Questions and Answers.
Introduction
In this article it is my desire to deal with a few questions that the non-reformed opponent raises against the reformed position (with the aim of discrediting and discounting the position); but in truth all they do is show a very shallow understanding of both the scriptural teachings at this point and as a whole; and at the same time, the position they are so willing to deny.
It is my position that passage of scriptures teach the reformed position and that is from a biblically balanced and faithful exegetical stand-point. In other words, we can use the same methodology to come to the doctrines of the trinity and justification by Faith as we do for the doctrines of grace. There is no inconsistency.
Were Abraham’s six additional Sons among the reprobate?
This was, of course, the first question that Leighton Flowers asked James White in the Romans 9 debate in 2015. And the answer given to it was fantastic even though it was short. Let us now provide some answers as it needs to be seen clearly; the question simply is not relevant to the debate. But let us consider two facts:
First, we need to recognise that it ignores the contextual answer to why the other sons of Abraham were not of the promise: “and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” (vs. 7) Right in the Word of God we have the answer to that question-- the promise was given from Isaac. In other words, this is simply a false argument on this one basic point. And even if you want to go to Genesis then we have it in Genesis 15 and 18 as well.
Second, whether they were Reprobate or later became people who believed in the promise lies out of any discussion because the scriptures do not give us any basis to even raise such discussions. At this point, all this does is show us that we have an ungodly agenda behind our position. The reality is the bible does not even begin to address the eternal state of these sons; and therefore, this kind of question is simply grasping at straws because it is nothing more than speculation. But then again, Leightons own position does not answer the question because it cannot answer it.
Now in a general sense when the Gospel is preached to the masses: the crowd may be made of the elect and reprobate or may be one or the other. The simple response is that we do not have that knowledge; only God does. And therefore, this means our duty is to preach the Word freely and indiscriminately-- and then the rest is God's duty. He will draw people to himself by the preaching because He has chosen them. We are simply told that we should not be concerned with His role in the process.
God hardened his heart unto the inability to get saved?
This was a question that freewill Arminian Baptists asked a Calvinist in another debate on Romans 9 as well. And it appears that there are two distinct concepts being conflated in this question. Let us consider them carefully:
First, we have God’s act of judicially hardening pharaoh's heart as Romans 9:14-18 refers to which points back to the Old Testament and Exodus 3-10 where God tells Moose that He will harden the heart of this particular man. But this does not mean that God does this for no good reason as it is often assumed; and this man is not the only one that God has done this to or will do this too. However, the thing that we need to understand is this God does this only after man has already chosen to live in a particular fashion. In Romans 1:24; 26; and 28 we have Paul tells us that God gives people over to sin as a further degradation of man, a further plummeting into that which they had already consigned themselves too. In fact, Romans 11 speaks of the hardening of Israel for their unbelief. In other words, this has nothing to do with being born depraved due to sin.
Second, while there may be some furthering of natural man's inability. This is not to be mistaken as the first time it happens. Natural man was born in sin; he was and is enslaved to it. It has affected every part of his very being including his mind; his heart and his will. It is as Romans 3 tells us cohesive:
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (vs. 10-18)
This is the picture of all humanity: they are depraved by nature and sinful in their deeds. There can be no other way to describe them; and even the continual evidence that we are inundated with by the News is that of complete hatred and total evil. And sometimes it is over the smallest and most insignificant thing or the most deadliest thing. It does not matter, they sooner reveal that they are corrupt beyond any human comprehension or even remedy.
Is it not true that Romans 9 is dealing with nations and not individuals?
This question is solely based on the fact that Romans 9 cites Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:2-3 whereby they have been interpreted to mean that two nations will be at war with one another; and this interpretation has been used to override Paul's whole point unfairly. Let us note a few very important things:
First, while it is true that in one sense we are dealing with nations or groups of people to some degree; that however, is not the full point being established in this whole matter. It is only a partial answer.
Second, even if you want to go with the nation's argument; there is still another matter to deal with and that is the fact that nations or people groups are made up of individuals. Therefore, we are not really dealing with nations from an abstract stand-point; but more of a personal one.
Third, beyond these points; we must be sure to see that Romans 9 opens up not with nations but individuals (the choosing of Paul over individual jews who God has passed over); and hence, why he has such a burden toward them and wish for something that is impossible (vs.3)
Fourth, and this principle which certainly includes the nation of Israel (vs.1-5); truthfully has its foundation in the choosing of Issac over Ishmael; and then Jacob over Esau because that was God's right to do so. And this is how the promise would be fulfilled. And from there we see the inclusion of Gentiles too on the same principle (one individual chosen over another).
Doesn’t the reformed position lead God to be a respecter of people?
No. And this is quite funny because the following question refutes such a notion. But we will come to that in a moment. Let us note that it is because election is true that we can dismiss the idea of God's choice leading to Him to “being a respecter of persons” or to put another way: showing partiality or favouritism.
Election is not based on:
Worldly gain or privilege.
Rich or poor.
Intellectual or unintellectual
Ethnicity.
Gender.
Faith or no Faith
Now to put your mind at ease Christian throughout history have fallen into many of these categories; however, the point is that none of them have any real basis as to why one would have been chosen and another not. So what is the reason God chooses one over another? Well, it is simply because He is interested in His own glory being demonstrated and purpose being fulfilled.
The most important point to note is that if it was based on some good thing than Jacob would have never been chosen because He was plain evil according to the text of scriptures as he deceived His own Father and stole the blessing and birthright from His older brother; and even the Apostle Paul before he was converted according to human standards was the worst choice as he a murder of the Saints. But God does not do things according to human standards but His own glory.
If we are chosen without any reference to our action’ then wouldn’t that be unfair?
History has a way of showing us that such a notion is flawed because if God chose us based on some inherent value or external good action; then not one person would ever be good enough to qualify. But more than that, it is as I have pointed out in the prior answer God would not be free to choose but constraint in those he chose based on some foreseen activity on man’s part. And that is not an active election; but a passive one. In fact, this is what most non-reformed positions are reduced to when they posit that God chose based on external factors.
Let me give an example of this to illustrate what I mean:
The question is, is He saving people for no apparent reason, or is He saving people for a reason? In other words, besides some secret, hidden counsel that we can't possibly know about, some unconditional reason that is not there, in other words, the Calvinist will often say, we just don't know what the reason is, therefore can you say with certainty there is no reason based upon our choices, or our decisions independently of God that would cause Him to show favour to one person over another? You know, when we ask about election, we are talking about, mainly, God having favour on somebody, Him choosing someone over someone else.
Matter of fact, whenever we use the word choice, a lot of times we are thinking of the verb form of it, like I made a choice between these options. But if you go into the grocery store later today, and you go to the choice meat section, the word choice there is used more of an adjective, it's describing the type of meat, it's the type of meat that is favourable over the other, lesser favourable meat. And so when you talk about something that is a choice, you are not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favourable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat. So the question becomes really in this debate, really in this debate, does God really favour some people over others?” (15:26-16:50)
This was the understanding of the election given by Leighton flowers in 2020; it is not my desire to refute it as I have already done so. But I want to point out the absolute absurdity of this statement. And it is in these words: “the word choice there is used more of an adjective, it's describing the type of meat, it's the type of meat that is favourable over the other, lesser favourable meat.” If you do not see the issue here: it is not so much the foolish comparison; and it truly is foolish. But rather it is the fact that he is comparing God’s choice to glorify Himself in saving the elect who before that time were unworthy of such a blessing to man’s choice of a piece of meat which may be more favourable than another piece. Now do you see the point?
But now coming back to the question. It is not fairness that you need as that would mean only one thing that everyone should condemn and send to hell for being sinful. And that would be just. No, in fact, what you so need is God’s mercy because it is only in this manner that grace is extended to an undeserving sinner.
