I have had a number of congenial conversations with friendly (and not so friendly Calvinists). I don't mind discussing the issue, and I generally make it known that I consider them orthodox, even if they don't think the same as I do. We can agree to disagree. We likely both affirm at the end of the day that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. As each of us sees our own view, it would be silly to boast in salvation, since it is Christ who does the work of Salvation. Yeah, call me a monergist (mono - one, erg - work: One Work - Christ's). My work for salvation? None. My ability to trust God without his grace? None. On these things we do actually agree.
Now I prefer to defend my view, but in fairness, I will expect you to justify yours. Often this winds up with my friendly opponent making an error. You see, Calvinism rightly understood affirms certain information and explanations are not granted to us. Certain questions have no answer, like, "Why is one chosen and not the other?" At this point(or later if you want to detour through "to glorify God"), one should say, "well, I don't know, but I trust God." Cry to uncle Mystery, I might not agree with you(I draw distinction between mystery and contradiction), but I'd rather we disagreed and left it at that than you wander off into vain philosophy.
Most Calvinists I know are fine with uncle Mystery. I am as well if it comes to that. How does the trinity work? Well, I don't think I can rightly describe it, there is mystery(not contradiction) here.
The second group, however, has a tendency to love their own reasoning. I sit and ask a simple set of questions, and they become increasingly agitated. Eventually it winds up with a bunch of machine gun hermeneutics and finally their "trump card". Romans 9:20: " But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”(NIV)
This is quite unimpressive. And frankly desperate. So, I write this post to explain why I don't immediately change my ways and agree with people who play that card.
Firstly, I am not questioning God I am questioning you.
Now don't get me wrong, I think it is OK to question God in certain contexts, but in this case, my questions are not directed at God, they're directed at you. There are two reasons your appeal to Romans 9:20 might move me.
1. You are actually God.
2. Your theology of God is infallible and complete, to the point where you can answer any question as God would.
Many people are so proud as to claim (2), but I find that it is not a position I would want to defend. I am human and God is not. Further, I obviously don't agree with your interpretations of scripture, and rather than get into that with me, you seek to shut me down by an appeal to an authority you do not have.
Secondly, you're doing violence to scripture quoting that at me (It is out of all context).
To fully address this, I would have to go through the entirety of Romans, however, others have done that far better than I, so if you ask, I'll point you to them. But I do want to address a bit of context here. Why does Paul write this?
First look at Acts 18:1-18. What we have here is a situation where the Jews had been kicked out of Rome. By the time Romans is written, some are back, (we know because Paul addresses them (and over external data)). Next look at Romans 9:1-5. Paul is speaking specifically to Jews and he is using a rhetorical device here. He is having an argument in the text with an imaginary Jew to illustrate something.
Why might a Jew be upset, as the one in the text so clearly is? Is it possibly because Jews considered their heritage - their link to Abraham - the source of their salvation. Jesus himself refutes this misconception (John 8:39-44 and on). But it appears there was friction in the Roman church between Jew and gentile. Not to get too deeply into it, but essentially Romans 9 is Paul arguing down a Jew who is upset that "saved by faith" has upset his worldview of being one of the only chosen people.
In other words, the Jew, who sees himself eternally secure because of his heritage, is being told, no, and God's word hasn't failed, and stop talking back to God, this is what God has done.
Read in context, I think the verse speaks more to a(type of, perhaps?) Calvinist who says "Only the elect, I am secure in my election, God's eternal decree" than the Arminian who says "Only Christ. I am elect and secure only in Christ".
I'm going to get a lot of flak for this view, but I believe it is the way the church saw it before Augustine, and I think they had the context and they're right on this one.
Conclusion
In order to use this passage to admonish me, you have to do a lot more work to show it actually applies to me, than to just rip it out of context and scream it at me.
Don't be surprised if it doesn't impress me when you just throw it down to try and silence the hard questions I may ask. If you want an out, I'll happily agree to disagree or point you towards mystery, but in throwing this one down makes you sound like you're desperately trying to convince yourself.
Hey, I'll call you brother even if we disagree on the implications of the context here - we're all human and fallible.
COMMENT RULES ** IF NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS.
As always, keep any comments respectful, and I reserve the right to not publish anything I feel violates the spirit of this blog and the principle of charity. Also, if you do not carefully read, at least the first paragraph where I affirm salvation by grace through faith and not works, and it becomes evident you didn't in your comment, don't wonder why I did not publish it.
No comments:
Post a Comment