Link to J. White critique of Steve on Romans 9

[Guest]

Apparently, then, you and I are not seeing the passage the same way. That is the prerogative of you and me as independent interpreters, obviously. Given the study and analysis I have done, I cannot see the chapter your way any longer (as I did for many years). So we are at an impasse in the discussion--which usually is a very good reason to discuss something else.

[Amyfree]

Apparently, then, you and I are not seeing the passage the same way. That is he prerogative of you and of me as independent interpreters, obviously. Given the study and analysis I have done, I cannot see the chapter your way any longer (as I did for many years). So we are at an empasse in the discussion--which usually is a very good reason to discuss something else.

Steve, your comment seems a bit odd to me. I said one thing about Romans 9, that didn't have anything to do with what's the correct way to see the chapter. You responded to my first statement about Romans 9 by saying we've reached an impasse in our discussion.

I posted once expressing my agreement with you on the definition of "respecter of persons". I ended that post with an affirmation expanding on what that means. "We know that He saves from every tribe, tongue, and nation; from every class and caste; He chooses the foolish of the world to shame the wise. He saves Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female." I would be shocked to see any Calvinist disagree with that; it's basic Calvinistic doctrine.

Then I read your comment to D. You said that the "individual salvation" reading of Romans 9 conflicts with "God is not a respecter of persons." I don't think you had my first post in mind when you said that--I assume you were speaking generally. Your comment wasn't addressed to what I said--you didn't use the same language, and you obviously weren't replying to me. You were talking to D.

I thought your post was interesting, because nothing you said set up any conflict between what I affirmed and individual election. This isn't a matter of you and I disagreeing about Romans 9. Your comment wasn't addressed to my affirmation. And as I've reviewed our posts while writing this, I figured out the point of difference.

I affirmed that God acts impartially to every category of person. You post hinges on the idea that being a respecter of person means acting "without regard to their moral character"--which is practically a definition of unconditional election!

So how did we get to those different places?

Here are the verses in question:

"So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Acts 10:34-35

"He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality." Rom 2:9-11

"As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." 1 Peter 1:14-19

Based on those passages, I'll ask you a couple questions about what you see in the "individual election" reading of Romans 9.

Where is the man who fears Him and does right, but is not acceptable to Him? When God renders to each according to his works, where will be the evil man who will not receive tribulation and distress, and the one who does good who will not receive glory and honor and peace? Where will be the one who is conformed to the passions of their former ignore, who will not be judged accordingly? Where will be the man who is judged more harshly or more leniently on the basis of being in some group?

Where do you find ground in the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9 to say that there will be any such people? Or on what exegetical or contextual grounds would you extend the principle past the way Peter and Paul used it, to the way you stated it?

[Guest]

Hi Jugulum,

First, you are correct in saying that my explanation of the term "respecter of persons" was not a response to anything in your post, but rather to the post that immediately preceded mine.

My next post was directed to you, because you had said that you saw nothing in Romans 9 that contradicted the principle of God not showing favoritism in salvation of individuals. I understood you to be saying that the idea of Paul's addressing individual election unto salvation in Romans 9 did not appear to you to contradict this general principle.

If that is not what you meant, then I was mistaken. If it is what you meant, then I see a basic difference in our thinking processes—whether due to prior theological commitments, or to different degrees of facility in accessing arguments and following a train of thought—which prevents us from getting anywhere in a discussion on this matter. If what is so obvious from my way of thinking is not even visible from your vantage point, then it does indeed seem like we are at an impasse—one which I have not the time or inclination to argue endlessly and fruitlessly about.

You should not take my comment as a personal slight of you or your intelligence, but it should be taken in the context of my oft-stated belief that there are far more important issues for Christians to argue about than this particular arcane theological controversy.

Also, this does not mean that I am opposed to others interacting on this topic with you, if they are blessed with more elective time than I have.

If you think me to be ducking out of the argument, I would direct you to the multiple threads on this forum where I have addressed every major question that Calvinists ask about this and other key passages (or, alternately, to my recorded lectures). The reason I put my answers in writing and post them here is so that it will not be necessary to endlessly repeat myself.

If there are questions about this that you cannot find addressed by me in previous posts, or if you are not satisfied to discuss these things with others more interested than I am in this topic, feel free to address any specific question or challenge to me that you like. If it has not been covered previously, I will try to take the time to respond.

You did ask the following four questions:

"Where is the man who fears Him and does right, but is not acceptable to Him? When God renders to each according to his works, where will be the evil man who will not receive tribulation and distress, and the one who does good who will not receive glory and honor and peace? Where will be the one who is conformed to the passions of their former ignore, who will not be judged accordingly Where will be the man who is judged more harshly or more leniently on the basis of being in some group?"

Since these appear to be rhetorical questions, requiring the answer, "There will be none," I don't see what response you want from me. We both believe there will be none, I presume.

However, assuming you are a Calvinist, your belief is likely to require that some who are of the "group" called the "unconditionally elect" have been chosen for eternal privilege without any consideration of anything in their own disposition (e.g. humility) or behavior (e.g., faith). This is what most Calvinists believe Romans 9 to be teaching. To my mind, however, if God does this, it is contrary to what is said about God not doing this in the verses cited. Where are we not connecting on this?

[Guest]

Tartan Army Wrote:

Being a respecter of persons means to show respect to a persons actions. God does not do that, and that is why we say God is not a respecter of persons.

I also am not seeing how the words "to a persons actions" came about to be included in this definition. The word respecter means granting favor on the basis of "social standing, importance, power, or any deterrent put forth by persons or things" (ref dictionary.com). The word "persons" definies identity. In the USA it is often said "the law is no respecter of persons". It should be evident which this means:

A) Does a judge use the law to treat people without regard for their actions?
B) Does a judge use the law to treat people without regard for their social status, wealth or position?

I haven't yet come to accept the "oft-stated principle of non-favoritism". Is their a scriptural basis to say that God gives everyone equal opportunity for ultimate salvation?

However, suppose the principle is false. God need not give every person equal opportunity in order to remain impartial so long as rewards and consequences are proportional to opportunity.

Luke 12:48

From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

Pete

P.S. I don't mind following this over to a thread on another forum in consideration of Mark's status.

[Guest]

Pete wrote:

"God need not give every person equal opportunity in order to remain impartial so long as rewards and consequences are proportional to opportunity."

This is my belief, and seems to retain the principle of non-partiality in salvation. That God does not give everyone equal opportunity does not mean that He is a respecter of persons, i.e., that He is favoring one class over another. It simply would point to the fact that each person is given a different number of "minas" or "talents."

I think the Puritan writer, William Law, said it well:

"We can hardly reconcile it with divine goodness to give one man two talents and another five unless we suppose he is as high in his master's pleasure who makes right use of two as he who makes right use of five talents." in Christian Perfection, p.21

[Guest]

The literal rendering of the Greek word or words which have been translated as "respecter of persons" or "shows partiality" is idiomatic in Greek. Sometimes a single noun is used, and sometimes a verb and a noun as its object. Here is a literal rendering of some of the phrases used:

Luke 20:21 "Teacher, we know that .... you do not receive faces."

Acts 10:34 God is not a receiver of faces.

Rom 2:11 There is no receiving of faces with God.

Eph 6:9 There is no receiving of faces with Him [the Master in Heaven]

Colossians 3:25 For the doer of unrighteousness will get back what he did unrighteously and there is no receiving of faces.

Let me know if the literal translation of the idiom was useful to you in better understanding its meaning.

[Guest]

I listened to the audio file that was the subject of this topic. White is unable to see the connection in the first several verses and the later ones only because he doesn't understand what Paul is arguing about and how Paul is arguing. I've been working on putting together my own thoughts on Romans 9 and will post it as soon as I finish. I agree with Gregg's interpretaion of the first set of verses that White mentions (10-12), but I do not fully agree with his interpretation of the second set of verses White mentions (18-20). But I need to find Gregg's audio files on Romans 9 to make sure I more fully understand his interpretation of the entire chapter as well as 10 and 11. I also intend to listen to White's commentary on Romans 9.

Based on White's rebuttal of Gregg's comments that I heard in this audio file, I wouldn't be too concerned if I were Gregg. White doesn't seem to comprehend any interpretation of the passage outside of the one that he has been taught within his tradition.

Lewis

[Guest]

Thanks Padion,

I must say the word for "faces" (prosōpon, prosopoleptes, prosōpolēmpsia) is new to me. By blueletterbible.org I see the definition includes:

"the appearance one presents by his wealth or property, his rank or low condition, outward circumstances, external condition"

"Partiality, the fault of one who when called on to give judgment has respect of the outward circumstances of man and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers, as the more worthy, one who is rich, high born, or powerful, to another who does not have these qualities"

Your citations, plus the greek word definitions, are useful as they provide a definition to the phrase. I think this shows that the way in which James used the phrase "respecter of persons" is an exact opposite of the way the biblical authors in your citations had used the phrase.

Thanks
Pete

[Amyfree]

Steve: I just got home, and I'm headed to bed, but I wanted to clarify something real quick, and check something with you. When you said the following:

Since these appear to be rhetorical questions, requiring the answer, "There will be none," I don't see what response you want from me. We both believe there will be none, I presume.

Ah, no, they weren't supposed to be rhetorical questions. Yes, we both agree that there will be none--I was asking those questions in terms of what you see in the Calvinist view of Romans 9. They were questions drawn from the language of the "God is not partial" passages. The point was, where (in the Calvinist view) will there be any such people?

And led to the other two questions I asked:

"Where do you find ground in the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9 to say that there will be any such people? Or on what exegetical or contextual grounds would you extend the principle past the way Peter and Paul used it, to the way you stated it?"

The point of the first question was, "Do you think the Calvinistic Romans 9 means there will be any of those people?" I realized that you probably don't. That means you're applying the principle to situations different from the ones that Paul and Peter had in mind. And any time we try to apply something otherwise than the Bible did, we have to check that very carefully.

So that led to the second question--if the Calvinistic Romans 9 doesn't fall afoul of the ways that Paul and Peter applied "God is not partial", what is your exegetical or contextual grounds for extending the principle? Though you probably don't see it as "extending"--you probably see it as applying what those passages clearly teach.

And I think you were answering that when you said:

However, assuming you are a Calvinist, your belief is likely to require that some who are of the "group" called the "unconditionally elect" have been chosen for eternal privilege without any consideration of anything in their own disposition (e.g. humility) or behavior (e.g., faith). This is what most Calvinists believe Romans 9 to be teaching. To my mind, however, if God does this, it is contrary to what is said about God not doing this in the verses cited. Where are we not connecting on this?

Is that correct? This is what you would give to answer that last question?

P.S. Don't worry, I didn't take anything as a personal slight, and I assumed you were prioritizing. (I have several hanging responses to make in earlier threads, that I haven't gotten to for similar reasons.)

Edited to add: P.P.S. You said something about wondering where we're not connected. When I said, "I figured out the point of difference," I was trying to explain that. You're saying that "God is not a respecter of persons" means that He won't elect "without regard to their moral character". In other words, it means He won't elect unconditionally. Yes, that contradicts the Calvinistic view of Romans 9. So where we're differing is in how we understand "God is not a respecter of persons". That's what my questions were aimed at.

[Amyfree]

I think this shows that the way in which James used the phrase "respecter of persons" is an exact opposite of the way the biblical authors in your citations had used the phrase.

The way James used it? Hmm... I don't think he said anything about that phrase in the most recent shows. Was it in the earlier, initial ones? I'm curious to hear again what he said on it. Do you remember which one it was in?

Or were you mixing up James and Mark (tartanarmy)? Did James actually use it the same way?