#66 Summation of Genesis 25 Study Part 2

I am speaking the truth in Christ - I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit - that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "through Isaac your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of promise are counted as offspring. for this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call - she was told, "the older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 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 by 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 honored 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? As indeed he says in Hosea, "those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call beloved. And in the very place where it was said to them, 'you are not my people, there they will be called 'sons of the living God" and Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." And as Isaiah predicted, "if the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah." What shall we say, then? That gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "behold I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offenses; and whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame." Romans 9 ESV

Paul, in speaking of Israel, is overwhelmed with compassion and love for his Jewish brothers, so much that he would wish that which he cannot perform. He would that he could be lost for the sake of them to be found. It was they, who according to God's Sovereign choice, were adopted to receive the oracles of God and through them God brought up, according to the flesh, Christ. And not just any Messiah, but Christ who is God overall, again pronouncing His deity. 

They had received the word of God, the prophecies of Messiah, the law that they could not keep but should convict the heart, they had the covenants, and the stories of the patriarchs. They had all these things which pointed to a God who does not choose by merit where there is none. So did the word of God fail?

"For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and do not return there, but water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My word be that goes from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." Isaiah 55: 10&11 NKJV

It did not fail, it accomplished God's will, as Paul points out not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, but "through Isaac your offspring be named." Before Jacob and Esau were ever born, outside of tradition, God chose that the older would serve the younger before either had done good or bad. I use to believe that God's foreknowledge implied him seeing the actions of Jacob verses Esau despising His birthright. But here, the writer states it is not based on good or bad. If it were based on merit it could not be by faith. Paul goes even further to state that it was that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call. As a young man I asked and it was explained to me that it was of faith, but the faith of those who believe, and that it was not based upon a work but on God's foreknowledge of those who would believe. It was also explained that Jesus would never interfere with my free will, but rather woo or convince me until I chose Him, based again on already knowing that I would. I accepted this in my early years as a boy in a Southern Baptist church,  a non denominational church, and later as a young man in the Pentecostal movement. I grew to despise men like John Calvin, John MacArthur, and was admittedly shocked to find that such a kind and loving soul, like I found in Charles Spurgeon, could ever believe such a thing as reformed theology. Nevertheless, when I needed a good commentary, I would always find myself reaching for one of MacArthur's. I respected his reverence for the word of God and though I prayed at Ligoneers one year that he would brake out in tongues, it was my own that ceased. But that is another story. It was there that I started to have the desire to know God's word as he intended and not based upon my wants or emotions. This led to more questions:

First, if it was based upon choosing God from my own "free will", then why did the apostle Paul say it was not based on human will or exertion?

The view I was being taught required the exertion of my will to except or allow God's work to take place. When I asked, it was explained to me that we believe this because it is an Arminian view and consistent with Scripture. That is really not true on both accounts.

1. Arminius, passed away before providing a work on his view, so his followers or Remonstrants wrote the 5 Articles of Remonstrance, which states, Salvation (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the graciously enabled faith (or unbelief) of man;

So what my "Arminian" friend was describing to me was not classical Arminiamism, but rather more in the way of Semi-Pelagianism, which teaches that the beginning of faith is an act of the free will. I have a hard time finding the distinction between this and Pelagianism, where man effects his own salvation. One blatantly claims works at its core while the other tries to deny such claim by way of cooperation. It requires an act of the will which is based in the faith of the one believing, independent of grace, and then later increased by God.  This was like me saying I use to be a humanist but now I am a semi-humanist.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2: 8&9 NKJV

If I read the words above, not as one trained in the Greek, but within the context of this passage on salvation, it would appear that faith is the antecedent to that or in some translations, this. Being an Arminian, but not exactly sure what that meant, I decided at the time, with some help from someone familiar with Greek, to approach it by way of the phrase, rendering grace through faith as the antecedent, and thus salvation being the gift of God. This approach based upon the gender of the pronoun, this. Salvation is the gift of God, but the statement brakes it down to the level of its components preceding the pronoun. As John MacArthur so straightly and simply puts it: " 'That' refers to the entire previous statement of salvation, not only of grace but the faith. Although men are required to believe for salvation, even that faith is part of the gift of God which saves and cannot be exercised by one's own power. God's grace is preeminent in every aspect of salvation." The interpretation by phrase and or rule of pronoun gender did not help my Arminian stand.

Another point made, in an Arminian argument I saw against this interpretation, was that the word for gift here, was also used as the word for offering in the Greek, but as coming from man to God. I am really trying not to be sarcastic here, but plug that into the verse: you see it follows grace and faith and that not of yourselves, it is the offering from man to God of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. I'm not seeing how that changes anything. What was the sacrifice for your sins? If you answer, Jesus, then who is Jesus? If you answer God, then Who's offering was found acceptable?

   2. What is the reason, when I was an Arminian, that I should reject J. MacArthur's above interpretation of these verses?

"The Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person. And they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure beyond doubt the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible; and that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life. Consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no secure particularity and specialty in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in hell as for Peter who mounted to heaven. They believe that for those who were consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High."

Charles Spurgeon

I had not seen this in some time and you can imagine my shock as a young Arminian, reading further in to the works of Spurgeon and finding "Why I am a Calvinist." I respected the man's love of God enough to listen, but thought I had maybe cornered him in the way of 2Peter 3:9:

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. NKJV

This along with 1Timothy 2:4 were the bullets that I could fire back at the likes of John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, and John MacArthur. Around the same time I was loading these into their respective chambers, I ran into an old friend from the Pentecostal movement, he had found something even more profound in these verses. It was a special sort of knowledge, an epiphany he called it. He said, "I read it over and over again. No one goes to hell, He is not willing that any should perish, and from 1Tim., He desires all men to be saved." I contested that he was taking this out of context, in a passage talking just  prior, of the judgment of ungodly men, and in 1 Timothy where Paul, not only names two false prophets, but declares that they have been delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. He was leaving the whole counsel of God, for an emotional interpretation of scripture, but I wondered, could I somehow be doing the same?

Paul starts this whole message of Romans 9 with an emotional decree, declaring his sorrow and the unceasing anguish of his heart, the will of compassion, not wanting his brothers to be punished. Paul states, "I could wish". He does not here change the message  to match his sorrow though but rather presses on to give the doctrine of election. Can God also not wish that any should perish, but have already judged sin, and by grace save those, whom He has chosen of His active will and pleasure? The Bible never considers it a dichotomy to put together both God's truth and God's love or God's love and God's justice. Is it here any different when we speak of God's will in love, not wanting that any should perish, but allowing in His will that justice be done? And yet again, I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy. Can we declare God unjust in this? Being that not only did He choose His elect outside of both good deed and good will, He also does not ignore justice in this, but rather pays the price in His Son. It pleased the Lord. I will leave this and move on to the next major question I had as young believer. The next post will continue with questions that came from reading in Genesis of Sodom, and then later in Romans of God's will and election. I will also leave you with an excerpt from Pastor Samson on 2Peter, good stuff:

Without doubt, 2 Peter 3:9 is the single most popular verse used to dismiss the reformed doctrine of election, bar none. Usually the meaning of the verse is assumed without taking any time to study it, which is the very hallmark of tradition. In fact, traditions are so strong that many do not even see the need to study the verse because they believe there is no need to do so. I have to admit that I did this for many years. Those most enslaved to their traditions are those who believe they do not have any. First of all then, let us read the verse in its context.

2 Peter 3:1-9 - This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

The first thing we notice is that the subject of the passage is not salvation but the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining the reason for the delay in Christ’s second coming – He is still coming, and will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night (v. 10).

The second thing to notice is the clear identity of the people he is addressing. He speaks of the mockers as “they”, but everywhere else he speaks to his audience as “you” and the “beloved.” This is very important because the assumption that is usually made is that the “you” the “any” and the “all” of 2 Peter 3:9 refers to everyone on the planet.

But surely "all" means “all,” right? Well usually, yes, but not always. This has to be determined by the context in which the words are found. For example, when a teacher is getting ready to start a class and asks his students, "Are all here?" he is not asking if every last living person on planet earth is present in the room. Rather he is referring to all the students enrolled in the class. It is context that provides the basis for a sound interpretation.

So, the question in 2 Peter 3:9 is whether "all" refers to all human beings without distinction, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. The context indicates that Peter is writing to a specific group and not to all of mankind – “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours” 2 Peter 1:1. The audience is confirmed when Peter writes, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.” (2 Peter 3:1)

Can we be even more specific? Yes, because if this is the second letter addressed to them, the first makes it clear who he is writing to. 1 Peter 1:1 - “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect…” So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3, saying:

“This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.... But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (v. 1, 8, 9 - emphasis mine)

If the "any" or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove far more than Arminians would want to prove - it would prove universalism rather than Christianity. (Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will ultimately be saved, with no one going to hell). If God is not willing that any person perish, then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, the "any" that God wills not to perish must be limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect, and the "all" that are to come to repentance is the very same group. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, but that all of them come to repentance.

Rather than denying election, understood in its biblical context, it is one of the strongest verses in favor of it.