirect cause of sin and thus the one primarily responsible for it. Maritain thought that a rejection of the antecedent permissive decree was absolutely necessary to preserve God’s innocence. This paper attempts to show that Garrigou employed a new approach to the topic which is nonetheless completely consistent with the Thomistic tradition. Garrigou is concerned with safeguarding against an overly harsh treatment of reprobation which, in over-stressing God’s providential reign over all things (sin included) could make the traditional treatment vulnerable to modern concerns over theodicy. However, Garrigou utilizes the traditional treatment, formulating it in order to place emphasis upon man’s causal role in sin so as to speak to the concerns of his time, many of which are found within Maritain’s critique. The change in emphasis in no way negates the traditional treatment. Garrigou fully embraces the antecedent permissive decree and the robust sense of providence found throughout the earlier tradition. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.12379/full