Think Wink.

As I have blogged through Greg Boyd’s objections to the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9, I have noticed a common theme in all three that I have responded to, namely Boyd does not start at Romans 9:1 and work through to the end of the chapter. In doing so key exegetical questions are not being asked and answered. Furthermore, the arguments are contradicting themselves and each other. It appears that Boyd is more concerned with defeating a theology that he has rejected than presenting an honest counter-exegesis. I say that because it is something I notice about non-Calvinistic responses to Romans 9. They are not consistent with themselves nor with the rest of Paul’s letter. Some (Boyd hasn’t to my knowledge) say that Neo-Calvinists fail to take into account context when exegeting passages. I have not doubt that Neo-Calvinists make that mistake. But what I am noticing in this response by Boyd is that Boyd is guilty of this failure to take into account the preceding context that leads Paul to his discussion found in Romans 9.

Argument #4 is no different. In fact, Boyd goes in the opposite direction in that he starts at the end and reads backward into Romans 9, contradicting arguments #2 and 3 in the process. Boyd argues,

A fourth argument that demonstrates the error of the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9 concerns Paul’s summary at the end of this chapter. Whenever we are struggling to understand a complex line of reasoning such as we find in Romans 9, it is crucial to pay close attention to the author’s own summary of his argument, if and when he provides one. By all accounts, Romans 9 is a difficult, complex and highly disputed passage. Fortunately, Paul provides us with a very clear summary of his argument in this chapter (vss. 30-32). Unfortunately for the deterministic interpretation, it appeals to free will as the decisive factor in determining who “receives mercy” and who gets “hardened.”

Now the problem I have with this is manifold. First, and I’ll speak about this in the next post which will respond to argument #5, this explicitly contradicts what is stated in Romans 9:16, 18. Paul says there, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy…So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” Boyd’s presentation conditions the reception of mercy upon human willing whereas Paul conditions the reception of mercy upon God. It’s why he needs to start in Romans 9:1 and work through the entire chapter instead of picking a couple of verses here and there and crafting an argument out of them. How does Romans 9:16, 18 fit into his understanding of free will?

Boyd is quite consistent in asserting that God hardens and mercies in response to a person’s choice to believe or disbelieve. Yet Paul asserts that God mercies whom he wills and hardens whom he wills. The objection that comes next is that God cannot find fault because no one is resisting that divine will that hardens. If one were to take Boyd’s free will approach, then Rom 9:19 would not be asked! Thus Boyd’s citation of Romans 9:20, “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?’” goes astray because it does not relate to resisting God’s will but to works-based righteousness. Rom 9:20 is not flowing out of Rom 9:19 objection that comes as a response to Rom 9:14-18.

Also, this argument assumes a great deal about free will that hasn’t been proven. If one is going to argue from the stand point of free will in the Calvinist vs Arminian debate, that person must first argue the version of free will and not just assume it. This topic is to too hotly debated to just assume. Note the parallels between Romans 9:18 and Romans 9:30-33:

“[God] has mercy on whomever he wills” (9:18a)
“That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith” (9:30)

“[God] hardens whomever he wills” (9:18b)
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 (9:31-32)

To explain the parallel Boyd points to the free will of humans, thus making the mercy of God his response to the human choice. But no where in Romans 9 is the ability of humans to choose/believe discussed in positive terms. Romans 9:16 does discuss it, but in a negated manner, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion.” Boyd’s overriding presupposition to a view of the human will, libertarianism, allows him to read the conclusion of Romans 9:30-33 back into Romans 9:1-29.

If one reads the parallels, and Romans 9-11, starting at the beginning and moving to the end, one finds that God is determinative in who receives mercy. The Gentiles are finding righteousness by faith because God is mercying them. The Jews are pursuing righteousness by works because God is hardening them. They are stumbling over Christ as a result of God’s electing purpose and God’s desire to show both his mercy as well as his wrath and power. There will come a day when the Jews will receive mercy and they will attain righteousness by faith, but not until God has purposed to do so.

Another problem I have with this argument is that it counters and goes against argument #3. The righteousness by faith is a soteriological category in Romans. Those who possess this righteousness by faith will be vindicated by Messiah on the last day. Those who trust in Messiah alone will be vindicated, those who trust in anything else–including their national/ethnic identity and culture and religion–will not be vindicated by Messiah. Yet Romans 9 has absolutely nothing to do with soteriology. So why does this argument move back into the realm of soteriology and eschatological vindication when that isn’t supposed to be at issue? It seems to me that these arguments don’t cohere together very well at all.

A final problem I see in argument #4, especially as it connects to argument #3, is that in argument #3 God’s choice to have mercy is arbitrary. But in argument #4 God’s choice is not arbitrary but a reaction to human faith. Again there is internal inconsistency and incoherence on the part of Boyd’s argumentation.

I know that argument #3 is to counter individual salvation and argument #4 is to counter determinism but they should counter each other. Yet as I read this article, I find Boyd contradicting his own arguments. Instead of shaking my commitment to the Reformed reading, I find myself becoming more and more convinced of it.

One of the strengths of Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism is that it is a very consistent and coherent understanding of the Bible that is theocentric and christocentric. It is not contradicting itself in such incredible displays like Boyd is doing in just this one chapter of one letter of the NT of the Bible. It does not answer every question, no theological position can, but its message is consistent. Until I start to see a more consistent reading by non-Calvinists of Romans 9 and John 6, I could never be persuaded away from the Reformed position. Next up will be argument #5 and the metaphor of the potter and clay.

Related posts:

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5

Objections to Calvinism Part 7 of 5

My Comfort in Romans 9

No comments