Finally, something meaningful! I only care what the Bible says, but the reason we discuss these things is to talk about the correct interpretation. Why was this so hard for you acknowledge when you first entered this thread? I digress...
An interesting interpretation of Romans 9. But the writer of the article, whoever it is, assumes that Romans 9 is the "great Calvinist text", as if this was the only thing Reformed Theology had to fall on in defense of its doctrines.
Secondly, there is a great error on the author's part when he charges Calvinists of believing that "God predestines men to hell". I'm sorry, but that is a strawman, a misrepresentation of Calvinism. The Bible never, ever states that God predestines men to hell. Rather, it only, repeatedly states that men are predestined to heaven alone. Men go to hell because of sin. Men go to heaven because of predestinating grace. It is deceitful to charge Calvinists of believing otherwise. God need take no action for men to end up in hell - He simply lets them go there, justly, offering no grace to save them (which He is not obligated to give). God should have justly let all perish, but He is rich in mercy, and decided to save some, rather than condemning all.
Thirdly, it was pointed out that Paul was not writing as a Calvinist. This is a big "duh", for the "term" Calvinist was not invented until the followers of Arminias protested against the reformation, and sparked controversy, and the Christians at that time held the Synod of Dort to deal with the Arminian's claims, and put forth TULIP as a response and a rejection of those claims.
It was also said that "Paul was not writing to settle debate between "Calvinists and traditional Baptists". What the author here is implying is that Traditional Baptists are not Calvinists! This is laughable, for a quick glance at the London Baptist Confession of faith from 1644 will have Calvinism written all over it. Here's a few snippets:
And touching his creature man,God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of his grace,leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his Justice.
All mankind being thus fallen, and become altogether dead in sins and trespasses, and subject to the eternal wrath of the great God by transgression; yet the elect, which God hath loved with an everlasting love, are redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, neither by their own works, lest any man should boast himself, but wholly and only by God of his free grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that as it is written, He that rejoiceth, let him rejoice in the Lord.
The greatest baptist preachers and teachers in history have been Calvinists. For example, the beloved Charles Spurgeon, was a Calvinist. Baptists have historically been Calvinists. Why? Because the doctrines that Calvinism contains is the true exposition of Scripture, which is another debate. Moving on...
So, no, Paul was not writing to offer material for the "Calvinist vs Arminian" debate. Paul
was writing, however, as an Apostle who we
know believed in Predestination, for he himself also wrote the following statements:
Rom 8:30,33
Whom He predestined, He called, and whom He called, He justified, and Whom He justified, He glorified..who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?
Eph 1:4-6,11
According as
he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
2Th 2:13-14
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Whereunto
he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Ti 2:10
Therefore I endure all things
for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
2Ti 1:9
Who hath saved us,
and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus
before the world began,
(1Co 1:26-31)
For ye see
your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and
God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
But of him(But of God, by His doing, because of him (ESV)) are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
Long story short, since we know without a scintilla of a doubt that Paul was writing as an apostle who believed in Predestination, there is no reason to shy away from this fact when we approach Romans 9 and assume "Paul is not really talking about" what the text obviously screams - Paul's defense of unconditional election.
It would be easy enough for me to SAY that, but it wouldn't be enough evidence. Therefore, I point to the context of the entire book of Romans itself in general, and specifically, the end of Romans Chapter 8. If you would follow Paul's flow of arguments and thought processes and context from Romans 8 to Romans 9, you can see why Paul decided it was necessary to write Romans 9!
At the end of Romans 8, Paul had just concluded that nothing can separate the love of God from the people he had just described, nor will God break His promises to these people.
In other words, Paul had just
promised us that "All things work for good" for a certain group of people, and he describes these people as "who love God, and are the called according to His purpose"(v28), and "who were predestined, called, justified, and glorified"(v29-30), and who "are God's elect, whom nobody can lay a charge against, because it is God who justifies them" (v33)
He then goes on to talk about how nothing can separate these same people from God's love.
Paul then realizes that the people to whom he is writing will immediately think of Israel and how many promises of blessings and love were given to them as well, yet now, many are not believing, and are separated from Christ and God. "What happened to God's promise?" is what they will be asking.
Therefore, Romans 9 is Paul's defense of his statements about God's promises to "his people" in the prior chapter (Romans 8). Observe:
Paul starts out by saying "I am not lying". Remember, there are no chapter breaks in the original text. Those were added later by translators. We know that Paul is saying he is not lying about the promises of God's love and that God's predestined people can never be separated from Him, though his readers will question such things. This is Paul's defense and reason:
"It is not as though God's word has failed" (v 9:6a). It is not as though God's promise was broken, Paul argues, because:
"Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (v 6b)
"Not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.." (v7)
"It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but it is the children of the promise who are counted as such" (v8)
Paul then explains what this "promise" is.
"This is what the promise is..." (v9)
Paul then explains the doctrine of election from verse 9-24.
This matches perfectly with Paul had stressed earlier in the book of Romans about physical Israel not being Israel at all, but rather, Spiritual Israel is to whom the promises are made:
Rom 2:28-29
For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Paul also gives a nod to this idea in Gal 3:16,29
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Paul's argument is that to merely be a Jew physically is to not be a Jew at all! Rather, a Jew is one inwardly, spiritually, not if the flesh is circumcised, but if the heart is circumcised. (born again - a believer in God and His Christ)
He concludes that all are under sin, both (physical) Jew and Greek. For several chapters Paul stresses the terrible dilemma all men are in. His answer to this dilemma comes when he finally writes Romans chapter 8. "There is no condemnation to them in Christ Jesus". At the end of this same chapter, he explains how and why people are ever in Christ Jesus - Predestination.
In Romans 9, Paul continues his argument and apologetic and defense of his doctrine:
Rom 9:9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son."
Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--
in order that God's purpose of election might stand, not because of works but because of him who calls--
Rom 9:12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, "
I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then
it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 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?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
I conclude that there is no reason to shy away from taking this chapter at face value. If we follow Paul's context, especially the directly preceding chapter (chapter 8), Romans 9, at face value, makes absolute perfect sense, especially considering the fact that we know without a doubt that Paul believed in predestination, for he talked about it constantly in his letters. (Consider his own conversion, and it's no surprise why)
The previous poster's interpretation does some fancy footwork to ignore the obvious, and come to another conclusion that sounds more "fair" to the human mind and the fallen man's sense of justice and grace. There is no need for this - let the Bible speak, and let it speak in context.
To anyone that rejects unconditional election, I have this to ask:
If Paul believed in "Conditional election" (The non-Calvinist, Arminian variety), then why does Paul anticipate the objections about men thinking that election is "not fair" and "unjust"? Why is Paul concerned with defending God's justice if election was *conditional*? Who would ever in their right mind find conditional election unfair? Who would find it unfair that God only chooses those who first choose him? (Which is what conditional election teaches)
Paul anticipates objections and questions about God's fairness! Why? Because, the answer is obvious, election is *unconditional*. He said it himself "Before the children were not born or had done anything good or bad, one was chosen over the other, so that God's purpose of election would stand"
Paul anticipates that the natural human response is:
"Is there injustice with God?" (v 14)
"For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (v15)
The next question Paul anticipates is:
"Why does God still find fault, for who has resisted His will?" (v19)
In other words, Paul, why does God still hold people accountable for not being saved, it was His predestined plan all along?
Paul's answer is a stiff rebuttal to anyone who would sit in judgement on God:
"Who are you, O Man, to answer back to God?"
Looking forward to the replies.
