A vessel for honour or for dishonour

Romans 9:14-23 is foundational to Calvinist theology.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he 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 depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

The question in verse 21 reads in the following versions,

• Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? (NIV)
• Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (ESV)
• Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (NKJV)
• 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? (NASB)
• Or has the potter no right over the clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor? (CSB)
• Or does the potter not have authority over the clay, to make from the same lump a vessel that is for honorable use and one that is for ordinary use? (LEB)
• Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? (NET)
• Does the potter not have authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel to honor and one to dishonor? (LSV)

My thoughts on the translations:

1. The verse contrasts the previous verse, as emphasised in the LEB, CSB and NASB (and Greek).
2. "power", "right", "authority", even "liberty" and "freedom" are reasonable translations of exousia, but "authority" may be best.
3. "the clay" is genitive; "his clay" is a possibility. The same with "lump".
4. The emphasis on the last part of the sentence is between honour (timē) and absence-honour (atimia). Does "atimia" mean "common" or "ordinary"? Or does it mean "dishonour"?
5. The Greek uses the conjunctions "men...de" to contrast the "honour" with the "dishonour". In all the above versions the word "and" is used for this contrast. Would "or" contrast more accurately?

Point 5 is important as the reader pictures the potter making 2 objects or vessels: one that has honour and one that has dishonour. But what if one is to picture the potter deciding on whether to make one object which is either to have honour or to have dishonour. If point 5 is correct then the reader is not seeing a potter take the same lump of clay and make half into one object and the other part into another object. Rather there is one lump of clay. The potter can take a lump of clay and make it into an object of honour, or the potter can take that same lump of clay and make it into an object of dishonour.

As a possible translation,

Rather, does not the potter have authority over his clay to make from the same lump, either a vessel that is for honour or that is for dishonour?

The Calvinist big 3

Leighton Flowers has written a long post addressing Calvinist proof texts.

Let us begin with “the big three.” Calvinistic apologist, Dr. James White, refers to Ephesians 1, Romans 9 and John 6 as the “classicus locus,” in an article seeking to defend the TULIP systematic. I contend that if any one of these passages did not exist in the canon of scripture that Calvinism would have never even existed.

Of these 3 passages, 2 are by Paul. John’s dialogue is not obviously Calvinist.

The grand theme of both Romans and Ephesians is that the Gentiles are included God’s salvation plans. The kingdom is not restricted to the Jews, it is for everyone. This is the revealed mystery in the last days (Eph 3:6).

But note the irony. Calvinists take a few verses from these books, books about how the kingdom is so much more inclusive and expansive than the Jews ever imagined, and they teach that salvation is restricted to the few that God selectively chooses.

Monday quote

Belief that a man is born in a prison cell is distinct from the belief that the man is incapable of acknowledging that he is in a prison cell and accepting help to escape when it is clearly offered.

Leighton Flowers.

Drawing men resistibly or irresistibly

In my post Drawn by the Father I conclude

It is not so much that the Father is drawing people who don't know God to Jesus; he is drawing those who know him to meet his Son.

That is, the passage is not so much about drawing men to faith in Jesus from a position of non faith, but drawing men who already belong to the Father so that they may also trust Jesus.

Others have commented that the passage

Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:43–44) 

means that the Father is drawing people to faith Jesus. That is to become a Christian from a position of unbelief one needs the Father to draw him.

Now I think that the passage as it stands alone could say that. Further, regardless of this passage I believe God is wooing men that they may come to him.

However, the larger context of John 6 causes me to question the common interpretation. As I show in my earlier post, Jesus is repeatedly associating himself with the Father and connecting his mission with the Father's mission. The point of the passage is to make this  connection. The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, compare John 10:30. 1 John 2:23 says.

No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

John throughout his gospel and his letters identifies the Son with the Father. Although one could read the passage about the Father drawing in isolation to mean that God draws unbelievers to salvation in Christ, it is more in keeping with John's message here and elsewhere to read the passage as God drawing his own to Christ: the Father revealing Jesus.

Confirmation of this interpretation is seen in Jesus calling himself the manna from God. "It was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven [God did], but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven." Jesus is saying, "God is giving people me. God is drawing men to me." It is not about drawing men resistibly or irresistibly, it is about giving men Jesus.

Dividing up the clay

In my previous post I wrote this quite deliberate sentence.

Paul is expanding the potter motif which we see in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

In Romans 9 Paul references a large number of Old Testament passages. His use of the potter clearly alludes to a Old Testament motif yet he also expands it. In Isaiah 29:16 God is the potter and the rebellious people the clay. Isaiah 45:9 compares the rebellious person to his creator (or parent). Jeremiah 18:6 describes a nations as clay and God as the potter. In Romans 9:19-21 Paul says,

You will say to me then, “Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you [singular], O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

The potter again is God but the clay is not necessarily the person answering back to God. He is included, in that Paul's response is that the moulded (clay) cannot answer back to the moulder (potter). Though Paul says more here. The clay gets made into both honourable and dishonourable vessels, so the clay must represent more than one person. This fits in more with a corporate reading of Romans 9-11. But there is even more to this. The clay in the Old Testament examples represents man. It represents the object being discussed: the rebellious people; the rebellious man; a nation. Yet in Romans the clay represents two groups; or rather one group that can be used in two different ways. So either the clay represents all men (Jews and Gentiles) being made into two types of vessels; or (more likely) the clay represents Jews being made into two types of vessels. The man talking back to God complains that God finds fault with the Jews but God can make from one group of Jews both people of mercy and people of wrath.

Which leads to Paul's next comment that it is not just the Jews. The Gentiles can be objects of mercy as well.

And what is God's criterion for being an object of mercy? Faith.

Vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath

The Calvinist interpretation in Romans 9 states that questioner is silenced by God because God can do what he wills, electing some individuals for salvation (vessels for honourable use) and some individuals for damnation (vessels for dishonourable use). The questioner is told by God: who are you to question me and my ways? God saves and God damns for his own good reasons.

Now there is much to ask about this passage: Who is the questioner? Is God talking about individuals or groups? If groups, are the two groups saved Jews and unsaved Jews or Jews and Gentiles? But what I wish to concentrate on here is Paul's response to the questioner. Romans 9:18-24 says,

So then [God] has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Consider the first part of the response,

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Paul is expanding the potter motif which we see in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The Old Testament passages Paul is alluding to are Isaiah 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6. I will consider each of these.

Isaiah 29:16 occurs in an oracle about the seize of Jerusalem.

And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot read.”

And the Lord said:
“Because this people draw near with their mouth
    and honor me with their lips,
    while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
therefore, behold, I will again
    do wonderful things with this people,
    with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
    and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.”

Ah, you who hide deep from the Lord your counsel,
    whose deeds are in the dark,
    and who say, “Who sees us? Who knows us?”
You turn things upside down!
Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,
that the thing made should say of its maker,
    “He did not make me”;
or the thing formed say of him who formed it,
    “He has no understanding”? (Isaiah 29:11-16)

God says that people receiving the vision are like a man who has a document but cannot read it because he is not permitted to remove the seal, or a man who cannot read. This is probably a judgment against the people because God is saying that he will give the people a scroll but not give them the means to understand the scroll. This is in many ways similar to the passage in Romans: God hardens those who he wishes to harden. Yet Isaiah tells us why this is the case. It is not arbitrary. It is not hidden from men because they are not God and God does what he will. Rather God does this because the hearts of the people are not towards God. The people talk as if they are committed to God but they deny God in their hearts. They have an attitude of hypocrisy. They are taught to fear God but they do not fear him truly.

In the next stanza we see this kind of man now speaking back to God: a sinful man who does deeds in the dark; who claims that no one knows about his activity. God's rebuke is that such a man has things upside down, or back to front. The potter is not like the clay. God is not like men. Further, the created thing cannot say that his creator did not make him. What kind of men are these people? Men who honour God with their lips and not their hearts. Men who do evil deeds. Men who say that God doesn't see. Men who say that God did not make them. Isaiah's words here concern wicked men.

Isaiah 45:9 occurs within the passage where God announces he will raise up a man named Cyrus to do his will. God will go before Cyrus performing his mighty acts and God will do this for the sake of his people Israel. Within this prophecy God warns those who would oppose God.

“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him,
    a pot among earthen pots!
Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’
    or ‘Your work has no handles’?
Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’
    or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’” (Isaiah 45:9-10)

God essentially says to those who strive against him: Does the clay oppose the potter? Does the son speak to the father or the mother about what they parent? In this passage the vessel is shifting blame to the creator of the vessel, or the child is shifting blame to the parent. But God says that the person is accountable for his own striving against God. A man cannot blame God for making him that way. He cannot blame his father for begetting a rebellious son. He cannot blame his mother for giving birth to a wicked child. He is responsible for his own actions and cannot wash his hands of his sin by blaming God or parents for making him that way. The whole point here is not that God can make a rebellious person and yet the person is still culpable; rather it is that a culpable person doesn't evade his sin by saying he was born that way. This is not a determinism that says you are still guilty, it is rebuke against a sinner denying guilt by appealing to determinism.

Isaiah 64:8 occurs within in a passage about God's vengeance and mercy. Here the appeal is by men who acknowledge that God is the creator and they are the creature.

But now, O Lord, you are our Father;
    we are the clay, and you are our potter;
    we are all the work of your hand.
Be not so terribly angry, O Lord,
    and remember not iniquity forever.
    Behold, please look, we are all your people. (Isaiah 64:8-9)

They appeal to God by placing themselves in right relationship to him. Their appeal is based on his power and not their own deserving nature. They remind God of his promises (we are all your people).

The three Isaiah passages use the potter motif to emphasise that God is the creator and as such he has authority over men. Yet the first two specifically address evil men. Evil men who deny that God is the potter, or evil men who deny they are culpable for their sinful choices. The third is the right response which acknowledges God's power and appeals to his mercy. Interestingly, common atheist claims are that God doesn't exist and that the world is deterministic therefore men cannot help their actions.

So what does Paul mean in his letter to the Romans? Contra the deterministic interpretation of Calvinists, the allusions to Isaiah imply the exact opposite. Men cannot hide from God. Men make their choices and they are responsible for those choices. Moreover, appeals to determinism are the appeals of wicked men trying to evade judgment. God didn't make them evil for his glory and yet they are responsible anyway, they are evil because they have chosen sin. It is these men God hardens, it is these men God blinds, it is these to whom a powerful delusion is sent.

This is apparent in the Jeremiah passage.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.

Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jeremiah 18:1-10)

The potter makes what he will. The question is why does the potter make what he does? The potter is making a vessel yet during the process that vessel is marred so the potter changes his plan and makes something else. He starts making one type of vessel but finishes making another type of vessel. God is the potter and he tells us why he makes what he does. If God warns and we repent then God changes what he is making. If God blesses and we sin the God changes what he is making.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:21)

Yes he does. God can make what he wills. But God has told us what he will build and why he builds what he does. God makes honourable vessels but if they sin then God will make them dishonourable. And if God makes dishonourable vessels from a sinful people but they repent, then God will make them into honourable vessels. God does make vessels for destruction but God has told us why he does this and what his criteria are. God makes the faithless into vessels of destruction. God also makes vessels of mercy; that is what God does with the faithful. But be warned, if the faithful become faithless then the potter can just as easily turn the clay into a vessel of wrath.

Faith and ineffectual regeneration

Jason asks,

Scripture does seem to indicate that saving faith is a gift from God. (Ephesians 2:8) While we are culpable for all our sins, including our unbelief, am I right in understanding that you believe God offers all people grace through faith (the kind that raises the spiritually dead to spiritual life) and that some people reject the offer? If that is correct, do you believe that faith is only operable upon receipt by the individual? In other words, how does one receive the gift offered if they are dead in their trespasses and sins?. You mentioned “ineffectual regeneration” in the post. I’m not sure if you accept that term or not, but if you do, do all people get “spiritually raised from the dead” and then spiritually die again if they reject?

I think that faith in 1 Corinthians 12 is a special gift of faith that is not given to all Christians; for example the sort of faith that can believe for miracles. This is because it occurs within a list where Paul states each gift is limited to some.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:4-1)

Paul says: to one is given this, to another this; this includes faith. Then he summarises by saying, "to each one individually as he wills." This is not particularly controversial, even Calvinists see a special faith here.

I do not think that faith in Ephesians 2:8 is a gift (this will require a post of its own). So I don't see faith in God as a gift from God. I see it as our response to his calling.

Am I right in understanding that you believe God offers all people grace through faith (the kind that raises the spiritually dead to spiritual life)

Well, I wouldn't say "through faith." Part of the problem here is that I am addressing Calvinist terms which carry suppositions that I do not subscribe to. So I am trying to be generous by using the term they have chosen but this can backfire because by conceding the term it may seem as if I agree with their suppositions, or worse, they equivocate. So I don't mind the theological term "synergist" but I object to those who go from synergism to the claim that Arminians think that they save themselves. I would prefer to say that God is calling all men to himself. Because God is calling us that is an act of kindness, or, if you like, grace. This is usually called "prevenient grace". God does that regardless of whether we will have (saving) faith. By "saving" I mean the type of faith that results in God saving us, I don't mean our faith effects salvation for us. I don't think that prevenient grace saves people, it is God showing his kindness to us.

This prior state Calvinists call "total depravity" and (spiritual) death (Eph 2:1). So all men are in this state prior to God regenerating them and God effecting a saving faith in them. They claim this is effectual because God's regeneration can not fail to result in a man coming to faith and being saved.

Now I don't really agree with what Calvinists think "dead" means. Are people spiritually dead? Yes, but in the sense that they are lost without Christ. Those who die without him are damned. I don't think that we are unable to do things, nor do I think we are unable to respond to God. We are disposed against God but we respond to him. To the (hypothetical) question "can dead people do anything ?" my response is this is over-reading a metaphor. When Isaiah says all our deeds are filthy rags he is speaking hyperbolically. I believe men are fallen and sinful, and men are often worse than they realise, but I am cautious when people apply deductive logic to statements that are not meant as ironclad premises.

So God desires all men to be saved. He calls all men to himself. We can accept or reject God's call. That is what Arminians mean by resistible. Using Calvinist terminology this would mean that God's call is "ineffectual" in those who reject him, but this is not a useful term as it is subtly conceding that the call could be effectual. However Arminians don't think that the call is effectual or ineffectual. We don't think it works like that at all. Rather we think that faith is something we choose to have or decline to have. We do not receive faith. Faith is not something that God can cause; just as love is not something God can cause. This is not a limitation of God, this is the nature of love and faith. For love to mean anything it must originate from the person.

So people aren't made spiritually alive and then made spiritually dead if God's call is ineffectual. Rather God's prevenient grace is always at work and those who respond to God in faith God saves.

Calvinist memes

Not a meme. But funny.

I have seen some discussions on social media, though not participated in, that involve Calvinist memes. I am aware that the nature of memes limit nuance, and that some claims are intended for their rhetorical effect: they attempt to focus on the main issue and statements may be hyperbolic. Nevertheless, several are just plain false. And I am somewhat taken aback at the superficiality of some Calvinists as well as their arrogance. However what most struck me was that they seem to hold to a theology that the prophets, Jesus, and Paul castigated in the Jews. But to that shortly.

So a search for Calvinist memes (and Arminian memes) shows that a lot of time has been put into this. I wanted to deconstruct a few of them which will lead to where I wish to go.

Unregenerate people are dead in sin and cannot choose God, it requires God's sovereign mercy to give life.

The problem here is that the contrast is not dichotomous. Let's assume that "deadness" prevents men from choosing God. How does that relate to God saving us? God is surely able to vivify a dead sinner so that he is able to choose God, or not. Such vivification does not necessarily entail salvation which is what "life" here means. And why sovereign mercy?

God chose Abraham but you choose God.

That God chooses means that we can't? So choice is not a communicable attribute of God? I'll see your Calvinist philosophy and raise you Scripture.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)

Scripture constantly tells us to choose righteousness and shun evil. God tells us why he chose Abraham. Abraham responded to God in faith. God is always looking for faith. We are to have faith Christ. Choose life and live.

Would a loving God pick and choose? What about Israel being the chosen ones of God.

And this is just the point where (some) Calvinists are close to following the Jews into damnable doctrine. The Jews thought that they were in because they were the chosen people. So God sent his prophets against the Israelites again and again. Jesus warned that the Ninevites would be entering the kingdom before the Jews who rejected him (Luk 11:32). Paul warns several times in Acts and in his letters, including in the very book that Calvinists so love—their favourite chapter even—that being part the chosen race does not get you into heaven (Rom 9:6,31). You couldn't rely on being an Israelite then and you can't rely on being a Calvinist now. God does save men, but what does he say? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Act 16:31). God's criterion is faith.

Are Arminians synergistic?

It is claimed that Arminians are synergists whereas Calvinists are monergists. I don't strongly object to the label but I am not certain it is helpful; especially when it is concluded that Arminians save themselves. This is obviously incorrect. The dispute is not whether God is involved: he is; it whether we are involved.

Calvinists argue that God regenerates us prior to faith and that this regeneration is effectual. By this they mean that such people do not fail to come to faith and thus are saved. God must regenerate men because we are depraved and depraved men do not choose God; and because we are dead in our sins and dead people cannot choose God. Thus we are all estranged from God; God, for reasons known only to him, chooses a man; God regenerates the man who responds in faith; and God saves him.

The Arminian would disagree with this process but he also disagrees with the framework. The framework fits with the Calvinist worldview so to argue about whether regeneration precedes faith, or whether God's regeneration is effectual, or whether depraved dead men can choose God assumes Calvinist concepts.

Arminians often argue for prevenient grace, but all that means is that God is, at all times, calling all men to repent: to turn away from their sin and follow him. Calvinists may wish to call this regeneration which they say is an ineffectual regeneration. Well if you wish. But it is not ineffectual because God is somehow limited in his abilities, it is ineffectual because of the nature of faith. Trust is something we have in God, not something that God is able to decisively bring about in man. God is certainly faithful, but men do not always believe that to be the case.

So back to synergism. The word is derived from syn (together) and erg (work). In science it means to work together, though theologically it means the combination of God's grace (his work) and man's faith; and faith is is not a work. So while God requires faith from me, the saving is all of him.

A father who is a mechanic has 2 sons whose cars are broken. The father asks his sons if they would like their cars repaired? The first son says yes and the father repairs the car; the other son says no so the father does not repair his car. Now neither son actually did any work on his car. Is the situation with the first son synergistic? Did the son do any work?

So do I mind being called a synergist? Not particularly. But to the extent Calvinists use it to misconstrue or misrepresent what Arminians believe it is unhelpful.

Salvation: An Allegory

There once was a king over a large country. An illegitimate slave laid claim to the kingdom and attempted to rule over it. The pretender to the throne deceived many into thinking his claim was legitimate and many followed him.

One day the king made a pronouncement that every man who believed he was the true king was to come to on a certain day to his castle garden. He was to pledge allegiance to the king then his son would give each man a crown and make him a ruler over a district in the kingdom. The invitation was to all and thereafter each man would live under the king's laws and reject the false king.

The king is God, the pledge is faith, and the governorship is salvation.

Let us assume Calvinism. The Calvinist would claim that the king would stir the hearts of every man that the king intended to become a ruler. The desire of these men to receive the crown would ensure that they would come to the garden on the specified day. They would pledge allegiance and the prince would bestow on them a crown. They would not fail to attend nor to pledge because of the desire of their hearts which the king had placed there.

Now let us assume Arminianism. The king would stir the hearts of every man but not all of them would choose to come. Those who came on the wrong day or to the king's gate may be denied entry. Those who came to the garden at the right time because they believed the king was the true king but did not wish to abide by his laws and refused to pledge allegiance are not given a crown. But those who come at the kings request and pledge allegiance are given crowns and a district to rule.

Now Calvinists may claim their interpretation is correct. Arminians claim that theirs is. If we assume the Calvinists are correct the crown is given by the king through the prince and no citizen can rule without the king granting them authority. But if we assume the Arminians are correct it remains the case that no citizen can rule without the king's authority. We can argue whether or not the desire is irresistible but bestowing the crown remains the prince's prerogative and the citizen cannot gain a governorship without it being given to him by the prince.

Defining terms and assuming the argument

I have written on choice of terms in framing a debate previously. Here are 2 further examples.

Calvinists use the term "doctrines of grace" to refer to Calvinism. They may think that they are stronger on grace though I dispute this. Such nomenclature is unhelpful and clouds the argument. This is because although "doctrine of grace" has a specific meaning it sounds like a belief in grace as opposed to, say, works. Yet Christian theology generally is a theology of grace and not works, or at least claims to be. (Others have suggested that a better term may be "doctrines of irresistible grace").

An example from a position I hold may be helpful. I hold to Young Earth Creationism (YEC). This term is a little unwieldy (and 6000 years is hardly young). Young Earth Creationists (YECs) have suggested the term "biblical creationism". Now I happen to think YEC is more biblical than the alternatives but that is kind of beside the point. "Biblical creationism" is needlessly disparaging when trying to debate what the Bible teaches. Non YECs may claim that their position is variably biblical.

Use terms that are moderately accurate, and don't use terms that assume you argument: don't beg the question.

Responses to Austin Fischer's book

Austin Fischer has written a book about how he left Calvinism. It is not a treatise on Calvinist and non-Calvinist theology, rather his story and focus an a few Calvinist beliefs he wishes to push home and get a response to. Kevin DeYoung wrote a review; Austin responded to the review; and Steve of Triablogue responded to his response. There may be posts elsewhere, these are just what I have come across (Hat tip: Arminian Perspectives).

I wished to comment on a few things that were mentioned in these posts.

Kevin: Fischer suggests that Calvinists believe that when people are raped, maimed, murdered, and tortured that God ultimately did those things to them (21). What’s missing here is an awareness of the distinction between remote and primary causes. No Calvinists I know would say God rapes people. God is never the doer of evil. Arminians may not find the distinction compelling, but Reformed theologians have always made clear there is a difference between God ordaining what comes to pass and the role of human agency in actually and voluntarily performing the ordained action.

The point is that while Arminians acknowledge that Calvinists point to remote causes and deny the distinction is meaningful, Austin was a Calvinist. He was aware of such distinctions (he acknowledges in his response) as a Calvinist but eventually found the position lacking.

Kevin: Fischer makes much of the fact that in Jesus we see a desire to love at all costs, not a desire to glorify himself at all costs (58), as if the high priestly prayer in John 17 was not chiefly concerned with the glory of the Father and the Son.  

The key term is "at all costs." John 17 emphasises glory, but it not glory at all costs; and how is that glory manifested? Thru love. Which is the point: that love is a higher focus than glory. Jesus left glory for the sake of love, not to maximise glory.

Kevin: No doubt, Paul is trying to explain in Romans 9 how the promises to Israel have not failed. But to make his point, he argues that not everyone descended from Israel belongs to Israel (9:6), which leads him into an explanation of election and reprobation. And Paul’s thinking must include the idea of individual predestination, for he uses the example of twins who were set apart for different purposes by the plan of God (9:9-13). The point in “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” is that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardens whomever he wills (9:14-18). Fischer’s comments on Romans 9, like his comments on most passages, are true enough in broad strokes, but fail to engage the particularities of the text. To settle for the exploration of big themes at the expense of verse-by-verse exegetical work is to enjoy the wonders of the forest and ignore all the trees.

Except that quoting "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" from Malachi Paul is referencing nations and not individuals. The Calvinist insistence on words and verses taking precedence over paragraphs and books means that they have constructed a tree out of Romans 9:20 that does appear to have any place in the forest of the Bible.

Austin: I do think God causes suffering. I think the Bible teaches me that God does, often for purposes such as discipline (Hebrews 12:4-11). But I find it very difficult to look at the way Jesus interacts with suffering in the Gospels and then sit comfortably with the doctrines of Calvinism where God ordains the most terrible suffering imaginable on the majority of humanity.

A helpful comment here would have been to note the difference between suffering and evil. There is no problem in God ordaining suffering; if may be in the context of needed consequences, or punishment. The problem is when God is described as an author of evil.

Austin: I don’t think that if salvation is by grace, through faith, and faith itself is a gift from God, and yet I have to respond to this gift in some way, this means I was the decisive factor in my salvation (of course lots of this hinges on what is meant by “decisive”). That math will never add up for me. So if the math of salvation has to equal 1, with no room for human boasting, then I’m just fine saying the equation I see in the Bible is 1 (God) + 0 (Me) = 1, and that while my 0 contributes nothing, it is still necessary. I think this tends to be the way the Bible handles this, admittedly, mysterious issue of divine grace and human repentance/discipleship/faith.

I am not certain that faith is a gift. Faith is what we have. As to the boasting complaint, this is a non-starter. Calvinists are simply wrong. Nor is it usually helpful to appeal to mystery. This was a complaint by Kevin: that Austin replaces Calvinist mysteries with Ariminian mysteries. Mysteries reflect a lack of knowledge (due to incomplete revelation by God) and to limitations of our reasoning. But that we reason incompletely does not mean we reason incorrectly. We can know what we know.

Steve: Then there's his simplistic claim that God wanted "evil and sin and hell to exist." But, of course, that doesn't mean God wanted them to exist for their own sake, as if that's good in itself. Rather, they serve a purpose. Keep in mind that the Arminian God wanted "evil and sin and hell to exist" more than he wanted them not to exist, for it was within his power to prevent it. God "permitted" them because that's offset by the compensatory goods. So the Arminian must also resort to a greater good defense.

It depends on what the greater "good" is. For God to create hell and men to be placed in that hell to maximise his eternal glory may not be so "good." God doesn't want evil and sin to exist at all. He permits them if that is a risk in love. And he does not permit hell, he created it.

Steve: He doesn't say what "euphemisms" he has in mind. But while we're on the subject of euphemisms, about about the Arminian's euphemistic appeal to divine "permission"

Permission is not a euphemism. Parents understand the concept. It may seem a euphemism if one is trying to understand Arminianism on Calvinist terms, but not on its own terms.

Steve: The Bible in general has many "hard edges" and "hard doctrines." There's something in Scripture to offend everyone. Since Fischer thinks people ought to be consistent, why doesn't he become an atheist? 

This is a problem that Austin identifies with Calvinism. It does not disprove Calvinism, nor is it universal, but the arrogance among the young Calvinists is frequent enough that they form a distinct category even alarmingly noted by other Calvinists. Really, should a Christ follower tell a fellow traveller to become an atheist? Even if we ignore the fact that atheism is not consistent. Perhaps this is some sort of Galatian-type response to Judaisers: Austin is a false teacher. Consistency is hardly a false gospel. It does not cause men to abandon Christ. Or does Steve see Calvinism synonymous with salvation excluding Catholics, Orthodox, and large portions of Protestantism including Pentecostals? One is always going to be in relationship with Christians that have different beliefs than oneself. This is not a good thing, but it is and will remain. One should be saddened if someone who once held to orthodoxy becomes heterodox yet,

Steve: The moral of the story is that intellectually lightweight ex-Calvinists like Fischer make the best Arminians. 

And in the comments we read,

Steve: Since I don't think Fischer is a loss to Calvinism, I don't feel "bitter" about his defection from Calvinism.

I want all people to believe the truth, intellectual lightweights included. I am pleased when anyone renews his mind and thinks more like Christ, and saddened when he abandons the truths of the Bible. Moreover, the kingdom is full on people who the world considers nobodies. It is this arrogance which I think is dangerous in Calvinism. We don't read: Speak the truth to God's glory whoever may be damned; rather we are to speak the truth in love. Words of rebuke are appropriate for false teachers to protect the sheep, especially if the person is a wolf (which means that they are not a sheep and not in God's kingdom). Nevertheless, we should desire that all join the kingdom and be saddened if any leave.

Questions on Arminianism

In response to my post "Repairing fences" Bnonn asks

1. Historically, Calvinism has upheld the free offer of the gospel. So both Calvinism and Arminianism would have God visiting every house, as it were. But this analogy does reveal a different asymmetry between C and A, which is that God doesn't actually visit every house at all. Plenty of people never hear the gospel. That seems problematic under A, since God wants to save everyone, and certainly could have arranged it so everyone at least got a visit. But under C, there is no need for God to visit those whom he has not elected.

2. One very serious philosophical question Arminians need to give account for is why Christians choose faith while others don't. There seems to be a trilemma here. It can't be (i) because God gives Christians more grace than others, because we know God wants to save everyone equally. It can't be (ii) that Christians are just naturally better somehow than other people, because then we could boast in our salvation (it also seems to collapse into the same problem as [i], since God makes us the way we are). And it can't be (iii) that there is some external influence unrelated to either our choosing or God's grace, since that would basically make faith a matter of luck, or something else unrelated to the actual mechanics of salvation.

3. On the theological side, I don't see how Arminians can remain Arminians in light of John 6:44-45: "No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who hears from the Father and learns comes to me."

The logic of the passage reveals 3 propositions:

i. No one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father
ii. Everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus
iii. Everyone who comes to Jesus is raised up on the last day

Now, (i) and (iii) are consistent with Arminianism, since you can just say that the set of people in (iii) is a subset of the universal set in (i). But (ii) makes it clear the sets are actually identical. So Arminianism in conjunction with (ii) entails universalism. If God draws everyone, then Jesus raises up everyone on the last day. The context of the passage precludes universalism, however, because Jesus is clearly talking about people who come to him in this life...which demonstrably not everyone does. So the only way to read this passage is that the Father draws only those who come to Jesus, and no one else. But... that's Calvinism!

Before addressing these questions I need to point out that my goal in the post was not a defence of Arminianism in general but rather a refutation, by use of analogy, of the false claim that Arminians save themselves. Arminians never claim to save themselves, they say that salvation is a gift, and they differ from Calvinists by saying that man is able to refuse the gift of salvation. This position is logical, that is internally coherent. It also seems to Arminians to be Biblical.

As to my takes on various aspects that relate to Calvinism and Arminianism; these can be found under my labels of determinism and freewill.

Addressing Bnonn's questions.

1. If we extend the analogy and say that God does not visit every household the analogy still works; the point is one can still reject the offer of his gate being fixed.

But I did not equate the visit to every house with the preaching of the gospel but with God's desire to save. Thus the Calvinist position that if God desires someone to be saved he will be amongst the elect (some houses); and the Arminian position that God desires all men to be saved (every house), regardless of whether they hear the gospel.

As to my position on salvation, it is about who we follow. Christianity is a centred set, not a bounded set.

2. As I have said elsewhere I don't think there is an answer to why some people choose faith and others do not, beyond our capacity to make choices. We choose because we have a nature that can choose. Yes other things sway us, but we make decisions based on the fact we are agents that can do such things.

Say I have 2 options, one that brings a degree of pleasure, and I desire it, but it does not please God. The other option would please God but I don't desire it. Do I subvert my desire to my will, or do I suppress my conscience for the sake of pleasure?

Our desires compete between long term pleasure and short term pleasure. Sin and righteousness. Yielding to temptation depends on degree of perceived pleasure, previous yielding, our resistance, our requests to God to help us, tiredness, knowledge of consequences, past experiences. All these feed into our decision to obey God, or not. But because men love wickedness, many choose to reject God.

What is it specifically within our spirit that means 2 men with similar inputs choose opposite paths? I see nothing deeper than our will. Our choice to obey righteousness or wickedness. Nothing compels us. Ultimately one person chooses one way and one person the other because they do. Do they decide to love righteousness more than wickedness?  This ability to choose is part of the imago Dei in us. In the same kind of way that God can make free, non-necessary choices, so can we. God can create, or not create. And he could have created a variety of worlds, all of which are good. This freedom that exists within God he imparts to us.

Bnonn's trilemma does not pose significant difficulties. He says the reason Christians have faith and others do not cannot be (from an Arminian perspective)

1. because God gives Christians more grace than others, because we know God wants to save everyone equally;
2. that Christians are just naturally better somehow than other people, because then we could boast in our salvation; or
3. that there is some external influence unrelated to either our choosing or God's grace, since that would basically make faith a matter of luck, or something else unrelated to the actual mechanics of salvation.

Interestingly I deny all 3 can be excluded. God can give more grace to some than others, though this does not cause saving faith. The faithful may be better than others because faith choices are right choices, though Christians are still sinners who require Christ's righteousness to be acceptable before God; that all fall short does not imply they fall short by the same amount. And other external forces may contribute to one's decisions as mentioned above.

Though the crux of the issue is 1. The unstated assumption is that God can increase the amount of grace to a level which will ensure salvation for each person. My position is that the amount of grace given by God is qualitatively different to our choice to follow God or resist him. The nature of love (and the grace by which it comes) is such that no amount of it can prevent the possibility of resistance.

3. I am familiar with the Calvinist approach to John 6. One Arminian response is to deny ii.

Everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus

I am not certain that John 6 insists on this. John 6 is saying that one cannot come to Jesus of his own accord, that the Father must draw him. But an Arminian would argue that such drawing is still resistible.

Yet there is another possible understanding of John 6. It is not so much saying that the Father will draw specific people to Jesus a la Calvinism, rather that the Father will draw those who are his people to his son Jesus. In my post on John 6 I wrote,

those who recognise who Jesus is do so because they already know the Father. If they do not recognise Jesus, they do not really know the Father. They may know the story about the manna in the desert, but this story points to Jesus; if they really know the Father who sent manna they will see the true manna.

Repairing fences

Arminians are often accused of saving themselves, as if we are the authors of our own salvation. Despite repeated defences that men can accept God's call and sacrifice, the charge is that Arminianism is salvation by man.

It seems to me that some of the confusion arises because Calvinists see a single transaction in a place that Arminians see two. Because Calvinists claim that God's call is effectual God's choice to save coincides with actual salvation; if not in time, at least in person. God chooses some whom he will save and saves them. Contrary to this Arminians think that man is able to resist God. Thus God both offers salvation and saves men. The acceptance of God's offer is distinct from his salvation. In the Calvinist view God offers salvation to the elect who are all saved. In the Arminian view God offers salvation to all men though only some respond.

Consider a road in disrepair and a builder stops at the houses along the road offering to repair the fences. The Calvinist position is that the builder stops at some houses offering to repair their fence to which the owner accepts the offer. The Arminian position is that the builder is stopping at every house. Some owners accept the offer of a new fence and some decline. Neither those that accept or decline the offer build their own fence, and if they attempt to do so they all fail! Even though Jesus is able to save all men, and no man is able to save himself; and even though Jesus desires to save all men, not all respond to his gracious and life giving offer.

Is Arminianism a false gospel?

I came across a comment that Arminianism is a false gospel and I see that this idea occurs a number of times from Calvinists around the internet. I think this is both a false and serious charge.

We need to have a clear understanding of what the gospel is. It is unhelpful to define it so broadly such that all theological truth is the gospel. Every moral is theological, but the command not to murder is not the gospel.

Gospel (noun: ευαγγελιον, euangelion; verb: ευαγγελιζο, euangelizo) means "good news". The word appears over 100 times in the New Testament. Scripturally the word is linked to Jesus; specifically that man can be reconciled to God thru him. In various places the meaning is expanded as can be expected from a word that means "good news". Good news can be about many things; in Scripture we apply this to the news about Jesus' salvation. Gospel is variously attached to Jesus, and the kingdom of God, and other concepts. Paul frequently speaks of preaching the gospel and he tells us what the gospel is,

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

Of first importance is that Jesus:

1. died for our sins
2. was buried
3. was raised on the third day

Paul then goes into a prolonged defence of the resurrection of believers. Elsewhere he tells us what we must do to be saved.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:9-10)

In the first passage we learn that Jesus died for our sins, but little about how his death is for us. Then that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, but little about the nature of his resurrection or resurrection body. In the second passage we learn we must consider Jesus Lord, but how that fits with our concept of the trinity is not expanded. Then that we must  believe that he was indeed resurrected.

Now perhaps Paul expounded on this more when he first preached the gospel to the Corinthians, he was after all reminding them of what he previously said. Nevertheless, the core of the gospel is quite simple. Expounding the nature of faith and salvation and atonement is more complex, and we are to move on to the meat from the milk, yet the core of the gospel is that God offers salvation thru Jesus.

If this is the true gospel what is the false gospel? A false gospel is offering salvation thru other means. Offering salvation thru someone other than Christ, or adding requirements that are not required, specifically trying to earn salvation. Peter states,

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

John adds,

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22-23)

Salvation is only offered thru Jesus. It is belief in his resurrection and confession of his lordship that brings salvation from God.

Elsewhere Paul denounces the Judaisers for adding requirements to the gospel,

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

He describes how the circumcision party, whom he calls false brothers, had influenced even Peter therefore Paul rebuked him. What was the false gospel? Justification by works.

Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

The true gospel is faith in Christ. The false gospel is trying to earn salvation. Of course God has works for us to do, and we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12) in obedience to Christ.

So does Arminianism require that man earn his salvation? No. The charge is false.

Arminianism believes that salvation comes thru Christ alone. God saves man thru Jesus. In order to be saved one must confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in his resurrection. It is thru faith by which we are saved, not works.

Of course Arminiansim holds to the concept that man has the ability to reject God's offer of salvation. And also that faith is a choice to trust in God, something man expresses and God commends him for, though God is always helping man in his frailty and keeping him safe from the enemy who would assail him. So part of the Arminian/ Calvinist debate is whether such faith is something man can have, or something given to man entirely from God. Calvinists would label such Arminian faith a work. This is unjustified, but even if such faith was a "work", it is not a work in the sense Paul is condemning. Paul condemns work that tries to earn. A person expressing faith is not an activity that is similar to activities that try to earn salvation. The Arminian concept of faith is not a work one does like getting circumcised, or tithing. Arminianism and Calvinism both preach salvation thru faith in Christ.

If we assume that Calvinism is true (for the sake of the argument), Arminianism is bad theology or heterodoxy. If would be a stretch to call it heretical. If it is false teaching it should be opposed. But to call it a false gospel is slander. I think Calvinism is a serious error, but is it hardly a false gospel.  Arminians are children of God. They preach a true gospel as do Calvinists. They call people to turn from their sins, to trust in Jesus who died for their sins, to follow Jesus who was raised from the dead, to commit to his Lordship in their lives and over this world.

To say that Arminianism is a false gospel is to slander God's children. Something that deeply offends God. God rebuked Job's friends for their false accusations and he continues to defend his people against those who falsely accuse them.

Romans and salvation

Reading thru several chapters of Romans recently I noted a few aspects that speak to the Arminian/ Calvinist debate. I don't claim uniqueness here, others have undoubtedly put more time into this, nevertheless I document them for my own sake. They may be of some interest.

Paul's argument in chapter 5 compares Adam to Christ. The form of the argument suggests that all people are referred to here. While Paul says "many," he uses this for both Adam and Jesus.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:15-19)

We know that Adam's sin affected all men. "Many" is talking about everyone in this passage; for both Adam and Jesus. Thus Jesus' death can justify all men, which disputes limited atonement. Lest any think that this justifies universalism, Scripture makes clear that some reject Christ. The passage is talking about what Adam resulted for men, and what Jesus accomplished for men; not what sins men would choose to do, nor whether men accept Christ's work. The gift is universal for those who want it. "Come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isaiah 55:1).

The next chapter rebukes the idea that men can sin in order that God's grace may be manifest, as Paul has also previously condemned in chapter 3. He implores us not to sin,

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.(Romans 6:12)

Sinning is obedience to sin which is slavery to sin. And continuing in this path will pay the wages of death, but slavery to God will result in the gift of eternal life. Paul is talking to believers here, they are baptised with Christ in his death. Such unity in his death will certainly mean unity in his resurrection—if indeed you continue in the faith (Colossians 1:23). Paul refers to their status as slaves of sin before salvation (verse 20), but the warning against sin and encouragement in their ability to choose righteousness now they are in Christ implies that choice to sin is possible, and slavery to sin and hence the wages of sin is possible. This disputes perseverance/ preservation (as Calvinism defines it).

Chapter 9 is favoured as teaching unconditional election. I grasp this reading, though it fits more with Pharaoh as an individual, Esau and Jacob should probably be read collectively as this and the following chapters are talking about the nation of Israel (Jacob). It is not my intention to dwell on this chapter here, though I note that Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16) states that Paul can be hard to understand. If this is the case then it may be that passages like Romans 9 are difficult, and need to be understood in light of other passages. If we say the Calvinist reading of Romans 9 is clear this means significant amounts of Paul elsewhere is hard to understand, as well as several other authors of the Bible.

Nevertheless, in chapter 11 it is clear that what keeps us in the tree (kingdom of God) is faith. We are grafted in because of faith, and removed because of unbelief.

They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. (Romans 11:20-23).

Both Arminians and Calvinists can agree here that salvation is connected to faith. I think this agreement should be remembered in discussions, and this fact receive significant emphasis. The disagreement is over the source of the faith: Is it God who provides the faith, or the person who responds to God in faith. Chapters 9 thru 11 are somewhat difficult in places; yet it seems to me that the association between disobedience and not understanding in chapter 10, and the exhortation to continue in God's kindness in chapter 11, would make most sense when faith is understood as a response to God.

Drawn by the Father

John 6:44 is viewed by many to teach that God elects specific men to salvation. It is favoured by Calvinists as supporting their theology. While a Calvinist interpretation can be maintained, this interpretation does not seem to fit with several other passages where we are commanded to choose service to God. Further the entire pericope offers other challenges in interpretation which may indicate that further considerations need to be given to understanding this passage.

John 6:43–44 in the ESV states

Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

There is discussion on what the word "draws" means. I do not intend to comment on this in depth. From what I currently understand, the view that "drawing" is something that originates in the subject. This seems reasonable for inanimate objects, especially given that they are unable to actively resist such drawing. It may not be that the same meaning is intrinsic to objects of will. In English a magnetic draws iron filings irresistibly, but a person draws another person resistibly. The same word is understood to be deterministic or non-deterministic depending on the ability of the object to resist. Whether ηελκυο can be understood the same way I cannot answer.

But I wish to suggest an alternative possibility in interpretation here.

Starting with the larger context before focusing on the smaller; what is striking in John is how often Jesus refers to God the Father. Much of the book involves Jesus explaining his identity in the Father. The word "father" occurs over 100 times in John, most of which refers to God. At the beginning of John we see Jesus' intimate relationship with the Father (John 1:14,18). Jesus is upset with how his Father's house is treated (John 2:16). Later we learn that the Father has given all things to the Son,

For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:34-36)

Then Jesus informs the Samaritan woman that it is not important where one's fathers worshipped, rather that one worships the Father (John 4:21-24).

Jesus is opposed by the Jewish leaders for calling God his Father thus identifying himself with God (John 5:17-18). Jesus explains that he only does what the Father does, that the Father loves the Son, that the Father reveals to the Son what he himself is doing.

There is a strong emphasis on both the fatherhood of God and the relationship of the Father with the Son. Later the Jews try to stone Jesus associating himself with God the Father (John 10).

After feeding the crowds bread Jesus says that he is the true bread (John 6). Then Jesus gives a long speech about who he is. Jesus says the following. Red represents Jesus, blue the Father.

• Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.
• This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." 
• Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
• I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 
• All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 
• For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
• For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
• Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
• It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—
• not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
• I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.
• Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
• Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
• This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
• Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
• But there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.

Jesus draws parallels between manna and himself. The Father gave manna to sustain the Israelites in the desert, ie. to give them life; but the Father gives eternal life thru Jesus who is the true bread.

Jesus is saying that if you can see the Father in his provision of the bread, you should recognise Jesus because he is the greater bread.

In this context we see that those who recognise who Jesus is do so because they already know the Father. If they do not recognise Jesus, they do not really know the Father. They may know the story about the manna in the desert, but this story points to Jesus; if they really know the Father who sent manna they will see the true manna.

If we grasp this is the focus of Jesus' discourse here, we can see that when Jesus says that the Father draws men to Jesus, the Father is drawing those who already know him (God who provided the manna) to Jesus. It is not so much that the Father is drawing people who don't know God to Jesus; he is drawing those who know him to meet his Son.

People are not outside being drawn irresistibly inside, they are inside and gaining the Son.

This makes sense of the last line (v. 64). They do not believe and therefore God does not draw them to the Son.

Sovereignty and freedom

Arminians are convinced that God can be sovereign while his creatures have freewill; sovereignty being a state of rulership and not exhaustive control. The Calvinist struggles with this having a concept of sovereignty that means that nothing occurs outside the will of God, all things that occur are made to occur by God (even if indirectly) because they are aligned with one of the wills of God.

But if we concede that there are some things that God cannot do—things that are impossible for God to do—then why is sovereignty excluded from this consideration?

It is impossible for God to make 2 + 3 = 7. There are some things that God cannot do because they contradict logic. God cannot lie. There are some things God cannot do because they contradict his nature. If an attribute of love is such that it must be given freely and voluntarily, then God cannot make someone love him, nor can anyone else cause people to love them. Certainly God can influence people in a way that is conducive for people to love him. But if love must have a voluntary component (something I happen to think but have not proven) then it remains possible for some people to choose to reject God. It would be impossible for God to make them love him. If it is an intrinsic impossibility that God make people love him, then their refusal to do so does not limit God's sovereignty in the same way that God's inability to make 2 + 3 = 7 does not limit his mathematical prowess.

Hardening Pharaoh's heart

In the determinism-freewill debate there is discussion about God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Determinists emphasise that it is God's prerogative to harden (and soften) whoever he pleases. And by implication that people who God shows mercy to inevitably come to him. Arminians, while agreeing that God can show mercy to whomever he chooses, emphasise that God was completing in Pharaoh something that Pharaoh had begun of his own volition. But are we understanding what the text means by harden?

These are the 18 mentions of hardening in Pharaoh in Exodus. The words used are chazaq, qashah, kabad, and kabed. 

Source of hardening	References
	chazaq	qashah	kabad	kabed
God will harden Pharaoh's heart	Exo 4:21; 14:4	Exo 7:3
God hardened the heart of Pharaoh	Exo 9:12; 10:20; 10:27; 11:10; 14:8.		Exo 10:1
Pharaoh's heart was hard(ened)	Exo 7:13; 7:22; 8:19; 9:35		Exo 9:7	Exo 7:14
Pharaoh hardened his heart			Exo 8:15; 8:32; 9:34

2 other useful references are

When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, the mind of Pharaoh and his servants was changed [haphak] toward the people, and they said, "What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us? (Exodus 14:5)

and

And I will harden [chazaq] the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen. (Exodus 14:17)

So what does it mean to harden? Metaphorically it views one as resolved, unwilling to change. It implies that Pharaoh was not only unwilling, but unable to change his mind. I concede this is possible. "Harden" is the English word translators have used for these Hebrew words. But these words may carry the idea of "strength" or "resolve".

The primary meanings are

• chazaq: to strengthen, prevail, harden, be strong, become strong, be courageous, be firm, grow firm, be resolute, be sore.
• qashah: to be hard, be severe, be fierce, be harsh
• kabad: to be heavy, be weighty, be grievous, be hard, be rich, be honourable, be glorious, be burdensome, be honoured
• kabed: heavy, great

Tense and context determines meaning, nevertheless the primary meanings suggest that the word used of God's action (predominantly chazaq) includes the concepts of strength and resolve. The NET Bible translates the first occurrence of God hardening Pharaoh's heart thus,

The Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put under your control. But I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go.” (Exodus 4:21)

And the footnote to the word "harden" states,

Heb “strengthen” (in the sense of making stubborn or obstinate). The text has the expression וַאֲנִי אֲחַזֵּק אֶת־לִבּוֹ (va’ani ’akhazzeq ’et-libbo), “I will make strong his will,” or “I will strengthen his resolve,” recognizing the “heart” as the location of decision making (see Prov 16:1, 9).

confirming this sense.

The reference to Pharaoh in Romans 9 reads,

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

And the word harden here is skleruno which literally means "harden" but metaphorically "obstinate" or "stubborn".

If this is the case in Exodus it may modify our interpretation of the passage.

The case of Pharaoh is frequently seen by determinists as a man whom God has chosen to make resistant to God's purposes. Pharaoh has no option of repentance. God made Pharaoh for the sole purpose of showing his glory in passing judgment on Pharaoh.

In contrast to this it may be that God is strengthening Pharaoh's resolve to resist God. God is aware that Pharaoh will reject his ways, but the hardening is not so much making Pharaoh initially resistant, rather maintaining resistance when it is not really feasible to do so.

An analogy I think is helpful is that of a bully threatening a young boy. The bully holds the boy in contempt and intends on hurting him. But if the boy calls on a stronger person to help, the bully is no longer in a position to inflict harm, even if the bully still holds the boy in contempt. Hardening of the bully's heart means that he would continue to threaten and try to attack when there is no possibility of harming the boy; the bully attempts to attack even as the boy calls for his brothers, and fathers, and uncles, variously armed with knives and guns.

Facing the plagues meant that Pharaoh was in a position that even while he held God in contempt, he was unable to resist. Pharaoh could not resist God and the narrative of the plagues makes this clear, much like an unarmed man with a hundred guns poised over him. Yet God gives Pharaoh the obstinacy to refuse the Hebrews. Even when the magicians said it was the hand of God, even when they could not stand in the presence of Pharaoh, even when Pharaoh's servants told him that Egypt was destroyed.

And why did God do this?

Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews,... "But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. You are still exalting yourself against my people and will not let them go." (Exodus 9)

Pharaoh had already chosen against God. God's power manifest to Pharaoh meant that Pharaoh would crumbled. God strengthened Pharaoh's resolve so that God's judgment could be bring God glory.

This is consistent with Paul's reasoning in Romans. After the example of Pharaoh Paul writes,

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory... (Romans 9)

Pharaoh was already a vessel of wrath. But God strengthened Pharaoh's resolve and waited patiently, that his glory may be even more manifest. The hardening was not to make Pharaoh judgment-worthy, it was to delay God's judgment and thus increase God's majesty. And this is indeed what happened. Rahab says to the spies,

I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction. And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the LORD your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. (Joshua 2)

Had God not hardened Pharaoh's heart, he still would have come under judgment, but the Hebrews would have left near the beginning of the plagues. But the 10 plagues afforded many Egyptians to fear God and leave Egypt to join with Israel. And the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea struck fear into men from the surrounding nations. It was the salvation of Rahab. God's patience in judgment of Pharaoh led to the salvation of a prostitute in Jericho. Peter states,

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (2 Peter 3)

In summary it may be preferable to see the metaphor of hardening a heart more as retaining resolve rather than making one resistant. And the context of Exodus and Romans suggests that hardening was not in order to have a reason to enact judgment—God already had reason enough—but to delay complete judgment.

Freewill or libertarian freewill

Arminians use the term freewill to describe their view of men's decisions. I note that some Calvinists also claim that man has freewill. Their view they call compatibilism which I admit struggling to grasp. It seems to me that compatibilism is determinism with the claim that the person is also choosing this path.

Arminians think that people can make free choices that are contrary to God's desires. That is men have the power of contrary choice. God can say that a man should do A and that he desires A, and that his purposes would best be fulfilled by doing A, and yet a person can still choose not to do A.^*

To distinguish such freedom oftentimes the term libertarian freewill is used. I take this to mean that a person can make a choice of their own accord. While a man may have several influences on his decision, such a choice is ultimately at the level of the person—his will, his decision making centre. The libertarian adjective is to identify that the decision is sourced in man, as opposed to a compatibilist claim that the man's decision is sourced in God. It does not mean that a man can make any decision whatsoever! Clearly it does not mean that a person can choose to fly. But nor does it necessarily mean that he make any choice that another person is potentially capable of. He cannot make decisions based on knowledge he does not have. If unredeemed man is unable to make decisions to follow God, he still can make a variety of decisions in rejecting him. And he can refrain from making some bad decisions.

This falls under item #4 of my top 10 Calvinist annoyances. The extremes are that freewill is either essentially God's decision (compatibilist^†) or man has the full capacity to make all and any good or bad decision.

The middle position is that man has the power of contrary choice, though his decisions will be limited in capacity by various things.

---

^*Note that this does not mean that God is unable to force the person to do A. But in doing so God has removed their freewill.

^†I am not intending to misconstrue compatibilism. It is a Calvinist term and I am happy that they define it. Feel free to correct me.