The Unlearning of the Will

Don’t you think we spend copious (ridiculous?) amounts of time debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will without hardly ever mentioning the sinful mess of our own wills? It appears to me that if the mind really is fallen and sin permeates every part of our wills (Rom. 7:21-25), it’s at very least rather handy and comforting to know that there is an exhaustively sovereign God who ‘works all things together for the good of those who love him’ (Rom. 8:28). I mean, doesn’t falleness necessitate sovereignty in a system of unconditional grace?

Rom. 12:2 tells us not to conform to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. THEN you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will, [emphasis mine]. Thus in the renewing of our minds to become more like the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) we are transformed to a place where we can truly understand God’s will. Further, becoming Christlike in our minds is shaping our minds like the eternal sovereign mind of God, making our pilgrimage of Christlike holiness an eternal, inexhaustible path… i.e. there’s always more way to go!

In fact, the way in which Paul qualifies the quote from Isaiah 40 in 1 Cor 2:16 seems to suggest that to know the mind of the Lord necessitates having the mind of Christ. This is strengthened by the parallel immediately preceding this. Paul there tells us that no-one can know the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God, then goes on to tell us that we have the Spirit of God within us, thus our words are God’s words flowing from His thoughts/will (vv.10-14).

So it’s possible that the reason we’re so stuck in debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will is because we’re not discussing, sharpening, and encouraging each other to submit our wills/minds to God for his sanctifying. This is of course a process of grace.

Grace is unconditional, and entirely unmerited. We cannot earn God’s favour, we in fact are totally blind (2 Cor. 4:4) and dead (Eph. 2:1-5) before we meet God, and then when we meet Him we are His far off enemies (Luke 15:11-31; Rom. 5:10). However, in contrast to blind we have sight, to death we have life, and to our blind, dead will we a have God’s completely seeing, alive will. If God’s will was not all sovereign, then the renewing, transforming of my own will through grace alone and not by any effort of mine, would be impossible.

If we believe in Grace, then let’s begin by submitting our minds to God, becoming holy and blameless through Him in our cognitive self. If we seek to understand the will of God, and be driven by God-glorifying motives, then let’s begin with our sinful state and the work of Christ and submit our minds to Him. God’s exhaustive sovereignty is a sweet taste when it’s not viewed in a test tube but instead experienced as a need, and a cure to our sinful selves. When we view God’s character in a test tube, we approach it with a false objectivity. Lets observe ourselves, and submit to God; not the other way around.

Translation of Rom. 9:22-23

>>> This was my final translation after much sweat and tears. I'm still not entirely convinced of the participle being causal, but its alternative so dramatically alters the immediate context its hard to see how it couldn't be. <<<

2.3.1 Translation
"But if God, wishing to demonstrate (his) wrath[A] and to make known his power[B] endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath having been fitted for destruction, and (what if he did this wishing) that he might make known the riches of his glory[C] on vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory?"

Rom. 9:22-23 and Open Theism (again).

>>>This is another copy and paste from section four("Against Open Theism") from my undergrad dissertation.<<<

4.1 Rom.9:22-23
No key Open Theist work expounds their theology in light of Rom.9:22-23 which is a serious defect. God’s purposes to reveal His glory in vv.22-23 require showing wrath and mercy as the result of ‘God’s determinate choice.’ An Open Theist systematic would have to give this choice to man, so that God’s glory being magnified is determined ultimately by the man’s choices. This increases human control and diminishes God’s control. This does not fit with God’s creative-purpose as he wouldn’t actively be seeking the greatest good but seeking human-freedom above His glory. It further doesn’t exegetically fit with the sovereign God of Rom.9 or the divine-preparer of vv.22-23.

God’s purpose in the passage is to show climatically His Glory; and for this purpose to be achieved he must sovereignly elect vessels for destruction and for mercy. This challenges Open Theism on two levels, first God is shown to be the divine-preparer and so must be behind human choice. Second, if God dynamically relates to the vessels to the degree Open Theists claim, then he is seeking this relational dynamic over the greatest good, the riches of His glory. This drastically distorts the text.

Open Theism and Romans 9 (1)

Romans 9 for me is becoming increasingly important. I have spent some serious time these last 6-10 months trying to get to the bottom of it working with all the dominant interpretations. I feel stronger about my beliefs on elective grace, even though I think Calvin himself botches Rom.9 by going overboard on that; and I feel stronger against classic Arminian arguments as they seem to undermine the integrity of the passage.

Arminian brothers unfortunately seem to take Rom.9 to pieces, re-interpret all those pieces making them at least incompatible with each other and at most diss-jointed with the epistle to the Romans. When one does take Rom.9 as a whole, he/she either overplays the collective language, or underplays the salvific language...both set Rom.9 out of kilter with the epistles flow.

However, if one sees the exegetical hoops Arminians jump through (with all due respect, I have many friends who hold the view); it is nothing compared to an Open Theist position. Rom.9 gives the reader an unquestioning look at God's characteristics as are reflected in creation, redemption, and salvation history. It shows God's sovereignty, his wrath, his power, his hardening, his justice, his utter mercy, and above all is glory as shown through his mercy. Rom.9 gives a taste of how God's characteristics dynamically interact, even in extremes such as wrath and mercy, and Rom.9 uphold completely God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. This is a passage Open Theists need to spend serious time on in order to convince their readers of their theology. - However. - They don't.

For my dissertation I have read two dominant books by C. Pinnock (Most moved mover, and the openness of God), one by G. Boyd (God of the possible), and one by Sanders (The God who risks), several journal articles, and spoke to several advocators of the theology. Not one of the books gives an exegesis or interpretation of Rom.9 in defence of their view! Not one. No-one even mentions in my reading, vv.22-23. Surely this is a highly accountable and answerable passage? Why do Open Theists seem not to believe so? In taking to Open Theist friends about Rom.9, the way they have tackled it is by slipping back into Arminian arguments which when pushed are found to be incompatible with their Open Theist convictions.

I know this post turned into a bit of a rant, and I apologise for any offence caused. What I hope it does is encourage those who know of literature to bring it to my attention, and to provoke a detailed defence of Open Theism with Rom.9 from its advocators. I continue to find Open Theism dangerous for Christians, and feel stronger still for the immensity of God in all things as he reveals himself lovingly to be in Rom.9. Praise God.

Salvation in Romans 9 - The Importance of vv. 1-5

One of my most contested opionions throughout this blog, contested by emails and replies to posts, is my hypothesis allows Romans 9 to talk about Salvation. I have many reasons for this, some you will find if you take the time to scroll down previous posts; however one which I haven't yet bought out as fully as I possibly could is the importance of vv. 1-5. So here is where I do that.
vv. 1-5 is one of the most important and affection-full (tbcontinuted)

The Purpose of Romans 9, 'Has God's word failed?'

Just to make a point a wee bit clearer that I made in passing in a previous post. The key to understanding Romans 9 is the following question:

'Who is Israel?'

Let me bring this out a little bit...

The issue presenting Paul is this: - God made a covenant to his people Israel, yet many ethnic Jews are not believing in Jesus Christ, the Jewish messiah...are they saved? ...are they in the new covenant? And the most pressing and frightening question: - 'Has God's word failed?' (See v. 6), if God cannot keep his 'old' covenant to His people, then how can we trust Him to keep his 'new' covenant with Christians? We cannot be grafted into a dead tree!

Paul is therefore clarifying in Rom. 9 who exactly Israel is, distinguishing ethnic Israel, and the Remnant, the Children of the promise, the true seed of Abraham - and to them God has kept his promises perfectly. Therefore those individuals that he has elected unto salvation just like the remnant, he will keep in his palm, and the covenant will be kept perfectly.

The key to Rom. 9 is not therefore about God 'choosing' his ethnic people Israel over Edom, it’s not simply about Gentile inclusion, and it is not even simply about election unto salvation - although there is certainly an element of all this within the passage. The key is Paul asserting perfectly that God has flawlessly kept his covenant to his people, his word has not failed, and therefore his chosen people in the new covenant can trust his promises perfectly.

A Possible Simple Structure of Rom. 9

(Note, this is an exceptionally simplified structure of Romans 9, and its contextual place within Romans...there is obviously much more to it than this, but such a structure allows us a sound stream through Romans, with this chapter being part of the flow, rather than anomaly or a hindrance.)

All of Romans 9 seems to be a single question ‘who now is Israel’ with the single answer ‘those who God has chosen.’ This is to explain the systematic assertion that though Jesus, and His new covenant, those individuals chosen to make up spiritual Israel, are no longer confided to physical Israel but are found in both Jews and Gentiles, united by faith in Christ.

This chapter epilogues the admonishment to, explanation of, and apologetic for, the developing Church shown in chapters 1-8, and it also prologues the explanation of Israel’s Remnant and Gentiles ‘grafting-in’ found in chapters 10-11. This allows a transition back to the place of the Church in chapters 12-16.

This single question is shown by a developing three-fold questioning, to address the same overarching question several ways (as has been posed by the Church in Rome), and provide several angles of answer to the question. Each sub-question builds on the last and develops the point further, leaving the reader with -no doubt- as to the answer of the question, and their subsequent response to the subject and nature of the question. With that in mind:

vv. 1-5 – Introduction, setting the apologetic and pastoral tone for Paul’s difficult answer(s), it gives us the key themes and peoples involved in the questioning.

vv.6-24 – The three-fold addressing of the question

- vv. 6-9 – Qu. 1 – Has God’s word failed? – Begins to answer with example (Children of Abraham)
o vv. 10-13 – Concludes answer with example (Jacob an Esau)

- vv. 14-15 – Qu. 2 – Is God unjust? – Begins to answer with example (Ex. 33: 19)
o vv. 16-18 - Concludes answer with example (Pharaoh)

- vv. 19-21 – Qu. 3 – Why does God still blame us? – Begins to answer with illustration (the potter and the clay)
o vv.22-24 – Concludes answer with illustration (vessels) and explanation of God’s ultimate purpose (to show the riches of His glory)

vv. 25-29 – Concluding and reasserting the answer with scriptural proof

vv. 20-33 – (smaller-version of whole chapter) Epilogue to Rom. 9, and small Prologue (to emphasis the over-all prologue of Rom. 9) to Rom. 10-11

Possible Election Language in Rom. 9

I use the term election here to mean a decision of God held/instigated primarily in the council of God as seemingly un-swervable by the works or actions of humans. - I am surer about some of these than others. The big question however, is who is elected, individuals or collective groups, and what are they elected to, privilege or salvation. (More later).

'before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad'
'in order that God's purpose in election might stand'
'not by works but by him who calls'
'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy'
'I raised you up'
'It does not therefore depend on mans desire or effort, but on God's mercy'
'he hardens whom he wants to harden'
'For who can resist his will'
'prepared for destruction'
'prepared in advance for glory'
'whom he called'
'I will call them/her'
'I lay in Zion, a stone that causes men to stumble'

Note that there does not seem to be an explicit designation of human choice language (as defined by libertarian free-will theology) to be found to compete with election language in this chapter. There are some things like:

'Gentiles did not pursue'
'Israel pursued'
'They pursed it not by faith but as if it were by works'
'the one who trusts in him'

Which seems to designate a level of responsibility to human choice-making faculties, however, for this to be libertarian free will, you have to isolate them from all the above election language in this chapter. One must take them in context with the sovereignty of God as expressed here and see that God is sovereign, yet paradoxically, man responsible. Both meet in God's covenant of grace, won through the life, death, resurrection, and assertion of his Son Jesus Christ. (for more information on this, see Jonathan Edwards on the the covenant of grace at http://www.the-highway.com/articleMay01.html)

Jews and Gentiles as respective vessels in Rom. 9:22-23?

It’s an old counter-Calvinism view that the vessels spoken of in Romans 9:22-23 refer to two collective groups of people, namely; the Jewish nation and the Gentiles. This works as follows:

Vessels of Wrath = Jews (under the old covenant)
Vessels of Mercy = Gentiles (grafted into the new covenant)

Paul is not therefore talking about the eternal destinies of these two peoples obviously, as Paul himself was a Jew saved by Jesus. But about the fates of the two peoples; - Judaism would die out to be replaced by Gentle-grafted Christianity.

However, I feel that there are, some basic problems with such a view. Verse 24 reads (as an immediate follow on from v. 23) - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentles? Paul notes that both Gentiles and Jews are in the category 'vessels of mercy.'

Therefore, the vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy cannot be Jews and Gentiles respectively, as both Gentiles and Jews are identified as vessels of mercy. And we may infer from this with working parallels that both groups are also found in vessels of wrath.

Helpful Romans Commentaries

J. Stott, The Message of Romans (IVP) - Concise and informative, very helpful on purpose and structure, great introductory commentary with that little bit more meat.
F. F. Bruce, Romans (Tyndale, No. 6) - Don't do it. He has some helpful things to say, but often ignores whole verses or misses key systematic issues. Much more helpful on introductory issues. Not one of his best.
M. Luther, Romans (Kregel Classics) - Strange little book (being only 223 pages long), more of a pulling together of various thoughts and materials than a working commentary. Yet is a surprisingly helpful and edifying read. Luther does tend to go a little overboard at times, and again skips comment on some verses.
N.T. Wright, Paul for Everyone - Again, not brilliant, sometimes helpful on breaking down a passage, but often misses verses, it seems, to fit his theological agenda. Wright is a fine exegete, but certainly not at his best here.
N.T. Wright & S. K. Soderlund (eds.) Romans and the People of God - Very helpful collection of essays in honour of Gorden Fee. These essays cover ground all over Romans and its modern application, some of them much better than others, has proved to be very insightful. Authors include, Wright, Packer, Marshall, France, Longenecker, Dunn, et al.
J. Dunn, Romans (Word Biblical Commentary, 2 Vols.) - Dunn gives us an exceptionally detailed and thoughtful piece of work, often helpful, full of detailed text work, however it does seem quite strongly that Saunders is too often drifting through the pages.
C. Cranfield Romans (T & T Clark, ICC, 2 Vols.)- Brilliant 2 volume commentary, very helpful exegetical work, very very dense. I would strongly recommend his abridged version as a way into this not particularly accessible work. N.b. Although I don't always agree with what Cranfield concludes, his text work allows the reader to use what he says and form his own opinion. I.e. The exegesis is not as pressupossionally drawn as some authors.
J. Calvin, Romans - Very helpful in parts, amazingly clear text work for such an ancient commentary, fun read (not always for the reasons Calvin would have appreciated), but conclusions often driven by a theological agenda. Though still competes with contemporary commentaries.
D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT) - Probably the most comprehensive and clear commentary currently on the market, very helpful, well structured, and engages multilaterally with the key issues. Moo also deals quite extensively with the New Perspective(s) on Paul.
J. Philip The Power of God - Fantastic introductory commentary, lots of fresh insight, v-helpful!

More thoughts on translating -theon- in v. 22 (see earlier post)

Do note that this is neither an exhaustive list of translations or interpretations ... far from it. Just a couple that at the moment I feel most plausible. I will expand in later blogs on supporting context and verses for some of the interpretations.

Possible Translations:

(Causal)
What if God, although he desired to show his wrath and make known his power, endured with much patience, vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy, whom he made beforehand for glory.


(Concessive)
What if God, because he desired to show his wrath and make known his power, endured with much patience, vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy, whom he made beforehand for glory

Possible Interpretations from translation 1 (concessive):

1.1 God wants to show his wrath and his power but , by patiently enduring with vessels of wrath he could instead show his glory to vessels of mercy. Or...he didn't just destroy the vessels of wrath after the fall, but instead let his plan continue so that he could show his mercy by saving the vessels of mercy through his redemptive plan with Christ at the center, - therefore two sets of vessels, some have been prepared for destruction, some prepared for mercy. Elect and reprobate.

1.2 God wanted to show his wrath and his but instead gives the vessels of wrath chance to repent and become vessels of mercy. So ... vessels of mercy come out of vessels of wrath. All were 'made' for destruction as all fall short of the glory of God, but some were made beforehand for glory, those who God foreknew would repent, those whom he predestined for glory. God also knew those vessels of wrath that would not become vessels of mercy, however, just as in the case of Pharaoh, they are responsible for their lack of repentance. So God elects them as 'reprobate' however their own responsibility confirms them in that. God is sovereign, yet man responsible.

Possible Interpretations from translation 2 (causal):

2.1 God wants to show his wrath and power, and does so against vessels of wrath made for destruction and this also allows God to show glory more especially by showing his mercy to vessels of mercy made beforehand for glory. Two groups of vessels, one for glory, the other for wrath, shows more fully God's character, therefore shows more of His glory.

2.2 God wants to show his wrath and power, and does against vessels of wrath made for destruction. However, as in 1.2, some of those vessels, in God's foreknowledge repent and become the vessels of mercy. Therefore all made as vessels of wrath (cf. Eph. 2:3 – we were all children of wrath), yet out of these, through Jesus, God chose a people for himself who would repent through his grace and become vessels of mercy...as they were prepared for beforehand. So again, God is sovereign, yet man still fully responsible.

Its my feeling that either 1.2 or 2.2 is the most likely in the context of Paul, the teaching of Jesus and further systematic implications. This obviously though leads us with some difficulties:.
> If God truly does elect before the foundations of the earth, why is man still held responsible?

For the answer to this I direct you to Rom. 9:19f., noting particularly that our sense of justice and morality is soaked in the tree we ate from, and therefore apart from grace, warped.

> Is God completely just in holding us responsible if he moulded us this way?

See Rom. 9:14f. Noting that our sense of justice too is 'tree-justice' and we know that God is completely just, and his actions must also therefore be just. To further understand the depth of true justice we must submit to God's word as it teaches us about himself. God's justice often doesn't make sense to us, especially if we are unwilling to submit to his word, who would have thought that justice meant the Father pouring his wrath upon his Sinless Son to call us into his glory as vessels of mercy.

> How is God completely Sovereign in predetermining vessels if man is held fully responsible for his actions?

This is a complicated question in which there is no easy answer. I believe it to be a working, biblical paradox which is held in the counsel of God but cannot be fully grasped by human-kind. However there are things that help us, such as first, we know that it must work with God's character, therefore must be totally holy, and just, and loving, and righteous...etc. And also second, this biblical paradox is not unique, we see another closely related working biblical paradox in God's means of grace...such as shown in in Jude. - v. 21 says 'keep yourselves in the love of God,' and v. 24 says 'to him who is able to keep you.' So you keep yourself...in him who keeps you.

Part 3 of Cranfield looking at 'mercy' in his intro to Rom. 9

"(iii) It is only where the Church persists in refusing to learn this message, where it secretly - perhaps quite unconsciously! - believes that its own existance is based on human achievement, and so it fails to understand God's mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God's mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptual notion that God has cast off His people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church."

[Cranfield, Romans]

Who is the one who prepares the vessels of wrath for destruction in Rom. 9:22

Who is the agent of the 'preparation' of the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

The participle 'prepared' is difficult. It is not as easy in Greek as in English translations to simply parallel the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction with v. 23, the vessels of mercy prepared for glory. This is because the participle in v. 23 is an active participle, much more obviously being connected with divine preparation; whereas for prepared in v. 22, Paul uses passive participle in middle voice which does not immediately suggest God as the one who prepares.

So what do we do with this? The answer I believe again is deducible from the context. Paul seems to be drawing an obvious parallel between vv. 22-23 and vv. 17-18 (see my previous post on Rom. 9 'the participle thelōn' for more on this), and here is no exception. God is the agent of Pharaoh's hardened heart, and is further the agent in Pharaoh being raised up, God is there, the one who prepares. If this parallel stands, and due to the theological and contextual flow of Romans 9, I believe it does. Then it is indeed God who prepares the vessels of wrath for destruction...for the purpose of showing his wrath, his power, and his mercy, ultimately, for the purpose of magnifying His glory.

'He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the tilings contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God's predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.'
[J. Calvin on Rom. 9:22]

D. Moo's paraphrase of Rom. 9:22-23

“What objection can you make if it is in fact the case that God has tolerated with great patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction when you realize that his purpose in doing so has been to demonstrate his wrath, make known his power, and – especially – to make known the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy, prepared beforehand for glory.”

Translating the participle -thelōn- in Rom. 9:22-23

Rom. 9:22-23
'What if God, wanting to show his wrath and make known his power, bore with much longsuffering vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
in order to make known the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy, prepared beforehand for glory.'

One of the most difficult translation issues is this passage is, what do we do with the participle, thelōn? (wanting/wishing/willing) There seems to be two most likely possibilities.

First Possibility - we translate it as causal, by adding the conjunctive though. This becomes,

although God wanted to show his wrath and make known his power, he [instead] bore with much longsuffering vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
in order to (1) make known the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy, prepared beforehand for glory.'

I.e. Everything leads up to the single purpose statement, - this is what God does, even though he didn't have to bear with vessels of wrath, he did so that he could show the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy; Even though he could have shown his wrath and made known his power, he didn't, so that he could show the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy.

Second Possibility - we translate it as concessive, by making the conjunctive, because. This becomes,

because God wanted to (1) show his wrath and (2) make known his power, he bore with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to [or because he wished] (3) make known the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy, prepared beforehand for glory.'

I.e.Thelōn translated this way means there are three purposes of God, (1) to show his wrath, (2) to show his power, and (3) to make know the riches of his glory to vessels of mercy.


The first translation seems to allow a natural progression to a single clause, which balances structurally within itself (whereas the second has two purposes of God through the vessels of wrath, and one through the vessels of mercy; structurally inbalanced.)

The second seems to contextually work better with Rom. 9 and allows a parallel with vv. 17-18, God raised Pharaoh up for the purpose of displaying his wrath - so with Pharaoh and the vessels of wrath, God withholds judgement to more fully display his glory, shown though wrath, power, and mercy. Also, on the note of structure, an argument could run along the lines of, 'the riches of glory shown to the vessels of mercy is a climatic purpose of God, therefore there is only one, whereas wrath and power are similar traits/purposes and progress to the climax of the final purpose to vessels of mercy.' - but that might be crud.

I believe the (at the moment) that the second translation is more likely, and fits better with the context of Rom. 9 - and this really is one of those verses which we must let context help determine the meaning as it starts which a conditional de (but what if?) - so 'what if mr Reader, God chose to act this way, have a look at what I've just said...what do you think?' (my quite dodgy Pauline statement).

If this is the case then God's purposes in bearing with vessels of wrath is that he wants to show his wrath, power and mercy.
Therefore.
God actually desires to show these traits, and uses his means to do so. (What are God's means? More on this later).