Calvin vs. Arminius

[JCISGD]

Most people see Romans 9 as an exposition of God's sovereignty over free will or as unconditional election. However the idea of unconditional election did not come about until Augustine's time in the 4th century. Before that commentaries were written on Paul's letters including Romans. Nobody imagined such a thing as unconditional election.

It would seem strange for Paul to interrupt the topic at hand to introduce a radical topic like election. The Jews believed that they were saved simply because they are descendants of Abraham and for keeping the law. They were jealous of the Gentiles being justified by faith only. This is hinted at throughout Romans 1-8. See 2:17, 25; 3:1,9, 29: 4:1 for just a few examples. For the Jews if being descendants of Abraham and keeping the law meant nothing then God broke His Old Testament covenant. In their eyes the word of God failed or God's promise was broken. The Jews were furious at Paul's teachings. An example of the Jewish thinking and reaction is found in Acts 13:38-52. In 13:38-39 Paul's proclamation is given and in the rest of this passage is the Jewish reaction.

So now Paul wanted to wanted to focus on this issue. This was such a hot issue that he began by stating 3 times in various ways that he is telling the truth (Rom 9:1). He goes on by telling of his great anguish for the Jews even being willing to be accursed from Christ for the sake of the Jews (Rom 9:3). He reminds them of all their blessings (Rom 9:4-5). Then he begins to respond to the Jewish accusation that God's covenant with Israel or the word of God has failed (6).

9:30 begins with "What shall we say then?". This connects it to what was just said (7-29). Another way of saying that would be "In the light of all that I just said, what is to be the conclusion?". Then he makes his conclusion. The conclusion being that for the Jews they failed to attain righteousness. But it is not because the word of God failed but that the Jews stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33) as it was written about in Isaiah 28:16. Paul also showed OT Scripture saying that the Gentiles would come to faith in Rom 9:24-29. So to conclude, none of God's word has failed. The Jews have failed to understand God's Word and to follow it.

All this clearly shows that the topic of Rom 9:6-24 is going to be to prove that God did not fail on what He had said in His word. Also Paul will attack the Jews' false belief that they should be saved just because they are Abrahams' descendants or just because they were pursuing the law. The whole context of Romans 9-11 makes it clear that this would be the most natural topic in 9:6-24. Not a entire new topic (unconditional election) that as I will show in subsequent posts are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

From what I have just mentioned the questioner that will speak from time to time must be a jealous Jew not an Arminian. Paul mentions the Jewish jealousy is 11:11-14.

Paul's first argument is that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel (9:6). Abraham fathered children through 3 women but only through the child of promise (Isaac) are the children of God counted (9:7-9).

Then Paul gives the next argument. This is a stronger argument. Ishmael was an illegitimate child so in the Jewish mindset, Ishmael did not really belong in Abraham's family. Isaac's (the child of promise) wife Rebekah had twins and before they were born and could do anything good or bad God already chose through whom the line of promise would be. That is the context here, not unconditional election. As I said earlier on, the Jews were trying to obtain righteousness by works. Here Paul proves that before either child could do any works God already chose through which line the promised line would go through. There is nothing here about individual election but the election of nations by God.

9:12 quotes Genesis 25:23 where God is telling Rebekah before the children are born that two nations are inside her. There is nothing here about individual election for salvation. God chose to bless the nation that would come from Jacob before either he or his twin brother could do anything good or bad. God's decision of what nation to bless had nothing to do with the conduct of these 2 individuals.

Rom 9:13 (Jacob I loved, Esau I hated) is quoting Malachi 1:2 a book written many centuries after these 2 children died. It is clearly talking about nations, not individuals. God never said that He hated Esau until centuries after he died. God hated the nation of Esau (Edom) because of their refusal to allow Israel to pass through their land in peace. This rebellion took place long after God chose Jacob. And it was the nation of Esau, not Esau personally that rebelled. The rebellion took place a long time after Esau already died. In fact God was kind to the nation of Esau. He wanted that Israel peacefully walk through their land without taking anything (Deu 2:4-6). In Malachi 2:1-2 God warns Israel that they can expect the same punishment if they continue to rebel against God. There is nothing here about personal election.

In Rom 9:14 the jealous Jew questioner asks if there is injustice on God's part. The answer is no. God has a right to choose which nation the nation of promise will be. Israel became God's favored nation but it was certainly not because Israel was any better than any other nation. The questioner's claim to injustice was not that God hated Esau the person and loved Jacob the person. This was not even the case. And a real Jew would have no problem with Isaac and Jacob being blessed. Paul is defending the Jewish accusation that the word of God failed (9:6). That a true descendant of Israel is one that has faith not a physical descendant of Abraham. That was the Jewish sense of injustice.

Paul answers this accusation with God choosing who He will have mercy on and who He will have compassion on. Moses was the one God chose to have mercy on. The context of when God said this to Moses is when Moses was asking to see God's glory (Exo 33:18-19). God chose to be merciful and compassionate to Moses' request to see God's glory. God did that for Moses but God would not do that for just anybody who asks. It is purely up to God to decide if He will fulfill anybody's request. That is what Rom 9:16 means.

Now Paul turns to Pharaoh in 9:17. The quote given in this verse is from Exodus 9:13-16. There God was saying I could have destoyed Pharaoh and his people by now but I have temporary mercy on Pharaoh because I want to use Pharaoh to show My power.

Then in Rom 9:18 Paul says the famous line. God will have mercy on whom He wills and He will harden whom He will.

Now God knows all people if they will believe or not (John 2:24-25; 6:64). And a person either believes or he does not believe. There is no middle ground. God knew that Pharaoh would never believe in God. God did not have to harden his heart in that way. God hardened Pharaoh's heart not so that he would not repent and believe in God but so that Pharaoh would not listen to Moses' request to let Israel go. Pharah could have reasoned that all these plagues are too burdensome on Egypt's economy and so he may have let them go because of that. But God wanted Pharaoh to stay stubborn until the 10th plague and even then chase after Israel afterwards. All this was to show God's glory and so that the Passover could happen. The Passover is very symbolic of Jesus' death and resurrection and salvation. God wanted to make sure that Pharaoh not let Israel go until the Passover happens.

So God showed mercy to Moses' request to see God's glory and He hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let Israel leave until the appointed time. The mercy in this context has nothing to do with personal election and the hardening in this context has nothing to do with reprobation.

Rom 9:19 has always been seen as a verse talking about God's unconditional election. But in the question "who can resist His will" His will is referring to His wills in Rom 9:18 which had nothing to do with personal election. The jealous Jew questioner is thinking that God has mercy on the Gentiles but He seems to harden the Jews since few believe in God. But God is not hardening the Jews, they are hardening themselves.

Paul responds by using the clay metaphor. In Rom 9:20 Paul is basically saying "how can you a mere man talk to God and tell Him how to run things?". It is like the clay asking the potter why he makes him like that. Jeremiah 18:1-10 is an OT metaphor of clay and the potter. There the clay is not passive. The clay is Israel or any nation and God reworks that clay depending on how that nation repents or does not repent. By using a clay/potter metaphor Paul is telling the Jews that they can be remade according to their repentance or lack of repentance. Instead of asking God why He changed His word (so they think) they need to simply repent. The word of God has not failed (Rom 9:6).

9:22,23 has usually been assumed to mean that the vessels of wrath are the reprobate and the vessels of mercy are the elect. However considering this whole context and the jealous Jew issue it would make more sense that the vessels of wrath are non believing Jews who God is dealing with much patience. See Rom 2:4 where God's patience is said to lead to repentance. The vessels of mercy are the Gentiles.

And God gives mercy to those who repent and His wrath is on those who believe not or turn away from God. As Romans 11 shows God can bring the Jews in or the Gentiles out according to their belief. God's mercy is static. In can change according to how one responds to God. This is also seen in the 9:25-26 quotes.

To conclude the preceding verses of Rom 9:1-6 and the verses of Rom 9:30-11:36 clearly show that the context of 9:7-29 is of the Jewish exclusion of the people of God. 9:24-25 and the rest of the surrounding verses show that Israel can be included if they only come to faith. There is certainly nothing to support that 9:7-29 is speaking about personal unconditional election. Chapter 11 particular shows that God's mercy is dependant on a person's response to God whether they be Jew or Gentile.

I agree with that Who are you speaking of that believes in personal unconditional election? Calvinism ?

[rca]

I agree with that Who are you speaking of that believes in personal unconditional election? Calvinism ?

Thank you

Personal unconditional election is the Calvinistic belief that God sovereignly elects certain individuals to salvation purely by God's choice not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part.

It is personal because it is individual by individual. The word personal distinguishes it from God's choice of Israel as His favored nation. In that sense God choosing Israel could be called corporate unconditional election. But that has nothing to do with salvation as Paul made it clear throughout Romans 9-11 and everywhere else.

[JCISGD]

I agree with that Who are you speaking of that believes in personal unconditional election? Calvinism ?

Thank you

Personal unconditional election is the Calvinistic belief that God sovereignly elects certain individuals to salvation purely by God's choice not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part.

It is personal because it is individual by individual. The word personal distinguishes it from God's choice of Israel as His favored nation. In that sense God choosing Israel could be called corporate unconditional election. But that has nothing to do with salvation as Paul made it clear throughout Romans 9-11 and everywhere else.

Thats how i see it also.

[Mike Jeshurun]

Dearly beloved, this is not a

[OneLight]

Welcome to Worthy!

The Gospel that saves is Gods. It belongs to no man. Remember what Paul said to the church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 1:10 -13

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe

[Ascot Preston]

Dearly beloved, this is not a

[~candice~]

Welcome to Worthy!

The Gospel that saves is Gods. It belongs to no man. Remember what Paul said to the church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 1:10 -13

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe

[Ascot Preston]

Dearly beloved, this is not a

[Guest]

Welcome to Worthy!

The Gospel that saves is Gods. It belongs to no man. Remember what Paul said to the church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 1:10 -13

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe

[canuckamuck]

I think everyone who finds salvation does so in spite of denominations.