What should we make of the discussion of confession in Romans 10?

Somebody wrote to me on Facebook:

The Problems For Baptismal Regeneration In Romans 10

I want to expand on what I've said about the subject in other posts (like here and here). Notice that baptism is absent across multiple contexts addressed in Romans 10: the activities of the justified person and others involved (no getting baptized, no baptizing, no sending a baptizer), the means by which justification is received (no baptism), the nearness of redemption (as referenced in verses 8-11, and both the theme of nearness in general and what this passage in particular says about it make more sense if you don't have to wait until baptism to be justified), and the Old Testament passages cited (involving no baptism or equivalent of it). The absence of baptism across such a large number and variety of contexts is conspicuous and is best explained by justification apart from baptism.

Is Paul begging the question?

I'll make a few comments about this post:

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2019/01/reading-now-cornelius-van-til-the-defense-of-the-faith.html

1. It's anachronistic to read Paul through the prism of Hume. Viewed from a post-Enlightenment context, it may seem like Paul is begging the question, but the thought-world of the 1C Roman Empire was generally very different from the Enlightenment and its secular progeny. (There was, to be sure, the occasional skeptic or atheist.)

2. In addition, Paul is writing to and for Christians. Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity. The argument from authority is not fallacious if your target audience shares the same paradigm. The implied reader of Paul's letter acknowledged the dim view of pagan idolatry and immorality in OT Judaism. 

3. There's a circular quality to Vallicella's complaint. He doesn't identify as a Christian. He's merely a theist who's "sympathetic" to Christianity. Given his outlook, he naturally rejects Paul's classically Jewish characterization of pagan infidelity. In part, Vallicella is giving us his autobiographical reaction. He doesn't see it the same way as Paul because he's on the other side of the issue. But that carries no presumption that Paul is wrong. Whatever your position, by definition you will disagree with the opposing position. 

Needless to say, Paul's indictment will be unconvincing to someone who doesn't share that outlook. It wasn't meant to be independently persuasive. Rather, it plays an explanatory role in Paul's overall presentation. There's an inner logic to the argument in Romans. So the hermeneutical issue is the role that Rom 1 plays in the larger flow of argument. If God is just but humans are unjust, then that has implications for the nature of salvation. The hermeneutical question is the logical relationship between Rom 1 and the remainder of Romans. How Rom 1 functions in Paul's argumentative strategy, given the task he set for himself. Given the target audience.

Schreiner interview on Romans

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2018/11/interview-with-tom-schreiner-on-romans/

Thielman on Rom 9

I was recently reading Frank Thielman's new commentary on Romans. His analysis of Rom 9 is a mess. I'll quote some representative statements, then comment:

Before the plagues descended on the Egyptians, God told Moses twice that he would "harden" Pharaoh's hear and that as a result Pharaoh would not grant Moses's request to let Israel go into the wilderness to sacrifice to God (Exod 4:21; 7:3). Throughout the subsequent narrative, we read either that Pharaoh "hardened" his heart (8:15,32; 9:34), that Pharaoh's heart "was hardened" (7:13; 8:19; 9:7,35), or that "the Lord hardened" the heart of Pharaoh (9:12; 10:20,27; 11:10; 14:8; cf. 10:1; 14:4). 

The interplay in Exod 4:14 between God's initiative and Pharaoh's initiative is helpful in understanding what Paul meant when he said that God "hardens' certain people such as Pharaoh. Paul believed that God punishes people for their own sin, not that God forced people to sin and then punished them for it. Otherwise, God would be acting nonsensically when he endured the rebellions of the wicked "with much patience" and stretched out his hands in appeal to disobedient Israel (Rom 9:22: 10:21). No patience is necessary for enduring the behavior of people doing what one wants them to do, and a lengthy appeal to people not to do what one has designed them to do is obviously fruitless.

When Paul says here, then, that God "hardens" people he must mean that God justly punishes people who, like Pharaoh (Exod 8:15,32; 9:34) and everyone else (Rom 1:18-3:20; 5:12-19), are already in rebellion against him. God punishes them by calcifying this rebellion, or, to put it another way, he further hardens resistant hearts. This second level of resistance, which God himself initiates, is Paul's concern here, and it corresponds exactly to God's judgment in 1:24,26, and 28 when he hands people over to their lust, dishonorable passion, and worthless thoughts [457-58].

Interpreters of this passage [9:21] often explain the image of God as a potter shaping clay as a reference to God's creation of human beings and his determination of their eternal destinies at creation…Paul does not, therefore, picture God as creating people in order to destroy them but as dealing sovereignly with a body of human beings who, without exception, are sinful. He mercifully saves some but justly punishes others [460]. 

One can describe the idea that God decides who will believe the gospel in a way that makes God not only responsible for the salvation of human beings but also for evil since he seemingly creates certain human beings in order that they might sin and that he might then destroy them for his glory. A variation on this idea depicts God as within his rights even to destroy innocent human beings, if any existed, simply because he created them. 

To read Rom 9:7-23 in these ways, however, is to read the passages in a one-sided way, without the balance provided by the context…The idea that this passage teaches God created people in order to destroy them, moreover, attributes conduct to God that God himself finds sinful in human beings. It depicts God as forcing people to sin and then condemning them for it or, worse, condemning the innocent…But he [Paul] tempers the entire concept with the notion that God endured the vessels of wrath that he made with much patience and by speaking of the fitting out of these vessels in the passive voice (9:22). By doing this, he indicates that one must not misread the illustrations to make God the author of evil and sin. 

Paul's illustration of the potter in 9:19-23, then, is not about God predestining certain people to sin, nor is it about the relationship between the entry of sin into God's creation and God's predestining will. It is instead about God's response to already sinful human beings. 

This does not mean that human sin took God by surprise and was somehow outside the scope of God's original design for the universe. It simply means that the answer to such questions lies beyond human understanding.

[Quoting Bavinck] Sin and its punishment can never as such, and for their own sake, have been willed by God…They can therefore have been willed by God only as a means to a different, better, and greater good…Sin is not itself a good. It only becomes a good inasmuch as, contrary to its own nature, it is compelled by God's omnipotence to advance his honor. It is a good indirectly because, being subdued, constrained, and overcome, it brings out God's greatness, power, and justice. 

God is not willing "that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Pet 3:9) [468-70]. 

Who's the speaker in Rom 7?

A perennial crux in the interpretation of Rom 7 is the identify of the speaker. Is this rhetorical fiction, autobiographical, or something else (e.g. the history of Adam, the history of Israel)? I don't have a definitive answer, but I have a few suggestions:

i) We should make allowance for the possibility that Paul uses hyperbole in this passage.

ii) It may be a fictional persona. That doesn't mean it can't be realistic. A fictional persona may represent real people or real experiences. But it's more flexible than one actual individual.

iii) There are different potential readers in Paul's target audience. Jewish converts to Christianity. Gentile converts to Christianity. Jews and gentiles who haven't converted, but might be susceptible to Paul's argument. 

So it's possible that the persona in Rom 7 represents a composite persona. An anonymous fictional character who functions as a mirror. By holding up a mirror to the reader, different readers see different things. Depending on their individual experience, different readers may recognize themselves in some of what Paul says, just like moviegoers may identify with a particular character. 

We shouldn't necessarily expect the persona in Rom 7 to be consistent if the function is to sketch composite character with varied experiences in whom different readers may see themselves. Paul might well incorporate elements of his own experience in the composite persona. No reader has to check every box. Rather, it's sufficient broad to cover a range of readers without matching every reader's particular experience across the board. The persona may intersect with a reader's experience without coinciding with their experience. There's something there for every reader. 

Schreiner on Romans

Schreiner has updated his classic commentary on Romans:

https://www.amazon.com/Romans-Baker-Exegetical-Commentary-Testament/dp/1540960056/

Schreiner on Rom 2:14-15

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/10/tom-schreiner-changes-mind-rom-2-14-15/

Gaius Julius Paulus?

Excerpted from Colin Hemer's paper "The Name of Paul" (1985):

It is generally recognised that Paul, as a Roman citizen, must have possessed a full Roman name, in fact the tria nomina (three names). 'Paulus' was his cognomen, but his praenomen and nomen are quite unknown to us. When a provincial was enfranchised, as when a slave was freed, he automatically assumed the praenomen and nomen of his patron and transmitted it to his descendants...

According to Acts 22:28 Paul was born a Roman citizen. If his family bore the names of a Roman benefactor, the origin must be sought in a previous generation, presumably in the person of a famous Roman who had favoured Tarsus, and bestowed citizenship on some of its leading citizens. If we cannot explain Paul's citizenship in this way, we can only confess our total ignorance of the circumstances.

The three eminent Romans associated with the East and with Tarsus in particular in the preceding period were Pompey, Caesar and Antony, the two latter especially being linked favourably with Tarsus. There is then the possibility - we can say no more - that Paul might have been Cn. Pompeiu Paulus, C. Julius Paulus or M. Antonius Paulus.

The purpose of this note is to draw attention to an inscription from Naples which illustrates the question of Paul's name and identity at three separate points...

'To the spirits of the dead. L. Antonius Leo, also called Neon, son of Zoilus, by nation a Cilician, a soldier of the praetorian fleet at Misenum, from the century the trireme "Asclepius", lived 27 years, served 9 years. C. Julius Paulus his heir undertook the work [of his burial]'...

Paul was both Hebrew and Roman by birth, and operated under either name (Saul or Paul) according to context. It is a neat example of the 'undesigned coincidences' of Acts and Epistles that Paul's Hebrew name is known only from Acts, and his tribe (Benjamin) only from an acknowledged epistle (Phil. 3:5): he was named after the most famous member of his tribe...

Leo's heir bears exactly the name which may possibly have been Paul's own. If he was Leo's near kinsman he may also have been a Cilician, and Tarsus was the capital and dominant city of Cilicia. The form of his name makes it probable that he or his ancestor was enfranchised by Caesar...

The name 'Paulus' itself was a common cognomen, occurring also in the variants Paullus, Polus and Pollus, and meaning 'small', whether in origin pejorative or affectionate. It may sometimes have been confused with an obsolete rare praenomen, usually spelt 'Paullus', which was occasionally revived as an archaizing fashion, as in the names of Paullus Aemilius Lepidus (consul suffectus in 34 B.C.) or Paullus Fabius Maximus (consul in 11 B.C., proconsul of Asia in 9 B.C.; IGRR 4.438, etc.). In Paul' case, as in that of enfranchised provincials generally, the cognomen will have been his ordinary personal name in the Gentile world, his formal designation by praenomen, nomen, father's praenomen, Roman tribe and cognomen being reserved for official documents and remaining unknown to us.

Rom 1 in Christian apologetics

i) I recently witnessed a lengthy exchange between Sye Ten Bruggencate and some evidentialists. Sye's entire apologetic appears to be reducible to quoting Rom 1:18-21. Now, maybe there's more to his overall position than that. I did review a book of his a few years ago:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-to-answer-fool.html 

ii) Before proceeding to my main point, I'd like to get a few preliminaries out of the way. To summarize my own position: I don't classify myself as a Van Tilian. There's too much baggage associated with that classification. And I'm more eclectic. 

Van Til espoused transcendental theism due to his interpretation of divine incomprehensibility. And it's a logical move to go  from divine incomprehensibility to transcendental theism.

However, you can espouse transcendental theism without espousing divine incomprehensibility–at least as Van Til defined it. 

I do think Van Til had some important insights of enduring value:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/02/van-tils-enduring-value.html

iii) I agree with evidential apologists against classical apologists that miracles in themselves are evidence of God. You don't have to use a two-step argument in which you first prove God's existence before you can appeal to miracles. That confuses the order of being with the order of knowing. Although God's existence is a metaphysical starting-point for the possibility of miracles, it doesn't follow that belief in God is an epistemological starting-point. To take a comparison, you can't have apples without apple trees, but apples are evidence for the existence of apple trees. I don't have to first prove the existence of apple trees before I can appeal to apples as evidence for the existence of apple trees.

iv) Apropos (iii), it isn't always necessary to begin with presuppositional issues. It depends on how reasonable or unreasonable the unbeliever is. Some unbelievers retain a lot of common sense. 

v) But in a broader sense, I'd classify myself as a presuppositionalist, because issues of possibility, impossibility, probability, necessity, logic, induction, rationality, counterfactuality, the rules of evidence, &c., are ultimately foundational philosophical issues. They concern what the world is like. What kind of world do we inhabit? 

vi) Approaching my main point: it's possible for a true believer to suffer a crisis of faith. A paradigm example is John the Baptist (Mt 11:2-3). That's quite striking because the Baptist had more direct evidence for the messiahship of Jesus than most Christians can hope for. But human beings are psychologically fragile.

vii) Which brings me to my main point: the appeal to Rom 1 is an argument from authority. And that's legit. But it's useless to a Christian who's suffering a crisis of faith, for at that point he may doubt the authority of Scripture. That's his problem. 

An appeal to natural revelation via Rom 1 is not a direct or independent appeal to natural evidence for God's existence, but an indirect appeal that's dependent on the inspiration and apostolicity of Paul. And, once again, there's nothing wrong with that. 

If, however, Sye were to suffer a crisis of faith, Rom 1 would be ineffective to assuage his doubts since an appeal to Rom 1 is predicated on the authority of Scripture, and if, like John the Baptist, you're going through a crisis of faith, then in that state of mind you lack certitude concerning the authority of Scripture. How does appeal to Rom 1 work for a Christian who's uncertain regarding the certainty of Scripture? 

Now it may just be a phase he's going through. It may resolve itself on its own. 

Or it may require additional evidence over and above bare appeals to the authority of Scripture. And there's plenty of evidence to choose from. But Sye doesn't seem to have any fallback. Indeed, he appears to scorn supplementary sources of evidence. But maybe there's more to his position than I'm aware of. 

viii) Finally, I'm concerned about a degree of posturing when some people invoke Van Tilian slogans. They themselves are not immune to a crisis of faith. We need to guard against Peter's prideful audacity. Not only did he say he'd never deny Jesus, but he drew an invidious contrast between himself and his fellow disciples: “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away” (Mt 26:33). His grandstanding made him ripe for the fall. 

Rom 7

Pastor Lane Keister has an interesting, albeit brief, defense of the traditional Reformed interpretation of Rom 7. Especially the first paragraph:

greenbaggins said,January 7, 2015 at 2:12 pm 

RB, it is easy to admit that 7:14 is the most difficult obstacle to my reading of the text. However, I believe that the difficulty disappears once one realizes that Paul is not saying that the entire “I” is enslaved. He uses the word “I” in several different senses in the passage. Sometimes he means only the regenerate part of him. Sometimes he means the whole person. Never does he say that “I” is only the remaining sin. In other words, it is only the remaining sin that is enslaved, not the whole “I.” This, I believe, fully answers the problem you raise. 

You would admit, would you not, that there is in fact a conflict going on in the “I” of Romans 7? Let me ask you this: what non-believer do you know of who even knows this struggle at all? That is, in my opinion, the ultimate Achilles heel of the non-regenerate interpretation of Romans 7: the unbeliever does not struggle with sin. To quote the song from “My Fair Lady”: “When temptation comes I fall right in.” 

Further, you have not answered my points about the inward man delighting in the law of the Lord (something the unbeliever CANNOT do), or the contextual indicators in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians about what “the inner man” means. I have already said that Romans 7 does not describe what is always and constantly the case; and this would explain why the Christian is not enslaved. You have also not answered my argument about the sequence in the last part of the chapter. Why would the thanksgiving for freedom PRECEDE the statement about still being enslaved (again, it is ONLY the indwelling sin that is enslaved). 

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/response-to-gerety/#comment-126645

Who am I in Rom 7?

i) Rom 7 is a well-known crux. What is Paul talking about? Is this autobiographical? If so, is Paul referring to his pre-Christian situation or his Christian situation? If the former, is he considering that from his pre-Christian viewpoint or his Christian viewpoint? 

Some think it's about Paul coming-of-age. Conversely, some scholars think it's not about Paul. Some think it's about Gen 3. Before and after the Fall. Some think it's about Israel. Before and after she received the law. Some think it's about humanity in general. Some combine two or more perspectives, viz. Israel recapitulates Adam. 

ii) One consideration is the question of how this section functions in Paul's overall argument. In Romans, Paul discusses the law in relation to Jews and Gentiles alike. So which group does he have in view here? Jews, gentiles, or both? And that can be broken down further. Christian gentiles or pagan gentiles? Jewish Christians or non-Jewish Christians? 

iii) This is further complicated by how we think Paul understands the relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant. Is there still a sense in which Christian are "under the law," or is that defunct? 

iv) Apropos (iii), there's the additional question of how sinfulness relates to lawlessness. Even if you say Christians are no longer under the law, Christians remain sinful. Even if we don't define sinners as lawbreakers, there's still a tension between sin and sanctification. Paul makes that abundantly clear in his letters. 

Keep in mind, too, that some things which were unlawful in the Mosaic code would still be sinful for Christians. They aren't sinful because they're unlawful; rather, they're unlawful because they're sinful. It's still sinful for Christians to commit theft, adultery, or murder (to name a few). Swapping categories doesn't affect the underlying issue, for the inability to keep the law goes back to our fallen condition.

v) We also have "confessional" literature in the OT, viz. Ezra 9, Neh 9, Dan 9, Ps 32, Ps 51. The tension or struggle we see in Rom 7 has OT counterparts. That's not confined to the Mosaic law. That's due to our fallen condition. That's something the regenerate experience, whether Christians or OT saints. 

vi) There are some problems with the Adamic interpretation:

a) If Paul is referring to the Fall, why doesn't he just say so–like did in Rom 5? Why be so oblique? Likewise, why does he quote from the Decalogue rather than Gen 2:17 if the latter is really in view? 

b) Gen 3 isn't about the temptation and deception of Adam, but Eve. By contrast, Rom 5 is about Adam rather than Eve. Moreover, Paul elsewhere denies that Adam was deceived (1 Tim 2:14). 

That doesn't necessarily rule out an allusion to Gen 3. But it can't be the exclusive or primary referent.

I don't think the coming-of-age interpretation has much going for it. To begin with, we have no evidence that bar Mitzvah was a 1C rite of passage. More to the point, kids hit the age of reason (or discretion) well before they hit adolescence. And Jewish kids were always obliged to honor their parents. 

Casting the issue in terms of law, which–in context–has reference to the Mosaic law, renders it unlikely that Paul is talking about humanity in general. 

vii) My own best guess is that Paul is using the rhetorical "I" to personify different ways of experiencing the law. I don't think he singles out a particular experience. Rather, he's using that literary device to generalized about different groups in relation to the law.

I also think there's probably an autobiographical element to his personification. He's a representative of Judaism and Christianity alike. He's been on both sides of the law–as a Pharisee, and then a Christian. I expect his personal experience had a suggestive influence in how he cast Rom 7. But I don't think it's reducible to his personal experience. The comparison is more generic. A mirror. How it looks reflects the looker. But there are commonalities. 

Unapologetic

"Unapologetic: Theological Reflections on Romans 1-2" by Evan May.

Colin Kruse (Pillar Series) Commentary on Romans currently $2.99 on Kindle

Click here to get it. Not sure how long it will stay this way.

This is a 2012 release, which normally sells for $40.00 (and can’t presently be gotten used for less than $33).

Couple of reviews:

D.A. Carson:

…a good commentary must not only provide a reliable unpacking of the text, but it must also be a useful guide to the plethora of books and essays that swirl around this letter. Enter Colin Kruse. Readers of The Pillar New Testament Commentary will know him for the clarity and good sense in his commentary on John’s letters in the PNTC series. Here his skills come to the fore again: clarity of thought and writing, independent judgment, deep reverence for what the text actually says, and uncommon wisdom in sorting through the vast secondary literature without getting bogged down. It is a pleasure to commend this commentary and include it in the series.

"By Faith Unto Faith": An Examination of the Prepositional Series in Rom. 1:17 in Light of The Pauline Argument

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” (Romans 1:16-17 ESV). These statements are rightly seen as a programmatic expression of the theme of Romans. Here Paul announces his central topic for the letter: the message of the gospel with its implications, applied across ethnic boundaries. Accordingly, an accurate understanding of Paul’s thesis statement is essential to grasping the meaning of this epistle. However, one phrase in these verses has proven to be enigmatic to preachers and commentators alike—that the righteousness of God is revealed ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. This prepositional series has been variously translated (“from faith to faith,” “from faithfulness for faith,” “by faith from start to finish,” etc.), and its precise function within the paragraph is not obvious. Furthermore, Paul’s citation of Habbakuk 2:4 naturally provides clarity to this expression (considering that ἐκ πίστεως appears in his quotation as well), but how this text should be rendered and what it specifically contributes to Paul’s point are a matter of debate.

Verse 17 is presented as an explanatory grounding (γὰρ) for Paul’s description of the gospel as the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. The gospel is powerful to save those who believe (πιστεύοντι) because in it the righteousness of God is revealed ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. The inferential tie between verse 16 and verse 17 is highlighted by the use of the cognate verb and noun pair πιστεύω/ πίστις. The gospel saves those who believe because it reveals the righteousness of God “by faith.” Moreover, it is the righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) of God that is revealed in the gospel ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν since the righteous (δίκαιος) shall live ἐκ πίστεως. It is clear that these two verses contain several important (and perhaps technical) terms that require investigation of their usage in this letter. It is also necessary to regard the place this programmatic paragraph takes in the context of Paul’s argument concerning the message of the gospel.

This essay will examine the key phrases of Romans 1:17 in light of their context in the letter with the aim of determining the meaning and the particular contribution of the prepositional series. The various constituents will be considered according to their order in the text, beginning with Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Following a discussion of the syntax of that phrase, the theological import of Paul’s declaration that this righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel will be assessed. Then consideration will be given to the role of the phrase ἐκ πίστεως in Paul’s teaching regarding justification, as well as a provisional presentation of the linguistics of the prepositional series. Paul’s citation of Habbakuk 2:4 will be examined, with particular attention to its connection with ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, and then the syntactical structure of the series under investigation will be compared with a parallel text in Romans. The aim is not an atomistic perspective of individual terms and structures but the benefit of both a narrow and a broad lens in exegesis, what is sometimes labeled the “hermeneutical spiral.” To understand Paul’s theology, it is necessary to correctly exegete his presentation in specific texts; to understand those texts, one must understand Paul’s theology. It is desired that this essay is a modest but helpful contribution to that ongoing pursuit.

 [keep reading]

Wallace Makes Announcement on New Testament Fragments

…no surprise: largely Alexandrian, with some Western strains also seen…

Earlier this year, in a debate with Bart Ehrman, Daniel Wallace made mention of some recently discovered manuscript fragments that were undergoing some scholarly scrutiny for authenticity, and that the results of this study were to be published in a forthcoming book from E.J. Brill Publishing (notorious for publishing only top-quality scholarly works that none of us can afford).

What we have here is apparently the first of a number of forthcoming announcements about these manuscripts:

Craig Keener: Romans in Seven Minutes

http://nearemmaus.com/2012/09/06/craig-keener-summarizes-the-epistle-to-the-romans-in-seven-minutes/

Aquinas on Rom 9

Some excerpts from the Angelic Doctor's commentary on Rom 9:

*************************************************************

First, the greatness of the benefit conferred on us by the Holy Spirit, namely, that all things work together for good.

To realize this we should consider that whatever happens in the world, even if it be evil, accrues to the good of the universe; because, as Augustine says in Enchiridion: “God is so good that he would permit no evil, unless he were powerful enough to draw some good out of any evil.”

However, the evil does not always accrue to the good of that in which it is. Thus, the death of one animal accrues to the good of the universe, inasmuch as by the destruction of one thing something else begins to be, although it does not accrue to the good of that which ceases to be; because the good of the universe is willed by God according to itself and to this good all the parts of the universe are ordained (341).

For it is clear that distributive justice has its field in things given as due; for example, if some persons have earned wage, more should be given to those who have done more work. But it has no place in things given spontaneously and out of mercy; for example, if a person meets two beggars and gives one an alms, he is not unjust but merciful. Similarly, if a person has been offended equally by two people and he forgives one but not the other, he is merciful to the one, just to the other, but unjust to neither.

For since all men are born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent, those whom God delivers by His grace He delivers by His mercy alone; and so He is merciful to those whom He delivers, just to those whom He does not deliver, but unjust to none (382).

To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise. One is general, namely, why does God will to harden some and be merciful to some; the other is particular, namely, why does He will to be merciful to this one and harden this or that one?

Although a reason other God's will can be assigned, in the first question the only reason that can be assigned in the second question is God's absolute will. An example is found among humans. For if a builder has at hand many similar and equal stones, the reason why he puts certain ones at the top an others at the bottom can be gathered from his purpose, because the perfection of the house he intends to build requires both a foundation with stones at the bottom and walls of a certain height with stones at the top. But the reason why he put these stones on the to and those others at the bottom seems to be merely that the builder so willed.

First, therefore, the Apostle answers the problem involved in the second question, namely why He has mercy on this one and hardens that one; secondly, the problem involved in the first question, namely, why He is merciful to some and hardens others (390-91).

Then (v. 22) he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works ins the manifestation of divine goodness: "The Lord has made all things for himself" (Pr 16:4). Hence, it was stated above that the invisible things of God have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (1:20).

But the excellence of the divine goodness is so great that it cannot be manifested in one way or in one creature. Consequently, he created diverse creatures in which He is manifested in diverse ways. This is particularly true in rational creatures in whom is justice is manifested with regard to those he benefits according to their deserts and His mercy in those He delivers by His grace. Therefore, to manifest both of these in man He mercifully delivers some, but not all (393).

http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Aquinas_on_Romans.pdf

Why Good Greek Grammar Matters: An Exegetical Response to Tim Warner's Preterit Interpretation of the Golden Chain - Part 1

“(28) And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (29) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
– Rom 8:28–30.

You can find Tim Warner’s article here.

He immediately begins with a caricature of Calvinism. He asserts:

According to Calvinists, from “predestination” to “glorification,” everything related to our salvation is determined and performed by God. Nothing man does can in any way affect his eternal destiny.

I ask: how does an individual become justified? It is by faith. Who "performs" the faith? The individual or God? Answer: faith is expressed by the will of the individual, which is enabled by our gracious God. And can someone who does not love God be glorified? No.

He writes:

The verb [οἶδα, oida in v. 28], rendered “we know” in the NKJV and “we have observed” in our translation, is a perfect active indicative form of the verb meaning “to observe and therefore perceive [he cites Thayer’s Lexicon].

He inaccurately cites Thayer’s lexicon. This is not the definition that Thayer provides. What is omitted in Warner’s discussion of this term is Thayer’s important note: “The tenses coming from eido; and retained by usage form two families, of which one signifies to see, the other to know.” Thayer continues to show that when the term is in the aorist tense it means “to see, observe, perceive." But when it is in the perfect tense, which it is in this case, it means “to know, understand." Warner acknowledges that the term is in the perfect tense. So why does he blunder and choose the aorist meaning of this term?

The reason why Warner translates it himself as “we have observed” rather than “we know” is because it supports his thesis that all of the events in the golden chain, including glorification, are a past event. In other words, for him, the salvific acts in the golden chain do not represent timeless truths, but rather what has happened to individuals in the past. To put it in his own words, which he states later: "Paul was describing what has always occurred in the past based on his observation. Therefore, even the 'glorification' must be something that has been observed previously."

He writes:

The perfect tense indicates past completed action with continuous results. Literally, “we have observed” (and therefore we know). The knowledge claimed is based solely on past observation. This is a requirement of this term.

He continues to predicate his thesis on his flawed lexical assertion that oida, "we know," means "we observe as a past action." As demonstrated above, he misread Thayer's lexicon.

In addition, Warner is not familiar with current Greek linguistics or he would be qualifying this absolute statement about verb tense. Traditional Greek has taught that this is what the perfect tense means, but recent scholarship has qualified this substantially, or jettisoned it all together. The perfect tense-form can be found in various temporal contexts, not just past time. Moreover, οἶδα, oida in verse 28 would be a "Perfect with a Present Force." In fact, oida is the most common verb for this Greek category given its stative lexical meaning. In other words, the present temporal reference of this word is due to the stative lexeme and context, not the tense-form.

Greek verbal aspect theory emphasizes the distinction of form and function; semantics and pragmatics; spatial quality and temporal reference; aspect (i.e., author’s subjective portrayal of the action) and Aktionsart (i.e., objective “kind of action”).

Traditionally, grammarians confused the latter elements with the former. For example, it was (and still is among many New Testament interpreters) thought that the verb tense grammaticalized (or encoded) time. But verbal aspect has argued often persuasively that temporal reference is not an inherent (semantic) value of the verb-tense (the future “tense” is an exception, but even then there are qualifications). It is the context that provides us clues to the temporal reference. Further, the perfect tense-form serves to highlight the action of the verb (contrasted with the aorist tense-form, which is the least significant tense-form and only serves to move the storyline or argument along without depicting how the action exactly unfolds).

Continuing, Warner writes:

Remember, Paul was encouraging them in persecution to place their hope in the future resurrection and inheritance, and that God was at work in them even in their present situation. So, it is natural that he would offer some demonstration from history to support the observation of this fact.

Warner is setting up the reader for his thesis, which again he thinks that Paul is only describing what has happened in the past; i.e., the golden chain is not providing timeless truths of God's acts of salvation.

He writes:

Verses 29-30 do not offer a theological argument, or insight into God’s secret purposes. Rather, they offer historical demonstration of what Paul and his readers had indeed observed, that God works for the good of those who love Him.

Again, he utilizes the erroneous "observed" definition. And one truly has to wonder how Warner can miss the explicit revealing of God’s purpose! Paul uses the infinitive of purpose: εἰς τὸ εἶναι (eis to einai)…"so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren." That is, we are predestined to be conformed to Christ so that Christ may be preeminent over a new humanity.

We will continue in part two…

God's Patience with the Vessels of Wrath

Two articles from Dr. Piper:

God's Patience with the Vessels of Wrath

"Fitted for Destruction"