We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd0ad/dd0ad8571781d02a235b765cc3ea55023efafd1a" alt=""
“Whatever it means, it cannot mean that.”
Roger Olson wrote a great article a couple of days ago entitled Why (High) Calvinism Is Impossible. He points out that there is no way to understand God as “good” while also believing in double predestination. The idea that God predestines some to heaven and a vast majority to hell for his “glory” apart from any choices a person may make is diabolical. And as Wesley points, whatever Romans 9 means, it cannot mean that. Olson states:
Every devout, evangelical Christian believer I have ever met or heard of approaches Bible reading and study (including exegesis) with the assumption that the Bible is true (even if not strictly inerrant)—that it does not misidentify God and God’s will for us. But built into that assumption is that God, the Bible’s author (by inspiration of the human authors) is good (which is why he is trustworthy and cannot deceive). But belief that God “designs, foreordains, and governs” hell for the reprobate who are chosen by God for hell for his glory without regard to any truly free choices they make undermines belief in God’s goodness. So does belief that God “passes over” some he could easily save (because election to salvation is unconditional and saving grace is irresistible), damning them to hell, for his glory.
There is no conceivable analogous human behavior that we would call “good.” The very concept of “good” rules out such behavior. (To say nothing of Jesus’ own goodness and the New Testament’s commands for us to love our enemies and do good to them.)
Greg has written a great deal on interpreting Romans 9. Here’s a short snippet from one of his posts on this topic:
So, the case for the deterministic interpretation initially looks strong. Nevertheless, I think it is mistaken. Indeed, I shall argue that a central point of Romans 9 is to argue the exact opposite of the conclusions drawn from the deterministic interpretation. For, in contrast to the deterministic interpretation, God is not an arbitrary, deterministic deity. He rather is wisely flexible in his dealings with humans.
Finally, while we’re talking about these things, Benjamin L. Corey recently posted a blog entitled 5 Reasons Why Calvinism Makes Me Want to Gouge My Eyes Out. He sums up his feelings about double predestination a bit more personally.
Case in point: if I get to heaven and find out that my beautiful daughter Johanna is in hell and that she’s in hell because God chose her before the foundations of the world to burn for all eternity, I won’t be able to worship him in good conscience. Perhaps I would bow down out of total fear, but I would NOT worship him because he was holy, beautiful, and “all together wonderful” as Boyd often describes him. Instead, I would bow down because he would be a sick and twisted god who scared the crap out of me.
Category: General
Tags: Benjamin L. Corey, Determinism, Free Will, God, God's Character, Jesus, Predestination, Roger Olson, Romans 9
Related Reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3f6e8/3f6e8a6e4c9a3a393cf2e2b25142689596aff2f1" alt=""
What Jesus Revealed About Being Human
According to the creation story, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they essentially ceased being the wonderful, God-centered, God-dependent human beings the Creator intended them to be. They became less than fully human. Instead, they began using everything and everyone in the world as surrogate gods, trying to get from people, deeds, and things…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f8bf/0f8bf49504ac8ddbc0ce2e81ca5d8846c91c7e8b" alt=""
Boyd’s Bad Ass Tattoo
by: Greg Boyd In the process of working through a philosophical issue surrounding the openness of the future around twenty years ago, I and two friends (Alan Rhoda and Tom Belt) ended up creating the “Hexagon of Opposition”, or “Hexagonic Logic of Futurity,” as I’ve sometimes called it. I’ll explain what it all means in…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3b637/3b63738089778f291bbaba423a25e77071a467b8" alt=""
Podcast: Was it God Who Sent the Plagues in Exodus?
Greg discusses how God’s restraint from action is often written as an act (rather than a non-act). http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0075.mp3
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6fab3/6fab3bea3b79779de60d50794c6b1eee65b91c2a" alt=""
Did Yahweh Crush His Son?
Though Isaiah was probably referring to the nation of Israel as Yahweh’s “suffering servant” when these words were penned, the NT authors as well as other early church fathers interpreted this servant to be a prophetic reference to Christ. Speaking proleptically, Isaiah declares that this suffering servant was “punished” and “stricken by God” (Isa 53:4,…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8915e/8915eabaf228102d5c349f3b943147facdff4ef8" alt=""
Overemphasizing Christ?
In response to my work, some have argued that I tend to overemphasize Christ. In light of the claim that in Jesus we have the one and only definitive Word of God and that no previous revelation should ever be placed alongside him or allowed to qualify what he reveals about God, some allege that…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70085/700850eb3bbca1958f3f722069df053cecd28843" alt=""
Reasons God Does Not Control Everything
First, the belief that God is all-powerful does not mean that God exercises all power. It only means that God is the ultimate source of all power. Fallen people may value the ability to control others and project this attribute onto God (Matthew 20:25-28). But the cross breaks all of our fallen assumptions about what…