Episode 61 - I Did It My Way

Do you have a choice? Has God already decided if you're coming up or going down? In the book of Romans this idea is explored in chapter 9, and it is a very debated and misunderstood piece of Scripture. The church has been split between two opposing views, so where does Anabaptism stand in this minefield of opinion?

Transcript

I Did It My Way

Introduction

Do you have free-will if you are a Christian? What if you aren’t, what about determination? Has God already decided who will be in heaven and hell? And if we do have free will, is it throttled, or governed, to restrict how that will is used? The teachings of Arminianism and Calvinisim, as with Anabaptisim, clash over their understanding of this doctrine, and what we read in Romans 9 seems to fuel this disagreement. 

Frank Turek has stated that “the ultimate problem with 5-point Calvinism is that it makes the world a sham because we don’t really have a free choice, yet God is telling us to choose Him when we can’t choose Him, because He hasn’t chosen us at all; and it makes God the author of evil.”  https://youtube.com/shorts/qdiW5dtOkgo?si=GUoaBRft5KUbn0lt

His quote gets me thinking about our approach to free will and predestination. Author Kingswood Hart says, “Sadly, some people tend to draw conclusions about non-Christians or about how people become Christians or who will become a Christian. These verses are not addressing these issues. They are explaining that God causes all things to work together for good for people who are already believers. The verses are not speaking of God determining who will love him, but are speaking of God determining what happens to those who do love him.” https://evangelicalarminians.org/romans-828-30-and-its-relevance-to-romans-9/

Years ago, for fun, my friends and I used to go into Vancouver late at night just wander the streets until the sun came up. Today such a foolhardy decision would likely result in being mugged, or worse. But it was during these times that I encountered many different ways people saw the world and interacted with the spiritual truth affecting their lives. How are these people affected by a doctrinal argument regarding their eternity? Clearly it is our mandate to witness to them and share the gospel so that they may be saved. But what if God has already condemned them to hell? What’s the point of evangelism then?

One of the girls who spent time with us during this time considered herself to be spiritual, but not religious; this meant that she would pursue tarot readings, palm readings, and other occultic daliences to give her insights into her future. She would then come to church on Sunday and coo about how wonderful she felt in church. Were her actions a foreshadowing of God’s predetermined justice to which she had no chance of deliverance? Such a belief cheapens and nullifies our understanding of the sacrifice Jesus made to save us.

What about deathbed confessions, or the thief on the cross? Do we discount all of Paul’s life and condemn him because the actions of his youth somehow prove that God had predestined him to destruction? Or, is this even a practice we should be engaged in? When we study Scripture it seems that we can get distracted in a verse and the distraction becomes a myopic interpretation.

Most famously, the story of the potter and the clay suggests that the potter determines what the clay will be used for; the clay cannot comment, or put forth suggestions, on what it will become – sculpture, urinal, or trash. We read of Jacob being loved while Esau was hated and we determine that Esau could not have chosen in any way other than that which was set upon him. In these stories we apply presuppositions on God which are linked back to our own corruption, mortality, and will.

The Potter and the Clay

Romans 9:20-21, says, “The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use?” This verse presents the profound tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation. In Calvinism the focus dwells on the absolute sovereignty of God, asserting that His will alone determines who will be saved or damned. 

Arminianism agrees that God is sovereign, however, He allows for human free will in accepting or rejecting salvation. Both teachings, and their understanding of Scripture, seek to honor God’s sovereignty, but how they understand the Biblical presentation of divine will and human choice differs significantly. Menno Simons, and his Anabaptist understanding of the Scriptures, is sympathetic to Arminian theology which stresses that God's mercy is offered to all, and salvation depends on a human response to God's grace. This view is supported by Paul’s teaching in Romans 9 about the importance of faith and righteousness. 

What we find in Calvinism, is the emphasis on God's absolute prerogative in election, which cannot be thwarted by human will. The analogy of the potter and the clay Paul presents In Romans 9, helps to explain God's sovereignty in salvation. This passage has historically been interpreted differently by Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinism focuses on God's absolute control over whom He saves, arguing that God chooses individuals for salvation or damnation based on His will alone.The potter insinuates his will on the clay. 

The Anabaptist teachings, on the other hand, emphasize human free will, and the idea that God’s offer of salvation is available to all, with individuals having the freedom to choose or reject it. Here the potter considers the type of clay, understanding how its composition determines how it is to be used. And there are times the clay will not yield and this results in the rejection of the clay. 

Where I struggle is the assertion that God's election is unconditional and based purely on His will. Calvinisim claims that God makes no consideration of human action or merit. The metaphor Paul uses In Romans 9:20-21, of the potter, emphasizes God's right to choose: “The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?"

The question being asked is, "Doesn't the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” What I find is that Calvinists interpret this passage as affirming God’s prerogative to choose some for salvation and others for destruction. This negates all free will of Gods’ creation implied in Genesis 1:27. It denies independence of any action on their part. John Calvin stated in his Institutes, “God’s election is not conditioned upon the worthiness of those whom he elects. It is the free will of God to choose whom he will”. [Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21]

On the other side of the argument, God’s sovereignty in salvation does not negate human responsibility, nor does it mean that God chooses who will be saved arbitrarily. The Anabaptist perspective emphasizes that while God is sovereign, He does not exercise His sovereignty in a way that overrides human choice. In other words, God is faithful to Himself; and being that we are created in His image, for God to act against His person would be very un-god-like.

The teaching of the Anabaptists, and Jacobus Arminius, hold that God, in His sovereignty, offers salvation to all but those who freely choose to accept His offer become the elect, predestined for glory. This is reflected in Romans 9:16, which states, “So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. ” Salvation depends on God’s mercy but Arminius argued that this mercy is universally offered. 

Menno Simons, wrote in his "Foundation of Christian Doctrine": “God is not the author of sin, nor does He ordain that anyone should be lost. He has given all men the gift of free will to choose between salvation and condemnation”. [Menno Simons, Foundation of Christian Doctrine, Article 2]

Romans 9:30-32 further supports this view: “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, but the righteousness that is by faith; however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works.” This passage underscores that God’s offer of salvation is available to all, but the key difference lies in how individuals respond — through faith or works. Clearly individuals have the freedom to choose to accept or reject God’s mercy, rather than being predestined without regard to their response.

Menno Simons strongly emphasized the role of human free will in salvation. He wrote, “God desires that all men come to repentance and that none should perish, but all should come to the knowledge of the truth. For if it were so that God predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation, this would contradict His mercy”. [Simons, Foundation of Christian Doctrine, Article 4] 

Simons’ quote highlights the Arminian belief in God’s desire for all to be saved and the critical role of human choice. Jesus taught in Matthew 7:21, that salvation is conditioned on human response to God's grace, rather than an unconditional, unilateral divine decree. So it seems that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of those who will freely choose to believe in Him.

In contrast to Calvinism’s understanding of God’s sovereignty, Arminians emphasize that while God is sovereign, He has created humanity with the capacity to choose Him. This highlights the interaction between divine mercy and human will, where God, in His sovereignty, allows individuals to exercise free will in accepting or rejecting His gift of salvation.

Jacob I loved, Esau I hated 

The phrase "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" is often misunderstood and misused in contemporary theology to support the doctrine of unconditional election. However, when viewed through the lens of its original Jewish context, it becomes clear that the phrase speaks not to individual salvation but to God's preferential choice of Israel (Jacob) over Edom (Esau) as His covenant people. 

This understanding highlights God’s sovereign choice in the context of His redemptive plan for Israel, rather than an arbitrary selection of individuals for salvation or damnation. By reclaiming this original meaning, we can better understand the biblical message of God's mercy and His covenantal faithfulness, and avoid misapplying the text in ways that distort its true meaning.

Romans 9:13 quotes Malachi 1:2-3, where it says “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was Esau not Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and given his inheritance to the jackals of the wilderness.” In contemporary Christian theology this verse has often been misunderstood and misused. We seem to think that God’s rejection of Esau, But when we look deeper into the historical and Jewish understanding of this phrase It reveals a more nuanced interpretation. 

In its original context, the statement emphasizes God’s choice of the line of Jacob (the nation of Israel) over Esau (the nation of Edom).It is not understood to be an absolute, personal rejection of Esau or a denial of his potential for redemption.

Where the confusion comes in is our misunderstanding of Jewish thought, the terms "love" and "hate" are not necessarily emotional states but are often used to describe preferential choice or priority. To “love” someone or something in the Hebrew Bible can mean to choose it over another, while to "hate" can mean to prefer something else, not necessarily in a personal, emotional sense, but in terms of selection for a particular purpose.

For example, in Deuteronomy 21:15-17, the terms "love" and "hate" are used to describe a father’s relationship to his children: “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, … he is not allowed to treat the son of the loved wife as the firstborn, at the expense of the son of the unloved, who actually is the firstborn son. … to him belongs the right of the firstborn.” What we understand here is that "hate" does not refer to emotional animosity but to the fact that the father chooses one son over another for inheritance purposes. In the same way, God’s declaration in Malachi, of loving Jacob and hating Esau is a statement regarding His covenantal purpose.

Let’s look a little closer at the context of this passage. God has an ongoing relationship with Israel, and what is being said is a message of comfort to the Israelites after their return from Babylonian exile. Israel, is understandably questioning God's love for them in light of their suffering under foreign domination. The statement "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated", is not about individual salvation but about the choice of Israel as God's covenant people. This is a reassurance to the Isrealites that God's covenantal love remains with them despite their circumstances. The contrast being the nation of Edom, which had a long history of opposition to Israel.

Looking at the context of Romans 9, Paul is echoing this idea and arguing that God’s election of Israel (through Jacob) is not based on their merit or works but is part of God's sovereign plan. He uses the example of the birthright and the blessing to show that God’s purpose in election is rooted in His grace, not human effort or ancestry. Paul’s argument is that God’s choice to bring forth His covenant and promises with Israel, is an act of divine grace and mercy, not a rejection of individual salvation.

In modern theology, this phrase is often used to support the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation, twisted to suggest that God chooses some individuals for salvation and others for eternal damnation. Furthermore, it imparts on God the assumption that His acts are done without regard for the actions or decisions of His creation. 

The late Jewish scholar E.P. Sanders, in his book “Paul and Palestinian Judaism”, notes that Paul’s use of this Old Testament reference is to highlight God’s sovereign election of Israel as His covenant people, not to make an individualistic statement about salvation. Sanders writes: “The phrase ‘Jacob I loved, Esau I hated’ is not about eternal destinies but about the nations, with Jacob representing Israel and Esau representing the adversarial nation of Edom”. [Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 94]

Similarly, the evangelist John Wesley, warned against misusing this passage to support predestination. He wrote: “God's love for Jacob and His rejection of Esau refers not to eternal destiny but to God's sovereign choice of Israel as the people through whom the Messiah would come. It is about God’s use of nations, not individuals in the sense of salvation”. [Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Romans 9:13]

Presuppositions of God

How we understand God’s relationship with humanity, even the question of whether God exists in time or outside of time is central to discussing concepts like election, foreknowledge, and free will. There are two models, or theological presuppositions, which help us better understand passages like Romans 9. Whether we adopt the perceptualist model, which views God as seeing all things eternally, or the conceptualist model, which sees God as interacting with time and human freedom, we must recognize that God’s eternal nature shapes how He perceives history and our choices. God’s eternal purpose and sovereignty are evident in what Paul is saying. We can avoid misapplying Scripture to support deterministic views which undermine the role of human choice and free will, while also affirming God's sovereignty and eternal purposes, by considering these theological insights.

The question of whether God exists in time or outside of time is fundamental to understanding how God interacts with the world and how He foreknows human choices. Many theologians, including William Lane Craig, argue that God exists outside of time, meaning that He is not bound by the temporal constraints that govern the created world. In his article, “How Does God Foreknow Free Choices?”, Craig explains that God’s foreknowledge is not limited to a sequential experience of time but is an eternal, all-encompassing perception. 

This is crucial because if God exists outside of time, He sees all of history — past, present, and future — as one eternal moment. His decisions, including His actions of election or foreknowledge, are not made in a temporal sequence but are eternal truths within His infinite nature. Thus, when we speak of God's choices or His foreknowledge of events, it’s not as if God is “waiting” for us to make decisions; rather, He is always aware of them in the eternal present. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/how-does-god-foreknow-free-choices

Let’s look a little closer to these two models and see if we can better understand how God knows future events and human choices.

Perceptualist Model: This view suggests that God perceives all events in an eternal present. From this perspective, God’s knowledge is akin to the perfect observer who sees all things — past, present, and future — simultaneously. What I find interesting here is that God’s foreknowledge is not a passive “waiting to see” but an active, eternal comprehension of the unfolding of all time. In this sense, God’s perception of time is not linear or temporal, but rather an eternal, unified act. 

Conceptualist Model: The most popular model, the conceptualist model, suggests that God’s knowledge is dynamic and relational, meaning that He knows all possible outcomes and actions, but He also interacts with time and free will. In this model, God’s foreknowledge does not cause or necessitate human choices, but it allows for them. God knows in advance what choices humans will make, but He does not coerce them. This model supports a view of free will and suggests that while God is sovereign, human beings still retain the ability to choose. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/how-does-god-foreknow-free-choices

Alvin Plantiga, in his work, "God, Freedom, and Evil” says, “God's knowledge, like his power, is omniscient, and that means that God knows all truths. But God's knowledge is not to be understood along the lines of what we would call "conceptual" knowledge, which involves mental representations or constructions of things that are learned or built up over time. Instead, God’s knowledge is immediate, direct, and perfect — He simply knows all that is knowable. It is closer to a perceptual model, where God’s knowledge is like seeing everything in an eternal now, not through a succession of concepts or mental constructions." [Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Eerdmans, 1974]

Theological discussions about God's existence outside time and His foreknowledge have been explored for centuries. In a classical sense, Christian theism affirms that God exists outside of time, and this has long been a central tenet in the philosophy of religion. Thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas argued that God’s existence is not bound by the constraints of time because He is the uncaused cause of all things. God, in this view, is eternal and outside the flow of temporal events.

Within this framework, when we consider the concept of divine foreknowledge, the implication is that God is not reacting to the unfolding of events but is eternally aware of them, even though human beings experience them in a temporal sequence. This is significant in understanding Scriptural passages such as Romans 9, where God’s choice’s are not made in sequential time but reflect an eternal truth that is revealed through the course of history.

A surprising result of this understanding is its clear contrast to the open theism model. We find the idea that God interacts dynamically with time challenges the idea that God exists outside of time. It also challenges the claim of open theism which suggests that although God has perfect knowledge of the past and present, the future remains open because it is dependent on human free choices. Open theism raises questions about God’s absolute sovereignty, implying that God cannot know the future in a deterministic sense. So, God’s relationship to time has broad theological implications, and challenges our understanding of election, foreknowledge, and free will. [Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 14, Article 11]

I like the way William Lane Craig summarizes the relationship between God and time. He notes that if we believe God’s eternal nature transcends temporal limitations then it necessarily means His knowledge does as well. He writes, “If God exists outside of time, then His knowledge is not temporal, and He knows all of time in an eternal present. This means He does not make decisions within time, but rather, His choice of individuals or nations like Jacob or Esau is not a temporal event, but a part of His eternal plan” (Craig, How Does God Foreknow Free Choices?). 

As hard as it is to fathom we must come to a place where our understanding of the nature of God confirms that He does not experience the passage of time the way humans do, and His foreknowledge is not bound by temporal sequence but is part of His all-encompassing eternal perspective.  [https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/how-does-god-foreknow-free-choices]

Outro

The implications of this topic on Anabaptist theology, underscores God’s sovereignty in salvation history, particularly in His choosing of Israel for His redemptive purposes. Anabaptists, with their emphasis on discipleship, freedom in Christ, and the response to God’s call, should consider the doctrine of election as God’s active role in inviting His people into relationship, rather than predestining individuals to salvation or damnation. Anabaptist theology upholds the responsibility of human choice in response to God’s grace, emphasizing love and obedience to Christ’s teachings as central to the faith. Romans 9 reminds us that God’s plan is inclusive and relational, not coercive or deterministic. 

The focus is on God’s call to faithful obedience, as we freely choose to follow Him, reflecting the core Anabaptist belief in a community of believers actively living out God’s kingdom here on earth.