ARCHIVE: Romans 8 and the Open View

[Arminian]

Moving on to better comments, Dunn (a "New Perspective" determinist), under the influence of Sanders, makes the following observation concerning the corporate identity in Jewish thinking:
""Those who love God" is a characteristic of self-designation of Jewish piety (a full listing in Cranfield, 424 n.4) usually following the typically deuteronomistic style, "those who love God and keep his commandments" (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 6:5; 7:9; ect.; Josh 22:5; .....1Qh 16:13).

Then...:

"In the context here, where Paul has in view the eschatological climax which God has purposed for "all things," the agothon will have an eschatological reference (cf. 14:16): the Christian is not dependent on the Micawberish hope that something will "turn up"; his confidence rests rather on the outworking of God's purpose through all the contradiction and frustration of the present to its intended end."

Now that makes sense!

 

[Jaltus]

BUMP


I'm still working on this one.

 

[GrayPilgrim]

I've been away for a while (moved from the Chicago area) and don't have internet access at home right now so I just dropping in for a little bit.

But I remember liking Dunn on Colossians but I haven't spent much time with his Romans commentary though I know its gotten some bad press.

I just thought I would give you guys a little balance for old times sake. While yes suffering is encompassed in all things I wonder if that is too small of a circle. For the most part on this I agree with what Jaltus has heretofore written, but I would say that while God is not the author of evil, he would be the most compassioante non-potentate if he could not turn evil situations around for good. he groans as creation does so see the revealing of the Sons of God, but that does not relegate his actions to a sideliner as a cheerleader as 1013 argued for.

Well I just could not resist sticking my nose in here to your discussion but I will immediately pull it out again. :angel:

Hope all are well,
GP

 

[Arminian]

Gray,

I just thought I would give you guys a little balance for old times sake. While yes suffering is encompassed in all things I wonder if that is too small of a circle. For the most part on this I agree with what Jaltus has heretofore written, but I would say that while God is not the author of evil, he would be the most compassioante non-potentate if he could not turn evil situations around for good. he groans as creation does so see the revealing of the Sons of God, but that does not relegate his actions to a sideliner as a cheerleader as 1013 argued for.

We'll probably get more opposing thoughts. For now, I still think that God subjected the whole of creation to futulity, and that's how all things work together for the good of those who love God. That sounds strange unless you understand that Paul had just said that suffering leads to glorification (8:17).

He didn't say that everything has it own good or its own glory. It seems that there's only one "good" being spoken of in that entire section.

 

[1013]

but that does not relegate his actions to a sideliner as a cheerleader as 1013 argued for.

eh? how'd I argue that? my arguement was that God is resourceful to use all things even if he didn't intend those things to happen. Calling him a sideliner is an understatement.

I'm goin outta town for a couple of days. smell ya all later.

 

[Jaltus]

Be safe, 1013.

 

[Arminian]

smell ya all later.

That didn't make scents.

 

[geoff]

Now you're all in trouble....

28 .... who have been called according to his purpose.
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Why has no one explained this away yet? SteveT and someone else have offered retranslations to prove their points, but no one has actually dealt with it.

Put your theological/philosophical bents aside for a moment... blank your mind and read it... read it out loud with your eyes closed...

THOSE God foreknew (yes it says He FORE knew them - them = persons) - are who? Those called according to His purpose....

What happens? They are PREDESTINED to be saved (conformed to the nature of His Son, if thats not salvic, nothing is).

predestined=called=justified=glorified.

Jaltus is right, you can NOT hold this passage as authoritive and be OV. You have to explain it away, change its meaning, retranslate it, or find means to make it non authoritive (which puts you in the neo-orthodox mold if I remember correctly).

Why not actually deal with the passage... I find it hard to believe its such a mysterious passage that there could be that much doubt in what it means... this discussion waffled off and clouded the issue... (which is fairly normal for this place)

I look forward to seeing how someone OV deals with this whilst being honest... I dont think it can be done.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

Why not actually deal with the passage... I find it hard to believe its such a mysterious passage that there could be that much doubt in what it means... this discussion waffled off and clouded the issue... (which is fairly normal for this place)

I'm not OV, but I've delt with the verse time and again. In fact, I addressed it here. And, my position is often the one presented by New Perspective theologians. Since you are somewhat of a NP theologain yourself, you might appreciate it.

The postion is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian. It isn't philosophical at all. It comes more from the Biblical Theology approach. The interpretation neither contradicts nor supports OV. But OV'ers would almost always like it.

Jaltus is right, you can NOT hold this passage as authoritive and be OV. You have to explain it away, change its meaning, retranslate it, or find means to make it non authoritive (which puts you in the neo-orthodox mold if I remember correctly).

Not really. The question involves the identity of "those" being spoken of. It all involves the "promises."

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

Aye, I like NP, although I tend to more the Westerholmian view, which is modified Lutheran.. ie, take the 'truth' from the Np, and the 'truth' from the Lutheran view, and you have a more balanced understanding... my opinion anyway

Who is 'those' (them.. whatever)...
Isnt it clear? They are the ones who are called, justified, sanctified and conformed to the nature of the Son - thats what Paul says to me.. if I put all other thoughts aside, thats what I come up with..

Lets see, 'they' are those who He FOREKNEW... therefore 'they' are those who He PREDESTINED to be conformed to the nature of the Son, and therefore, (because this is what it means to be conformed to the nature of the sun), 'they' are called, justified, and glorified.

It doesnt get any simpler by my reckoning.

Nice to see ya btw

 

[Arminian]

Howdy geoff,

Who is 'those' (them.. whatever)...
Isnt it clear? They are the ones who are called, justified, sanctified and conformed to the nature of the Son - thats what Paul says to me.. if I put all other thoughts aside, thats what I come up with..

Lets see, 'they' are those who He FOREKNEW... therefore 'they' are those who He PREDESTINED to be conformed to the nature of the Son, and therefore, (because this is what it means to be conformed to the nature of the sun), 'they' are called, justified, and glorified.

Paul isn't speaking with Western individualism in mind; he's refuting his opposition's claim that they are God's chosen people.

According to Paul's opposition, they were God's chosen people according to the promises made to Abraham and his descendants ("flesh"). They were, then, a foreknown, predestined, called and glorified people. They argue that if Paul is correct, God's word has failed. Paul's response is that the children of the promise are not Abraham's flesh (those who "boast in the [Abraham's] flesh), but instead those who have faith. Therefore, God's chosen, predestined and called people are those in Christ, not those of the flesh of Abraham.

According to Paul, the promise was made to Abraham and his Seed, not seeds (Gal 3:16). The promise did not go to the Jews, but to one person, Jesus Christ. We partake of that election through faith. "All the nations will be blessed through you." (3:10).

According to Jewish tradition, an outsider can join the elect, predestined people by entering into the covenant with God. Paul's belief is no different.

So Paul's argument is that "those who love God" are God's people. By implication the opposing Jews do not love God. The Jews are not a called and chosen people. The calling is theirs (Romans 11:29), but it is in Christ (a people in Christ), and they are not in him apart from faith..

Good to see you, too. It's been a while.

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

It seems to me that doesnt change the understanding of the verse at all.
It in fact confirms it. So, I dont really understand what problem you have with it.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

It seems to me that doesnt change the understanding of the verse at all.
It in fact confirms it. So, I dont really understand what problem you have with it

I don't think that you believed a predesinted people were a people that anyone could join or leave. That, however, was what the Jews believed they were. But Paul uses his arguemnt to "steal" (if you will) their election from them by making Christ the Chosen One, and not Israel.

So if you thought the same thing as I, you can see how it doesn't conflict with OV, per se.

 

[geoff]

Yo,

I think Paul is correcting their view that they are the 'remnant' actually, there is only one who is truly Israel, Christ. He is the faithful remnant, but it amounts to the same thing in reality.

I dont think I thought the same as you, I think you restated what I said in a circular way, in order that it wouldnt conflict with your understanding. When in actual fact, your restatement doesnt change it at all, because you basically resaid what I said, and that still leaves the OV devastated.

You said that 'they' were God's chosen people, predestined, conformed to the nature of the Son, called, justified and glorified. Except, with an assertion you indicate that 'they' are not individuals, but a 'group'. Were that the case, the OV can rest easy, and so can arminianism. It is a point of agreement between them. However, it is not the case. "They" are called, and God calls people by name, individually, as Individuals - into His family. I dont see how you can escape from that....

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

You said that 'they' were God's chosen people, predestined, conformed to the nature of the Son, called, justified and glorified. Except, with an assertion you indicate that 'they' are not individuals, but a 'group'. Were that the case, the OV can rest easy, and so can arminianism. It is a point of agreement between them.

Arminianism doesn't need my explanation. They have their own. However, considering that Paul believes that Abraham and circumcision are an issue involving election, I'm quite certain my case has been made.

However, it is not the case. "They" are called, and God calls people by name, individually, as Individuals - into His family. I dont see how you can escape from that....

"Called" has many different uses, depending on the context. Here, however, Paul isn't arguing with a bunch of Greek philosophers concerning metaphysics. He's arguing with Jews concerning who God's people are. They believed that God called Israel to be set apart from the nations. That's why they argue that they must be joined for a person to be justified.

The argument of Paul's opposition doesn't concern metaphysics. They argued for identity based upon their connection with Abraham as the father of God's people. Paul argues from Abraham and his Seed for the identity of God's people. Whoever that people is, they were called and predestined. Anyone who loves God is, then, a member of that people who are glorified.

When in actual fact, your restatement doesnt change it at all, because you basically resaid what I said, and that still leaves the OV devastated.

The only way OV would be devastated is if they thought that God couldn't possibly have in mind that his promise to Abraham and his Seed couldn't possible be fulfilled through Christ (actully, even that wouldn't harm their argument). However, Paul's argument is that that was God's plan all along. The promise of was never to the "seeds"; it was only to the Seed, meaning One Person. If the promise was to one person, then those who are "in Him" partake of that promise.

I think Paul is correcting their view that they are the 'remnant' actually, there is only one who is truly Israel, Christ. He is the faithful remnant, but it amounts to the same thing in reality.

Dude, that was a terrific observation!!

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

I thought of a better example. Notice that the Jewish argument is that election involves doing something to your Gentile penis. This involves joining the chosen, called and predestined people. According to the Jews, they were called according to God's purpose. To be a Jew was to be circumcised, because the promise was to Abraham and his seeds, was it not?!

NOT!

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

I agree, I dont see a problem with that at all, but I also dont see how it makes the understanding compatible with OV.

The problem is that God foreknows, calls, justifies, and glorifies individuals. Thats incompatible with the OV, in fact, its opposed to it.

 

[geoff]

The only way OV would be devastated is if they thought that God couldn't possibly have in mind that his promise to Abraham and his Seed couldn't possible be fulfilled through Christ (actully, even that wouldn't harm their argument).

The OV problem isnt this though dude, the problem is the determination the verse offers. Believers/unbelievers are foreknown (unbelievers by default), and predestined to be conformed to the nature of the Son (justified and glorified).
Thats what is the problem for the OV (and to some extent Arminianism).

I have no real problem with what you're saying, except that it in no way changes this understanding. Paul certainly is dealing with a problem with their understanding of election (Dunn's nationalism problem perhaps?) - His answer is to say that its not by birthrite (as Jesus does in John 8:30-59) - but by the grace of God, for those He foreknew (would be saved) - are conformed to the nature of His Son (it is effective), that is, they are called, justified and glorified in the End.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Jaltus]

I still think the biggest struggle with this is Romans 8:28 itself.

Think about this: everything works for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to His purpose.

If this is true, then how can a Christian ever lose salvation? What I mean is that, Calvinist model aside, if God is not going to let the worst happen to you, how is it possible that ANYONE could lose salvation? This should ensure salvation no matter what.

The only response I can think of would be that someone could stop loving Him of their own volition, which is a freedom God would not override. However, this seems to be a shakey rejoinder at best.

Arminian, what do you think? Goeff, slap on an Arminianism hat and try critiquing from within our system. What do you think?

 

[Arminian]

Hi geoff,

The OV problem isnt this though dude, the problem is the determination the verse offers. Believers/unbelievers are foreknown (unbelievers by default), and predestined to be conformed to the nature of the Son (justified and glorified).
Thats what is the problem for the OV (and to some extent Arminianism).

Again, the circumcision issue clearly demonstrates that Paul isn't speaking of individuals, but of a people. The issue is racial. All those who love God are, therefore, included in that people.

Replace "those who love God" with "those who observe the law" and the racial issue becomes clearer. If those who observe the law are God's justified and glorified people, then you would be wise to join them: the Jews. Then all things would work for the good of those who observe the law (8:28), for they have been called (according to the promise made to Abraham) according to his purpose (8:28). Then you would need to fulfill their rite of passage.

Once again, the issue of circumcision would not enter the conversation if individualism were in view. God could easily irresistibly ordain that a person be circumcised, so why doesn't Paul assdrees THAT?! However, if the issue involves racial identity, Paul would be required to argue that the justified and glorified people had a different identity than what the Jews argue. And so we witness Paul arguing that the children of Abraham (the elect) are those of faith (not those who do not yeat have faith).

God's gifts and his call to the Jews are irrevocable, according to Romans 11:29. The comment is meaningless if the "call" really isn't offered to them. But the comment isn't meaningless because the call and election is theirs, but in is in the Christ whom they reject. That Christ defines the new chosen people.