D.A. Carson on God's Love and Hate

"If the love of God refers exclusively to his love for the elect, it is easy to drift toward a simple and absolute  bifurcation: God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Rightly positioned, there is truth in this assertion . . . Stripped of complementary Biblical truths, that same assertion has engendered hyper-Calvinism. I use the term advisedly, as it is used in Church History, referring to groups within the Reformed tradition that have forbidden the free offer of the Gospel. Spurgeon fought them in his day. Their number is not great in America today, but their echoes are found in young Reformed ministers who know it is right to offer the Gospel freely but who have no idea how to do it without contravening some element in their conception of Reformed theology."


http://mediafiles.dts.edu/chapel/mp3/19980105.mp3, emphasis added

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 2

This is Part 2 of a discussion of Randal Rauser's recent essay, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist." Click here for Part 1.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

In part 1, we discussed the first of two points:

1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Now we will move on to the second point:

 

2. Rauser clouds the Biblical texts with vague hermeneutical speculation rather than accepting the plain teachings of the passages.

He suggests the teaching of Romans 9 is very complex, and proposes we use John 3:16 as an interpretive control against the Calvinistic understanding. In my view, a better approach is to hold the clear truth of Romans 9 in balance with the clear truth of John 3:16. Otherwise, we are in danger of skewing our perspective by discounting valuable Scriptural data.

Back to the text . . .

I will be the first to admit there are passages in the Bible that are hard to understand. However, Romans 9 is not one of them. It is hard to accept, but not so hard to understand at the basic level. Without any doubt it is "strong medicine." But the strong medicine of God's Word is the cure for our sin-sick souls' deepest diseases, and we need to be willing to receive it full strength. Let our Systematic Theology feel the pain if it must, but Scripture is non-negotiable.

Rauser dilutes this medicine by proposing the following "complexities": 

(his words are in orange, with my responses following)

Rauser: The specific individuals Jacob and Esau serve as symbols representing people groups

Me: Sure, these individuals are heads of nations. But that doesn't change the fact that they are themselves individuals, as Rauser's statement candidly admits. They are individuals who represent nations, and nations are of course made up of individuals. One of Paul's points is that being ethnically a part of an elect nation does not make the individual elect (Romans 9:6-8). Isaac and Ishmael were both descendents of Abraham, but only Isaac was elect. Jacob and Esau were both descendents of Isaac, but only Jacob was elect. In other words, election extends beyond the national/ethnic level to the individual level.
Rauser: There is the potential for the hyperbolic use of language.

Me: It is true that Scripture sometimes uses hyperbolic language, but Rauser needs to show how the language is hyperbolic, and what is meant by the hyperbole. Otherwise, this claim does nothing to clarify the meaning of the text. It would have to be some kind of extreme hyperbole for the text to mean, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved equally." That interpretation is, in fact, antithetical to the context as well as to the terms employed.
Rauser: Insofar as “election” is in view there is the distinction between election for a particular task and election for an eternal destiny.

Me: Is this idea drawn from the text, or brought to it by the interpreter? Let's see . . . the entire previous chapter and the letter itself are about salvation. Paul begins the passage by speaking of the eternal destiny of Israel (Romans 9:3). Does he change course somewhere along the way? Would election to different tasks cause us to question God's justice (Romans 9:14)? Paul is certainly referring to eternal destinies in Romans 9:23-28, as is the case in Romans 9:30, where he says the Gentiles have attained righteousness by faith. That's not "task" talk, it's "salvation" speak. Where, exactly, does Paul switch from discussing eternal destinies to discussing tasks? Rauser would need to present some strong exegesis to make this claim believable.
Rauser: Insofar as one accepts the appropriateness of the “scripture interprets scripture” principle there is the question of whether texts which seem to teach divine omnibenevolence (e.g. John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4) should function as interpretive controls of those texts that seem not to.

Me: As shown in Part 1, the Biblical Calvinist does not have this problem. Omnibenevolence is taught in Scripture, and God's hatred of the unregenerate is also taught, along with God's election of some to salvation. For Calvinists it's both/and (or "all three"), not either/or. This is the reality of Biblical paradox, under which our thoughts must be forged like steel on the anvil. Among the soteriological options, it is our judgment that Calvinism alone has the epistemological integrity to withstand the full weight of the tensions found in divine revelation. Rauser's theological commitments seem to require him to affirm the omnibenevolence of John 3:16 without any tempering from other Scripture passages. It's much easier - and more common among theologians - to declare a passage "complex" and then just ignore the tension it creates.
Rauser vs. The Text

Romans 9 is not as mysterious as Rauser's suggestions imply. Let's see if we can understand the place of "Esau I hated" in the flow of its teaching. This will be both edifying and educational.

Graphic by Eddie Eddings of calvinisticcartoons.blogspot.com, 
 a site everyone should visit often.

In Romans 9:13, Paul's reason for quoting "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is to reinforce what he has just said about God's sovereign election of Israel as opposed to other nations - including those nations descended from Abraham (which is also Malachi's point) - by the election of the individual named Jacob as opposed to the individual named Esau. Since the type of election Paul references occurred prior to birth (Romans 9:11-12), it was unconditional. Since it was related to specific persons (Romans 9:7; 9:13; 9:17), it was not merely national in scope but was particular to the individual. Since Paul's discussion of this election includes descriptions of the "children of God" (Romans 9:8), the display of God's saving mercy (Romans 9:15-16), the call to faith (Romans 9:24), the people of God (Romans 9:25-26) and those who will "be saved" (Romans 9:27), it is clearly more than election to a task. It is election to salvation and righteousness by faith (9:30-33). Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 to support this unconditional, individual/national, salvation-focused election. Anticipating that some people will think this exercise of divine prerogatives is inherently unjust, Paul asks, "Is there injustice on God's part?" Then he answers, "By no means!" (Romans 9:14). And what is Paul's justification for this claim? He says God's sovereign election of persons and nations is not a question of justice, but of mercy (Romans 9:15), and he says that man is in no position to question God's right to make such choices (Romans 9:20-21). All of this accords perfectly with the teachings of mainstream Calvinism, especially the teaching that election is God's saving mercy toward hated sinners, His pre-determined plan to specially love them by satisfying the demands of justice on His own Son in their behalf. In terms of election, God pre-determined to give justice to Esau and saving mercy to Jacob.

To recap: in terms of Common Grace, God clearly loved both Esau and Jacob. In terms of election, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Both are true according to Scripture, and both are affirmed by Calvinism.

Thus Rauser's claim that Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3 contradict Calvinism is unfounded. These verses only contradict Rauser's mistaken understanding of Calvinism. Unfortunately, Rauser seems unwilling to correctly interpret the texts that would lead him inevitably to that beautiful system of Biblical paradox called "Calvinism."

Conclusion

This looks scary, but it's not the real thing.

It seems clear that Dr. Rauser is wrestling with a misunderstanding of Calvinism and not the genuine article. He is trying to address Calvinistic conceptions without fully grasping them. This leaves room for the hope that he may someday gain a better understanding of Calvinism, and embrace it with the same enthusiasm with which he now opposes it.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 1

For a textbook example of how the failure to apprehend Biblical paradox can lead to erroneous theological conclusions, check out Randal Rauser's article, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist."
 
First of all, I'd say every word of Scripture is of use to a Calvinist. But let's take a look at his arguments to see what's good and what's not so good, and whether he has a point.
 
Where Rauser Gets It Right
 
First, we should point out a couple of positive features.

1. He refreshingly notes that some Calvinists believe that "God loves all people but has a special love for the elect." Non-Calvinists often miss this point, but Rauser does not. The truth is, all mainstream Calvinists affirm this, while hypers deny it. 

2. He correctly notes that the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" compels us to place greater weight on the clear passages when we are examining less clear passages. That's a useful principle that no self-respecting Calvinist would argue against.

Pretty good so far.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

 
1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Non-Omnibenevolent Calvinism (NOBC): God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. 

Omnibenevolent Calvinism (OBC): God loves all people but has a special love for the elect.

Here's what he misses: Biblical Calvinism embraces the paradox of God's love and hatred for all unrepentant sinners. What Rauser terms OBC and NOBC are each essential components of mainstream Calvinism. In other words, there is a sense in which God loves all people, and there is a sense in which He hates all the wicked. He is nonetheless omnibenevolent. So, we have three apparently contradictory propositions:

• God loves all people, sinners included (Matthew 5:44-45, Luke 6:35)
• God hates all unregenerate sinners (Psalm 11:5)
• God has a special love for the elect (Ephesians 1:3-6)

These propositions are not actually contradictory or mutually exclusive. They appear to be, and yet they are not so hard to reconcile on Calvinistic terms. Different Calvinists resolve the paradox in different ways, but every mainstream Calvinist affirms these three undeniably Biblical truths. Rauser's artificial division of two separate Calvinisms - one affirming one truth of Scripture, and the other affirming another truth of Scripture - creates a false dilemma that is not applicable to mainstream Calvinism.
 
I don't believe Rauser purposely creates a straw man here; I think he is truly unaware of the beautiful Biblical paradox that Calvinism embraces (in fairness, this might partially result from the fact that most debating Calvinists are so zealous to get their point across that they fail to present a balanced perspective). However, Rauser's misunderstanding fatally clouds his analysis and renders his arguments invalid because he assumes that Calvinists believe God can only love or only hate a given class of persons. Scripture presents a more complex disposition, and most Calvinists are willing to accept this.
 
Properly speaking, God loves and hates all of the unconverted, including the unconverted elect who are under His wrath (Ephesians 2:3). The non-elect are loved through Common Grace, while the elect are loved with Saving Grace. Unconditional Election means God has chosen to show saving mercy to a subset of sinners who are chosen beforehand according to His own wise counsels. Reprobation means that God has chosen to allow some sinners to go on in their natural course of rebellion and receive the just punishment they are due. Even so, the reprobate are extended much mercy and patience throughout their earthly lives (Romans 9:22, Romans 11:32, Psalm 145, 15-17). There is nothing to prevent God from saving them if they are willing to be saved. No one suffering in hell can deny that God showed love to him, that God was kind to him, that God was patient with him, that God was willing to save him on condition of repentance, or that God treated him justly. No one suffering in hell can say that God somehow prevented him from repenting; all who are there know that they were unable to repent simply because they were unwilling - and that they remain unwilling in spite of their sufferings. Esau included. 
 
That is the ugly face of human sin. No wonder God condemns it.
 
To the elect, God grants a willingness to be saved; yet for His own part He is always willing and ready to save all who come to Him. He is truly omnibenevolent! Jacob and Esau were both loved and hated in various ways, but Esau was not loved with electing love, while Jacob was. Thus we conclude, in opposition to Rauser: the phrase, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," is of great use to the Calvinist because it highlights the electing love of God. Yet it does not diminish His general love for all people, or His general hatred for all the wicked. 
 
All the words of Scripture are useful to the Calvinist because he strives to take all of them together, as the whole counsel of God, and hold them in their proper balance.
 
In part 2, we will examine Rauser's hermeneutical arguments and support our thesis with a study of the Biblical texts themselves.

Isaiah 53:1 - Faith and Election

Who has believed our message?

With these words we enter the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, which really should have begun at verse 13 of the 52nd chapter, as Calvin wryly notes:

"This division, or rather dismemberment, of the chapter, ought to be disregarded; for it ought to have begun with the thirteenth verse of the former chapter, and these words ought to be connected with what goes before." (from Calvin's Commentary)

And we will treat it thus.

Here our thoughts are directed to the pertinent question: who has faith? Who has believed the Word of God through His prophets? Who trusts in Him? Who takes His words to heart?

The stunning revelation of Christ's Person and work was, to human thinking, unbelievable. Apart from divine help, man cannot believe the truth of the Gospel. He cannot because he will not. And this stubborn unwillingness is incurable apart from the intervention of God.

Background Study

The 17th Century English theologian, Matthew Poole, rightly describes the meaning of this phrase:

"Who, not only of the Gentiles, but even of the Jews, will believe the truth of what I have said and must say? Few or none. The generality of them will never receive nor believe in such a Messias as this. Thus this place is expounded by Christ himself, John 12:38, and by Paul, Romans 10:16. And this premonition was highly necessary, both to caution the Jews that they should not stumble at this stone, and to instruct the Gentiles that they should not be surprised, nor scandalized, nor seduced with their example." (from Matthew Poole's Commentary)

NOTE: Although Poole's sentiments are correct, he misses the fact that it is John who is speaking in 12:38, not Christ (the verse is quoted below). But ALL the Word of God is Christ's teaching. And from Whom did John learn these things in the first place?

John applies this verse in a remarkable way, not simply as asking who will believe, but as predicting the unbelief of Israel . . .

John 12:36b-40 These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.

John is reminding us that the tragic unbelief of the Jewish nation was not a surprise to God. In this he agrees perfectly with Paul's description of Jewish unbelief as the very means by which God opened the door to the Gentiles (more on this below). But first . . .

The BIG QUESTION

What is meant by all of this blinding and hardening? (You may want to refer to my series called "Hardened Hearts and Human Choices" for a discussion of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart). On the surface, I see two major (and inter-related) theological problems in this text. On an initial reading, this passage appears to contain an affirmation of a certain type of imbalanced Calvinism, but also a defeater for all Calvinsim. The seeming contradiction is enough to leave one entirely baffled. But we are going to look at this in light of the whole Biblical balance and a study of the related texts, and thereby discover the TRUTH of the matter, which is hidden just under the surface.

The thrust of the passage is that God was sovereignly at work in the hardening of the reprobate within Israel. This shows the sovereignty of God in man's salvation, and that's the essence of Calvinism, plain and simple. No problems with this generality, but what about the particulars?

The Theological Trouble Begins Here

What indeed shall we do with this: God is said to harden and blind people who, according to the doctrines of grace, are already hardened and already blind! If everyone is totally depraved, there is no need for God to actively harden the reprobate. All He has to do is leave sinners in their natural condition, for their eyes are indeed blind and their hearts are already hardened. So, all at once we have an apparent and implied denial of total depravity (a sure defeater to all Calvinism) and an apparent affirmation of active reprobation (a necessary tenet in the more hyper brands of Calvinism). Worst of all, God appears malevolent, as though people are trying to believe, ready to have their eyes opened, but He isn't letting them simply because He wants to bring them to destruction. It seems we may have to completely re-work our understanding of soteriology (the Biblical doctrine of how God saves people) to make sense out of this passage. Perhaps we will be forced into some sort of hybrid that includes elements of both Pelagianism and Hyper-Calvinism! But at the same time we would find ourselves fighting other Scriptural truths - such as total depravity (which is clearly taught), and the ultra-foundational issue of the sheer goodness/kindness/benevolence of God. What to do? What to do!?

Before we abandon reason and Biblical faith to go off on a wild theological goose chase that might lead us to a "newer" and "better" theology, let's spend a little more time (and effort) examining the Scriptures. Too many have used just such cases as this to justify their departure from orthodoxy. Sadly, this only reveals the very type of unbelief John is warning us against.

NOTE: Arminianism offers us no help here. Total depravity is the ONE tenet of Calvinism that is affirmed in classical Arminianism. And if one seeks refuge in "open theism," that is also defeated by God's blinding and hardening of the reprobate. All man-centered theology falls flat if God has ANY REAL sovereignty at all in the matter of salvation. The question here is, how can we maintain the Biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty without painting God as unloving, unkind, capricious or unjust? I will argue that a Biblically balanced Calvinism best explains all of the Biblical data.

Who Hardened Whose Heart?

After quoting Isaiah 53:1, John mentions the following passage from Isaiah 6 . . .

Isaiah 6:8-13 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed.” Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, houses are without people and the land is utterly desolate, the LORD has removed men far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, and it will again be subject to burning, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.”

Read this through a couple of times, and let the meaning sink in. This is God's response to "seeker sensitive ministry." God notes that people aren't looking for Him, rather they are rejecting Him. Unrepentant sinners can pretend to be looking and listening, and "searching," but apart from real repentance, real spiritual sight, a real hearing and taking to heart of the Word of God, all of the preaching and teaching is only making them more resistant to divine overtures.

Notice that the passage is not phrased the way John puts it. John says God hardened the hearts of the people, but in the original passage God told Isaiah to harden their hearts. Rather than seeing this as a contradiction, we should recognize John's intent: to magnify the sovereignty of God. Though people chose freely and voluntarily to harden their hearts, God's sovereignty was nonetheless entirely in control of the situation. What He did through Isaiah, HE did. The prophet was His instrument, but the ends achieved were God's Own ends.

How did God achieve these ends? Here we come to the heart of the matter. The means by which Isaiah was to harden the hearts of Israel was the preaching of God's Word. The same message that effectually draws out the elect for salvation also hardens the reprobate into a more settled state of unbelief. Like Pharaoh, the people of Israel had already hardened their hearts and closed their eyes. Because they lacked faith, God's commands to them through the prophet only served to deepen the conditions that already existed in them. So Isaiah is making hard hearts even more stubborn simply by proclaiming the truth. Here we see the terrible reality of total depravity: apart from electing grace, sinful man can get worse, but not better. Apart from faith, the Word is always unprofitable to us. This is not due to a lack of grace in God, but man's ongoing choice to reject the grace that is offered. It is not that man is seeking God and sincerely looking for Him, but is being prevented by a hateful Deity. No, no, no! Man has utterly rebelled against the Sovereign One, though God has given him - and continues to give him - every reason to repent. The passage is not presenting a defeater to total depravity, but instead is radically affirming it! Thus we conclude that sinful man is all at once totally depraved and fully responsible and choosing freely and unable to do otherwise without help from God. These are sensible paradoxes, but to the fallen mind they are loathesome.

NOTE: here's some gasoline to throw on the fire: II Corinthians 4:4 says the "god of this world" (i.e., satan) has "blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." The paradoxes only deepen when we realize satan has his own evil role in the process of reprobation, yet God is still fully sovereign and man is still responsibly choosing.

Looking Through the Eyes of our Hearts

On to the NEXT BIG QUESTION: why would God NOT elect many of the individuals within His chosen nation? Why would some in Israel be left hardened and blinded? For the answer, we must turn to Paul's lengthy discussion in Romans 9 through 11. We must be careful not to approach this question with our native human logic at the forefront. We can only understand these matters by grace, through faith, and without our humanistic, limited, earth-bound "reasoning" fogging up the glass. Our false, natural ideas are constantly breathing over the surface of our hearts, which function as a spiritual lens, as it were. Because of this fog, we're not going to see eternal things as clearly as God does. But we can see them to some extent, and in fact we must grasp the basics if we are to get any rest for our troubled minds when it comes to this matter of divine election and the fate of the non-elect.

Extending the heart-lens analogy a little further, we might say that Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists tend to demand hard human logic, which is the equivalent of purposely breathing all over the glass and then using one's fingers to draw out 2-dimensional mathematical equations. Voila, they say, it's sooooo simple! Sure, it's simple if you refuse to examine the balance of Scripture, and if you never gaze into the dimensions of eternity where human reasoning starts to disintegrate and God's transcendent TRUTH comes into focus - knowable, but beyond the grasp of human minds. Yes, TRUTH is bigger than the mind of man. Let's clear off the glass and look beyond the human logic (and above it) to discover the thoughts of God. Our approach is to STOP BREATHING, hold our breath for a moment, and gaze through with eyes of faith, folding our hands together, calming our hearts before God, and keeping our grubby fingers out of the way. Anyhow, this is the aim. And in this posture, what do we see?

Paul's Answer: God is Sovereign Over All

Paul says: "So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:16) . . . So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires (Romans 9:18) . . . Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles (Romans 9:21-24) . . . Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, 'though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved.' (Romans 9:27) . . . However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our report?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Romans 10:16-17) . . . But as for Israel He says, 'All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.' (Romans 10:21) . . . I say then, God has not rejected His people, has he? May it never be! (Romans 11:1) . . . God has not rejected His people, whom He foreknew (Romans 11:2) . . . there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice (Romans 11:5) . . . What then? What Israel was seeking it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; just as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day.' And David says, 'Let their table become a snare and a trap, and a stumbling block and a retribution to them. Let their eyes be darkened to see not, and bend their backs forever.' I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles . . . (Romans 11:7-13)

Notice that God's intention in hardening and blinding the reprobate is not so much to destroy the reprobate as it is to "make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy." Notice that this hardening is actually an expression of His patience, not a manifestation of His wrath!

In the Biblical picture we see GOD, saving, BY GRACE, a people of HIS OWN CHOOSING, for HIS OWN GLORY, and bringing about a beautiful work by redeeming believing sinners. We see the fruit of Christ's work on the cross! We see God's infinite goodness in action! We catch sight of His eternal glory! And this glory is magnified by two things:

1. God's JUSTICE in bringing wrath on the unbelieving.
2. God's MERCY in saving His elect.

He is stretching out his hands toward the elect and the non-elect ALL THE DAY LONG, drawing all men to Himself - even though most continue steadfastly in their refusal of His mercy.

It's Just Plain Bible-ism

This isn't just Calvinism, it's Paul-ism, and it's John-ism, and it's Isaiah-ism, and it's Jesus-Christ-ism, and it's Bible-ism. Who has believed their message? Do you believe it?

I do not ask if you can explain it (I am fairly sure you can't), but only if you believe . . .

God Makes a Wish: The Free Offer of the Gospel

This is a response to an article called "God Makes a Wish," by Bob Gonzales of Reformed Baptist Seminary. The article is here: Reformed Baptist Seminary Blog

Dr. Gonzales provides exposition from the book of Deuteronomy in support of what is commonly known as the "free offer of the Gospel." In the process, he advises us to embrace paradox, keep the Biblical balance, and refrain from reading the foregone conclusions of our systematic theology into a Biblical text merely to maintain the appearance of coherence. That's great advice.

But is the "Free Offer" Biblical?

There are varying streams of thought among modern Calvinists. Some have recommended we discard the term, on the idea that the Gospel is more of a "command" to repent and believe than an "offer" of salvation. However, Scripture and good theology would seem to argue for retaining the term and all that it implies.

THE BIBLICAL CASE

On one hand, there is ample Scriptural warrant for a universal Gospel call, expressions of a passionate desire in God for all people to be saved, and divine love for the reprobate:

Ezekiel 18:30-32 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. “Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.”

Acts 17:26-31 "and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us . . . Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Matthew 5:44-45 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Matthew 22:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."

John 3:16 "God so loved the world . . ."

On the other hand, there is the self-evident reality that God has not decreed the salvation of every person, but has elected some to salvation:

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

John 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

NOTE: You'll have to forgive me for this brief bit of proof texting. It's not as good as solid exegetical analysis, but this is a survey of the topic to show there is some Biblical warrant for my conclusions below.

Taken collectively, these verses show that what God desires is not exactly the same as what He intends. As it has been articulated by various Reformed thinkers, the "free offer" expresses God's desire for all to be saved, while the decree of election enacts His intention to save a remnant of mankind. Can a passion to save all exist side by side with a choice to save only some? Arminians would shout, "NO!" But I will take a Reformed approach and answer this question with a resounding "YES" on the following bases:

1. The Will of God. A "will" in God is not equivalent to a "will" in man. Our wills are impaired by sin, so we cannot imagine a volition that is wholly and comprehensively good. The divine will contains categories of desire and intention to which we are not privy. We are limited by non-omniscience (i.e., ignorance), non-omnipresence (i.e., spatial boundaries) , non-eternality (i.e., time boundaries) and non-omnipotence (i.e., weakness) in such a way that we can barely grasp God's omniscience, omnipresence, eternality and omnipotence. Likewise, we are limited by a fragmented will and are incapable of conceiving an all-encompassing and fully integrated volition such as that found in a transcendent and benevolent God.

2. The Glory of God. Man's salvation is subservient to God's eternal glory. God's passion to save is subject to His higher passion for revealing His glorious nature. If saving every person would provide a more thorough demonstration of God's glory, He would save all. However, according to Romans 9, there is a mystery through which God is more glorified by graciously saving some than He would be if He saved all. The reasons for this may not be readily apparent, but do we trust Him to act wisely, justly, and for our good? If we don't, we are not saved, and we will receive that which is according to our faith (or lack thereof). Those who accuse God of injustice and malevolence ironically receive justice and holy wrath. Those who trust God to extend mercy through Christ's atoning work receive mercy through Christ's atoning work.

THE THEOLOGICAL CASE

In regard to the free offer, Reformed theologians and confessions can be quoted ad infinitum. Calvin's own words tend to affirm the idea of an offer, as this nicely balanced (and somewhat paradoxical) excerpt from his commentary on Psalm 81:13 demonstrates . . .

"If it is objected, that God in vain and without ground utters this complaint, since it was in his power to bend the stiff necks of the people, and that, when he was not pleased to do this, he had no reason to compare himself to a man deeply grieved; I answer, that he very properly makes use of this style of speaking on our account, that we may seek for the procuring cause of our misery nowhere but in ourselves. We must here beware of mingling together things which are totally different as widely different from each other as heaven is distant from the earth. God, in coming down to us by his word, and addressing his invitations to all men without exception, disappoints nobody. All who sincerely come to him are received, and find from actual experience that they were not called in vain. At the same time, we are to trace to the fountain of the secret electing purpose of God this difference, that the word enters into the heart of some, while others only hear the sound of it. And yet there is no inconsistency in his complaining, as it were, with tears, of our folly when we do not obey him.

In the invitations which he addresses to us by the external word, he shows himself to be a father; and why may he not also be understood as still representing himself under the image of a father in using this form of complaint? In Ezekiel 18:32, he declares with the strictest regard to truth, 'I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth,' provided in the interpretation of the passage we candidly and dispassionately take into view the whole scope of it. God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner: How? Because he would have all men turned to himself. But it is abundantly evident, that men by their own free-will cannot turn to God, until he first change their stony hearts into hearts of flesh: yea, this renovation, as Augustine judiciously observes, is a work surpassing that of the creation itself.

Now what hinders God from bending and framing the hearts of all men equally in submission to him? Here modesty and sobriety must be observed, that instead of presuming to intrude into his incomprehensible decrees, we may rest contented with the revelation which he has made of his will in his word. There is the justest ground for saying that he wills the salvation of those to whom that language is addressed, (Isaiah 21:12,) 'Come unto me, and be ye converted.'"

Jonathan Edwards, another heavyweight theologian, likewise affirms that Christ offers Himself to sinners:

"Seeing therefore that it is so evident, that you refuse to accept of Christ as your Savior, why is Christ to be blamed that he does not save you? Christ has offered himself to be your Savior in time past, and he continues offering himself still, and you continue to reject him, and yet complain that he does not save you." (Sermon on The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners." Works, Vol 1 BOT p.676/677)

Ultimately, we must face the fact that there is a theological paradox at work here, and we may not find a human solution for it. The paradox points to a Biblical balance within which we must faithfully abide, even if we cannot fully understand it. This is an aspect of faith with which some are uncomfortable, but it is nonetheless required by Scripture.

The paradox looks something like this:

A: There is a sense in which God wills (and desires) the salvation of all people (by command or precept, i.e. His revealed will)
B: There is a sense in which God wills (and effects) the salvation of the elect only (by decree, i.e. His hidden will)

The implications of these two statements would seem to be contradictory, but both are clearly revealed in Scripture. What is not revealed, what remains a mystery, and what creates a paradox in the human mind is the exact sense in which these two statements are true. It is the sense of the statements that remains hidden in God. We must be careful not to invent senses to accommodate our theology, but leave hidden what God has left hidden. If we cannot tolerate unrevealed nuances of truth, we cannot long abide in the presence of an incomprehensible yet self-revealing God.

Some would say this "two wills" approach divides God's personality, and presents Him as a schizophrenic deity. Let's consult Frances Turretin for clarification on this point:

I. Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).
II. Hence have arisen various distinctions of the will of God. The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do. The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action. The former cannot be resisted and is always fulfilled: “Who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). The latter is often violated by men: “How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not (Mt. 23:37).

Turretin, Institutes, 1:220-225 (full text can be found here)

Turretin rightly notes that the duality of wills in God is only apparent. Without question, there IS an apparent contradiction here - but if we will be constrained by Scripture, this might be the furthest we can go in understanding how God can will what He does not choose. Rather than denying God's revealed will, let's choose to remain in the place of the creature, and leave the divine prerogatives to God.

What does all of this mean to us? Simply this: we have the privilege and blessed duty of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all people everywhere. We are sent as His ambassadors to call the entire world to faith in Him. We must not fail to evangelize, discriminate amongst the unregenerate, or needlessly limit our presentation of the love of God. The following is a crude illustration, but it fits the topic.

In my High School days, there was a popular heavy metal band with a t-shirt that read: "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." (nice, huh?) I didn't wear that shirt, but I had a crazy looking t-shirt of my own with the bold title, "Teenage Mutant Kamikaze Disciples." One of the kamikaze disciples on the shirt was yelling out, "Evangelize 'em all, and let God sort 'em out." That is a perfect summary of the free offer.

The revealed will of God is a free offer or general call of salvation for all. The unfolding decree of God is a particular and effectual calling of the elect alone. It is through the indiscriminate preaching of the cross to all people that God "sorts out" the elect and the reprobate. The direct cause of the reprobate's damnation is his own choice. The secondary cause is his non-election. The direct cause of the believer's salvation is God's choice. The secondary cause is his own choice. For the reprobate, his own choice is decisive. For the believer, God's choice is decisive. This is the Reformed doctrine of election. If we begin to argue from the standpoint of decree, against the will of God as revealed in the command, we can only do harm to the Scriptures and our own minds. This would be equivalent to removing the gas pedal from one's car and using it to break out the windows. The fact that there is a hidden will of God is contained within the revealed will. Separating out the hidden will and using it as a philosophical crow bar for the purpose of negating the free offer can only be a self-defeating exercise in futility.

Someone will ask, "What about limited atonement? Didn't Christ die only for the elect? Isn't it insincere for God to say He loves and beckons people for whom Christ did not die?" Nonsense. Within this leap of human logic lie the roots of hyper-Calvinism. We do not know who will be among the elect, so by this reasoning we're left peering into the darkness when God commands us to BE the light. The Gospel is for sinners, period. Historic Calvinists, following Calvin, concede that there are universal aspects in the atonement, and that Christ truly died for all men. The difference lies, once again, in the sense in which He died for them. If you ask 100 Calvinists, you will discover 110 views on the matter, but it's safe to say that there is NO Reformed or Biblical reason to believe that Christ did not die for all people in some sense. Let us define the sense as far as Scripture defines it - and no further! The limited aspects of the atonement must never be used as a philosophical wrench for the purpose of taking the wheels off the Gospel bus!

"When Christ died, He purchased for sinners every thing they enjoy that is not part of their condemnation." John Piper (Audio message, "Boasting Only in the Cross." Although this is omitted from the text excerpts, it can be found at 23:01 on the audio sermon. Interestingly, Piper identified this statement as the most important point of the message.)

Without denying an ounce of my Calvinism, I can (and do) affirm that God calls the entire world to Himself, offers Himself to and for the entire world, gave His Son to die for the good of all people, makes Himself available to all who will come, and grieves over those who do not come to Him. The lostness of the lost person is not owing to any lack of mercy or kindness in God, but to the sinner's own will. The eternal condemnation of the reprobate is part of Gods just response, but that does not mitigate or reduce the magnanimity of divine mercy in the slightest. It simply limits the application of that mercy, ultimately, to those who believe.

Anything less than this is a mutant alteration of Calvin's Biblical Calvinism, no matter how much supposed logic is pressed into the conclusions which are spawned. In my reading of Calvin, I find that he recognizes, consistently backs away from, and passionately warns against these logical leaps - and I believe he would sternly warn us not to stray from the truth of the Gospel through the deceptive philosophy of a twisted Calvinism which misrepresents both the reformer and the Gospel he cherished.

________________________________________________________

Note to Dissenters:

Do you believe I have misrepresented Scripture or Calvin? If so, please send me excerpts from Scripture or Calvin's writings containing direct denials that there are some universal aspects of the atonement, that the Gospel should be preached to all, that God wills the salvation of all, or that the lostness of the lost directly results from anything outside of their own choice. I'm ready to hear your arguments and retract if necessary.

________________________________________________________

NOTES:

1. For further study, there is an excellent article by the learned Scotsman Maurice Roberts here:

http://www.bible-sermons.org.uk/text-sermon/1103-the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/

Roberts concludes: "The problem we face is this. God's revealed will appears to conflict with his secret will. God appears to desire some things which he does not decree.
We must accept that both are true. This is a paradox, or antimony. Call it an apparent contradiction even, if you will. But both are revealed in scripture. If we are challenged to reconcile the secret will and the revealed will we must simply say, "We cannot". In this life we do not know how both can be true. But the Bible informs us that both are true. God's secret will elected some from eternity and passed by others. Yet he truly and really desires all who hear the gospel to repent and believe in Christ for salvation. It is pleasing to God when they do and it affords no pleasure to God when they do not believe.
I believe we can say just a little more. God is not only sovereign, but also constitutionally good, benign and affectionate. Such a God cannot but wish the best for his immortal creatures. But for reasons we do not understand, he has seen best to decree the eternal good of only some. Yet in this life God shows sinners very much kindness and even love, both in his daily providence and, more still, by offering them life in Christ. As a good judge, when sentencing a criminal to life imprisonment or death, so God passes sentence on the wicked. He must uphold the claims of justice, but he has no pleasure in passing sentence on them. So it is, surely, with the Almighty God. He would rather send men to heaven than to hell because he is by nature and constitution benign, kind and good.
It should not therefore upset us to say that God loves all sinners. By this we do not mean that he loves them with an electing love. But there is a love and goodness in God which he expresses in this life to the reprobate who hate him.
For God to 'offer' freely and sincerely both pardon and eternal life by Christ is the very highest expression of this love in God. The 'offer' is free and it is well-meant. If some sinners reject this 'offer' their blood is on their own head. They will die in their sins; but God has no pleasure in their death."

2. Another extremely helpful resource is John Piper's article "Are There Two Wills in God?"

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate1995 1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

Piper begins thus: "My aim here is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all persons to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world."

Hardened Hearts and Human Choices - Part 2

As promised, here is part two. I've probably bitten off more than I can chew, but I'll try to offer a few edifying thoughts on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. This is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject by any means, just a little excursion into the wonder of God's grace and mercy toward sinners, with Pharaoh as an illustration. Let's take a brief look at Romans 9:6-24 ...

The Question at Hand

In Romans 9, Paul begins a lengthy discussion concerning the salvation of God's elect nation, Israel. He has just written eight chapters decisively showing that Jesus Christ is God's one and only remedy for man's sin. Yet the leaders of Israel rejected that remedy. Doesn't this mean that God's promises to Israel failed to come true? Paul will show in many ways over the next three chapters that this is not the case, beginning with the statement, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants . . .” (Romans 9:6-7)

The Matter of Choosing

Paul shows that in Israel's history the chosen were divided from the unchosen according to God's sovereign choice (Romans 9:7-13):

Isaac and Ishmael were both sons of Abraham – but only Isaac was heir to the promises
Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac – but only Jacob was chosen to carry on the Jewish line

Significantly, in both examples the younger son was chosen, not the older. This reversal of tradition emphasizes God's sovereignty, since no one can say it was the “natural” choice that was made. It was SUPERnatural choice.

This picture has some bearing on the discussion, but don't take it the wrong way. Arminians would say that God chose first and now it is up to us. But Scripture teaches us that mankind universally chooses sin, that no one seeks God on his own, so it is GOD ALONE who can save us. Jesus Christ is the AUTHOR and the FINISHER of our faith.

In the passage we are examining (or is it examining us?), divine sovereignty is shown in the following phrases:

v. 5 “Christ ... who is over all”
v. 11 “So that God's purpose according to His choice would stand ... because of Him who calls”
v. 16 “So then, it does not depend on the man ... but on God ...”
v. 20 God is referred to as “the molder” and man as “the thing molded”
v. 21 God is referred to as “the potter” who has “a right over the clay ...”
v. 23 vessels of mercy are “prepared beforehand for glory”

These verses proclaim that God is completely sovereign over His creatures, and therefore He can choose to do as He sees fit with them.

The Issue of Justice

At this point, Paul preempts the logical leap of the fallen human mind, which immediately accuses God of injustice by asking, “If God is that powerful, why does He choose one over the other, and not choose BOTH?” In our sinful way of thinking, we believe that if we were God, we would choose both. We THINK we are smarter than God.

Paul proposes a different question and offers a decisive reply: “What shall we say, then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” The reason for the final outcome – some saved, some lost – cannot be injustice on the part of God. So it must be rooted in something else.

The main theme of the book of Romans is the justice of God (or “righteousness” of God – it's the same word in Greek). This justice is demonstrated in the Gospel, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, where God poured the wrath we deserve down upon on His own Son, Who lovingly offered Himself as our substitute. Thus, God's justice was fulfilled and we were saved by grace. We aren't getting what we deserve – Jesus got our punishment. Instead, we have received GRACE. The the righteousness of God has been vindicated in Christ, and sinners can be saved (see Romans 3:21f). But is God's sovereign choice of some and not others unjust? If it is, this will undo all that Paul has said in the first eight chapters. How can a God who goes to such great lengths to prove His justice be involved in an inherently unjust transaction? Paul has proven God's justice in saving sinners, now he must demonstrate the justice of God in His sovereign work of election. To accomplish this, Paul calls Pharaoh as a key witness.

For He (God) says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then, He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9:15-18)

Notice Paul's theme in this paragraph: MERCY. With these words, the entire discussion is turned from a question of perceived injustice, in which some are not getting the chance they deserve, to a question of MERCY, in which we are receiving a salvation we most assuredly do NOT deserve.

This Wonderful Thing Called Mercy

Charles R. Erdman explains:

“The sovereignty of God is absolute; yet it is never exercised in condemning men who ought to be saved, but rather it has resulted in the salvation of men who deserved to be lost.” (Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 1925, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, pg. 109)

You and I have no place at all to call for justice for ourselves or to cry out for what we deserve. As sinners, the justice we deserve is death and hell. Early in the book of Romans, Paul lists a catalog of traits including “full of envy ... gossips ... arrogant, boastful ... disobedient to parents ... untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful,” and then he declares “... those who practice such things are worthy of death ...” (Romans 1:29-32). That is the sentence passed by God in Eden, when He said, “you will surely die.” The sentence remains upon all of Adam's children. Each one of us is guilty enough to go into the fiery hell (Matthew 5:22). We have exercised a stubborn self-will in turning against God, disobeying His commands, discounting His advice, and going a way we believe is better than His way. Isaiah calls it “our own way ... the iniquity of us all.”

God's judgment against sinners is just. It is what we deserve, and since by our own choice we have rebelled against Him, it is in some sense giving us the very thing we WANT. Heaven would likely be far less comfortable than hell for an unredeemed soul who has rejected the grace of God. Hell itself may be one final mercy by which God spares sinners from having to suffer even more torment by dwelling IN HIS IMMEDIATE PRESENCE FOR ETERNITY. Instead, they go into the place prepared for the punishment of evil spirits, to outer darkness. No unrepentant sinner wants to live perpetually in the magnificent light of God's holy presence, in the shadow of an omnipotent being they do not trust. To the lost, hell would most likely be preferable to heaven (at least initially).

Mercy is not a matter of fairness, or justice, or deserving. If deserved, it would not be mercy. If merely just, it would not be amazing. If fair, no one could ever be saved. Mercy is undeserved kindness shown to depraved wretches who are headed headlong for hell.

In His mercy, God does not allow all of fallen humanity to perish. He sovereignly selects those who will be saved, and this is His absolute right as Creator. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.” In doing this, He leaves the lost to their choice and the justice they deserve. The saved are brought to a point of choosing Him, and often they do not realize until much later that they were first chosen by Him. This is pure irony: God chooses us, therefore we choose Him, but we cannot know He chooses us until after we have chosen Him.

A Hint of Explanation

In view of this undeserved mercy, no one can accuse God of injustice in election. But the relentless logic of the human mind jumps to another question: if God is absolutely sovereign and exercises His right to choose some while allowing others to perish, how can He condemn those He does not save? (Romans 9:19)

Paul has already called us to an exalted view of God. Now he calls us to a less exalted view of ourselves, answering once again with a question: WHO ARE YOU? Who are YOU to “talk back” to God, to answer your Creator to His face, as if you were His equal? (Romans 9:20). Paul is going to address the question that has been asked, but only after our pride has been confronted and our attitude adjusted. He skillfully combines the explanation with a brilliant rebuke and question wrapped together. What good is it be to be full of knowledge about the ways of God if that knowledge inflates our pride?

Another question follows: WHAT IF? What if God is showing His great patience in the way He deals with man's depravity? What if He is doing this in order to magnify the glory of His saving work on behalf of the elect? The question is designed to be humbling, to stop us in our tracks and get us thinking in a new direction. It gently and purposefully leads us to think about a possibility we may never have considered. The previous verses have shocked our man-centered sensibilities, but now we get a bit of the divine rationale to ponder and digest - now that we have been firmly reminded of our creaturely status.

By leaving the lost in their condition, God makes grace shine brighter and clearer on the redeemed. In Exodus, Pharaoh's hardened heart led to Israel's first Passover celebration, and mercy was wondrously revealed to the Hebrew people. In our day, a believer looks around and wonders, “Why me? Why did God save me and not leave me as I was? There are so many still in their sins, but I, a mocker and rebel, have been saved by His grace.” The gratitude and joy flowing from this realization can be overwhelming at times. It is not a pride or arrogance of being among the “elect” – rather it is a profound appreciation for the mercies God has rained down on a being who is utterly undeserving.

The lost are “prepared” for destruction. A.T. Robertson notes, “Paul does not say here that God did it or that they did it.” (Word Pictures In The New Testament, note on Romans 9:22). According to Robertson, the Greek word means “to equip” and refers to a “state of readiness.”Some would argue that God actively works against the lost, bringing them to reprobation, but that is unlike God and also unnecessary. The lost are already on the path to destruction, and God is actually delaying it for a time. Sin is inherently self-destructive. The lost are, through their rebellious choice, in a state of readiness to be destroyed. God's response is to “endure with much patience” rather than making His power known by swift, active judgment. This is further evidence of His mercy.

The saved are “prepared beforehand” for glory. A completely different word is used here than in the case of the lost, and God is clearly the active agent. Only He can prepare us BEFOREHAND. Although we have “fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), He has planned our restoration and He is working to bring it to pass. Blessed be His name! This is far more amazing than the fact that God allows some sinners to go their way and remain hardened against Him.

I will go no further. After considering just this first part of Paul's discourse, it is no wonder that the apostle of grace is overflowing with praise by the end of chapter 11. “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Romans 11:33) His ways are unfathomable because they are laden with paradoxes too mysterious for human minds to fully grasp. In Paul's rather sharp mind, this was a good reason to worship the One Whose wisdom and knowledge vastly exceed our own. And a compelling motivation for humble service to his own people, Jews by birth, and also to Gentile "sinners" whom God has called out for faith in and obedience to His Son. All according to His great mercy!

Soli Deo Gloria – to God alone be glory!

Notes

A few great books helped me with this post, most notably "Romans Verse By Verse" by William R. Newell and "Handbook On The Pentateuch" by Victor P. Hamilton. "IVP New Dictionary of Theology" also offered some helpful insight. In addition, my discussions with Tony Hayling at agonizomai concerning election and reprobation played a role.