Question:
Answer:
Your husband espouses a Calvinist position, so named because of its author, John Calvin, one of the two most influential Protestant Reformers along with Martin Luther. While not denying man’s free will, Calvin effectively gutted it, because he said all men were preordained by God either to heaven (election) or hell (reprobation), and so there is nothing we can do to impact our eternal destiny.
Your husband cites passages from St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, which need to be read in context. Consider first an excerpt from Romans 3:22-24:
For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. . . . (Rom. 3:22-24, emphasis added).
The Catholic Church acknowledges that faith is undoubtedly a divine gift and that no human person can earn their salvation. And yet, gifts need to be received and maintained, and thus the importance of our free-will responses to God. St. Paul and St. Peter make clear that Jesus came to save everyone (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). In addition, Jesus himself makes clear that our being saved requires our free-will cooperation, as he conveys to the rich young man (Matt. 19:16-30) and in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46), and that our heavenly Father won’t forgive us our trespasses—a prerequisite for our gaining heaven—unless we freely forgive those who have trespassed against us (Matt. 6:14-15; see Rev. 21:27).
Further, St. Paul affirms the importance of good works in our freely accepting and maintaining the gift of salvific discipleship (Rom. 2:6-8), and that certain unrepented transgressions will prevent us from attaining heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21).
All of these passages regarding our freedom need to be kept in mind so as not to misread Romans 9, which forms the foundation of Calvin’s soteriology, i.e., theology of salvation. The alternative is Calvin’s view, which irredeemably—pun intended—presents God as contradicting himself in Scripture. Consequently, in grasping Paul’s teaching in Romans 9, we must see that the apostle is talking about the unfolding of God’s plan in history, not designating the destinies of human persons for eternity. As Dr. Scott Hahn says in his commentary Romans,
Wrath and glory are terms Paul uses elsewhere in connection with the final judgment (2:5-8). Yet Paul is not here concerned with the consignment of destinies. He is setting forth a scenario for the sake of argument in order to defend God against the charge of acting unjustly toward Israel. He is not delivering a prophecy that reveals who will reach heaven and who will go to hell. Rather, the context indicates that Paul is concerned with God’s freedom to assign different roles to different persons in implementing his designs for history. It is a matter of God choreographing the [temporal] election of some and the hardening of others in order to accomplish his plan of redemption. It is within this historical frame of reference that the Lord has a purpose for all the vessels of Israel, noble and ignoble alike (Romans [Baker Publishing Group], 165, emphasis original).
For example, in speaking of God’s choice of Jacob in salvation history, St. Paul quotes God’s word to the prophet Malachi: “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:13; see Mal. 1:3) As a good Jewish scholar can affirm, this ancient Semitic expression means that God loved Esau less than Jacob, not that he predestined Esau, let alone his Edomite descendants (see Genesis 36:1-43), to eternal damnation, because the ancient Israelites certainly didn’t teach Calvinistic divine reprobation. Indeed, the prophet Ezekiel proclaims that the righteous man can fall away through his bad choices and that the wicked man can repent and be restored to communion with God (Ezek. 18:21-32). In any event, Ezekiel adds, “I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord God; so turn, and live” (Ezek. 18:32).
Similarly, St. Paul affirms that God chose Jacob/Israel and his descendants over Esau and his descendants as his covenant people, and yet God does not hate or predestine for condemnation Esau and his Edomite descendants, as he shows his concern for the Edomites elsewhere (see, e.g., Deut. 23:8; Amos 2:1-3). Which makes biblical sense because God called Abraham and his descendants (including Jacob) to be a universal or blessing to all nations (Gen. 12:1-3; 22:18).
Likewise, regarding Romans 9:14-18, Pharaoh hardens his own heart to God’s will (Ex. 7:14, 22; 8:15; 9:7) prior to God’s allowing Pharaoh to endure the consequences of his repeated rebellion, which means God doesn’t override the Egyptian leader’s free will in “hardening his heart” (Exodus 9:12; 10:1; 20, 27; 11:10). And so we can say like St. Paul, “Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (Rom. 9:14).
Further, God portrays Christians, Jews, and Gentiles as vessels of mercy and thus implies that unbelievers are vessels of destruction, whether unbelieving Jews or Gentiles (Rom. 9:22-24). Yet, Paul does not teach that unbelieving Jews, for example, are predestined to damnation, because we see him otherwise praying (Rom. 10:1) and working (11:14) for their salvation (see CCC 1037). Again, God desires that all be saved, but some may choose to rebel against God without repentance. Regarding “the vessels of wrath made for destruction” (Rom 9:22), Hahn and Curtis Mitch note that “the Greek [language used] can mean that the vessels of wrath have prepared themselves for doom by rejecting the gospel (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament [Ignatius Press], 270, emphasis original).
Finally, if Romans 9 were read in isolation, Calvin’s view might seem more plausible, although even then the standard of love for Calvin’s God would fall far short of that espoused by mere human mothers and fathers, who desperately desire all of their children to attain heaven.
Indeed, in arguing for God’s sovereignty in the way he does, Calvin unwittingly blasphemes God by presenting him as a capricious tyrant who is responsible for the greatest of evils: consigning men and women to hell without giving them any real opportunity to accept or reject him. Calvin defends his position by saying we have no right to question God on this matter, but what his critics are questioning is actually Calvin’s concept of God’s goodness. Double predestination makes God, not the godless sinner, responsible for human sin.
For more on these issues, see Tim Staples related articles here and here. See also my article on “The Reformer’s Distorted View of Salvation.” You may also be interested in purchasing Dr. Hahn’s Romans and/or my book To Whom Shall We Go?: The Biblical Case for the Catholic Church. Chapter 3 of my book, “What Must I Do to Be Saved” is particularly relevant.