According to Victor Reppert:
“I don't see any superiority in Calvinist interpretations of Romans 9, John 6:44, Ephesians 1:14, or whatever the other Calvinist proof-texts are, to anti-Calvinist interpretations (Hamilton on Romans 9 looks pretty good to me).”
“Did anybody explain what was wrong with Hamilton's exegesis or Romans 9, when I posted it? I couldn't find it.”
I have to wonder how carefully Reppert actually read Hamilton. For Hamilton’s Arminian, anti-Calvinist interpretation of Rom 9-11 contains some interpretations which are clearly at odds with Reppert’s own position.
Remember, Reppert defines a loving God as a God who acts in the best interests of all human beings. And because the God of Reformed theism does not, he rejects Calvinism. But consider Hamiton’s Arminian alternative:
“Without delving into competing eschatological views here, this salvation of ‘all Israel’ I take simply to refer to a future generation of Jews before the end of history who will turn en masse to faith in Christ, the Deliverer, who will at that time ‘remove ungodliness from Jacob’ (11:26)...The salvation of ‘all Israel’ is clearly not yet a reality in history, for it is beyond disagreement than many Jews since the time of Christ have died without faith in him.”
According to Hamilton’s own timetable, God has hardened Israel for the past 2000 years and counting. And the calculated result of divine hardening is to prevent most Jews from coming to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Although Hamilton regards divine hardening as temporary, that comes way too late benefit those who died in unbelief. And they died in unbelief because God hardened them.
Seems to me that this is clearly opposed to Reppert’s own view of God’s saving purposes.
Let’s take another statement from Hamilton:
“The central theological lesson to be gleaned from Romans chapter nine, then, is that God may sovereignly discriminate in the dispensing of particular prevenient grace. That is, God maintains an absolute, sovereign right to either extend, withhold, or diminish the opportunities for any unbeliever (i.e., one who suppresses the truth revealed by universal prevenient grace) to access further truth and have the ability to freely respond in faith to that truth in a way leading to salvation. God has sole discretion to decide if and when he will extend particular prevenient grace to any unbeliever or conversely harden any unbeliever.”
“…This may be a conclusion hard for some Arminians to accept, who are accustomed to thinking of God as always taking every available opportunity to draw each individual toward salvation (see Note 9 for one indication that Arminius himself would have objected to such thinking). My exegesis of Paul’s teaching in this chapter leads me to conclude that God does not necessarily act in this way. Though God’s genuine desire to see all people saved indeed constrains him to extend universal prevenient grace to all people, the teaching of Romans chapter nine is that God is under no obligation to extend grace beyond that point, but instead may be selective in the dispensing of additional, particular prevenient grace…God’s holiness requires that only condemnation, not grace, be considered obligatory to one who has suppressed God’s truth and violated the Law of God. It is to God’s unending glory that in his wisdom he devised a way for those who merit such condemnation to become the recipients of saving grace by faith in Christ. Yet, God is not bound to draw all persons in the same measure or in the same manner toward this free gift of salvation, though all persons do have sufficient means (through the dispensing of universal prevenient grace) to draw near to God in faith (cf. my earlier discussion of Romans 1:21 and 2:4).”
This is even more general than the specific case of Jewish unbelievers. God isn’t bound to treat everyone the same way. He can rightly prevent sinners from having an opportunity to be saved. He doesn’t do whatever he can to save every individual. He doesn’t act in the best interests of every sinner. Isn’t that diametrically opposed to Reppert’s own position?
So, if Reppert is consistent, then not only must he reject the God of Calvinism as a false God, but he must also reject the God of Arminianism as a false God.
No comments:
Post a Comment