My Comfort in Romans 9
Romans 9
is the center of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, debates of theology in the Church: Calvinism vs. Arminianism. God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility and how much is to be ascribed in salvation has reached back as far as Augustine and Pelagius, some would say Paul and his opponents. That makes this debate at least 1600 years old. One aspect of this great debate is the justice of God.
When Paul wrote Romans 9:11, he set off this great debate. In Romans 9:14, the great teacher Paul anticipates a question to his theology that he just put forth and answers, “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” The question is simply put, “Is it unfair for God to chose whom he will have mercy on not according to what that person has done or believed?” Paul anticipates an outrage against what he has just taught.
Over the centuries, both sides of the debate have tried to show how God is not unjust. But here is a point that I have never really pondered and put forth: if I am so wrong in my interpretation of Paul in Romans 9:11, then why do people keep raising the same objection to me as Paul anticipated would come to him in Romans? If Paul taught an Arminian view, why raise this objection? God would not be unfair if our salvation hinged upon our free will to believe upon Christ. God’s justice would never be questioned by anyone! Yet in Romans 9:14 and again in Romans 9:19 Paul’s teaching is objected to. The soteriology that I teach and believe receives the same objection by my Arminian friends and loved ones?
So I ask you just this one question: is your theology correct if it doesn’t elicit the same objections that Paul’s elicited? My theology does raise the same issues as Paul’s. If that is true, then I must be thinking along the same lines as Paul. I challenge all Arminians to re-examine their theology and see if it raises the same questions that Paul is brought before Paul.
Related posts:
9 Comments so far
Leave a reply
This is very confusing… Do you think you could explain further? Like is Paul talking about our personal salvation here our is he talking about our role in History? Cause like I know that God said that he lets us decide to choose him and I was reading this the other day and I was confused it does clear some of it up what you are saying but do you think you could go into more detail? Hope to hear back from you soon!
God Bless,
Kelie
I would love to explain this farther. There are two prevailing interpretations of Romans 9
. One is, as you mentioned, our roles in service in history. The other is that God choses who will be saved and who he will pass over in judgment.
Many of my friends and family are not Calvinist, as I am, and do not hold to the second option. In the course of our discussions/debates, I receive the objections of Romans 9:14,19
as rebuffs of my interpretation. I remember blogging about this issue with my cousin Henry Michael (we are both Henry’s and we have to use middle names, its fun) and he actually quoted–unintentionally I think–Romans 9:19
to me as an objection. Naturally I responded with Romans 9:20-23
.
My point is simply this. The very fact that those objections are raised against my interpretation is a confirmation that my view of predestination, unconditional election, and Calvinism is what Paul had in mind. I am not saying that the Arminian position, the one that you postulated in your comment, does in no way raise that objection. I should have made that clear in my post but I was on vacation and I was in a hurry to get the thought down. But Calvinsim elicits these objections more so than Arminianism. Not to mention, no one in Paul’s day would have really raised this objection, that God would chose one nation over another for a particular role or service. Gods in those days were tribal and so it was perfectly natural to think that he would. But to say to a Pharisee or a Saducee or a Greek philosopher that God predetermined apart from our own merits and willing and running who would be saved and who wouldn’t be, that would raise the objections that Paul anticipates.
I hope that clears up the post. If you want more details on Calvinism, let me know and I can link you to some posts and try to explain it further.
I am currently hosting a small group bible study and discussion at my home and we are going through the book of Romans. We just happen to be looking at Chapter 9. The scripture seems clear but is unsettling and can leave you feeling unsatisfied. I have a few questions you could answer.
If some are predestined for salvation, then some (the others) are predestined for destruction. This seems to imply that some are created essentially to suffer eternal damnation - even though their purpose is to point to God’s glory (9:23 and Pharaoh as a specific example). How do we reconcile this truth from Romans Chapter 9 with 1Ti 2:4 and 2Pe 3:9? If God “wants all men to be saved” and if He justifies and glorifies those whom He calls, can He not satisfy His own desire that all men be saved by simply “calling” all men? How do we reconcile this truth that God predestines some for destruction & eternal damnation with a God who “is love”?
I’m glad that you guys did actually look at Romans 9
in your Bible study, many people would just skip over it because of the debate that surrounds the chapter, I used to before I became a Calvinist. So good for you that you are studying all of God’s Word and not just the parts that make you feel good.
First let me respond to the two texts you have cited here, namely 1 Timothy 2:4
and 2 Peter 3:9
. I wrote a post on 2 Peter 3:9
that basically says that the people who God desires to come to repentance is not all men but rather those to whom Peter is writing, namely the elect in Christ, the Church, Christians. God doesn’t want his elect to perish but to come to repentance and thus delays the parousia.
To 1 Timothy 2:4
I must say that God does desire to save all men and come to a knowledge of the truth. However we know that not all men are going to be saved. There is another desire that is superseding it. There is no will outside of God that can move him to act, therefore I am arguing that his will to display his glory most fully overrides his desire to save all men. Jonathan Edwards wrote that if God were not to show all of his attributes equally, then he would not be fully displaying his glory and we could not fully glorify God. Also, I would say that all men is not referring to each and every human being but rather to all types of men. Go back to 1 Timothy 2:1-2
and see how Paul defines all men as different types of people, such as pagan kings.
Well, the call of God referred to in Romans 8:30
is not like an alter call at the end of a Billy Graham sermon or church service. This call is more specific than that. In Romans 8:30
, every single person who is called is justified. There is no rejection of this call. However, there are many places in Paul’s writings, especially, where he says justification is by faith. The only way to put these two ideas together in a way that affirms both verses is to say that the call produces the faith that justifies. Thus if God were to call all men in the way that he does in Romans 8:30
, then all men would be saved, which is not what the Bible teaches. See my post on this calling here.
By understanding that God is not just love. That is only one aspect of God’s character and personhood. He is also just, righteous, and holy. When you get the chance look up Exodus 34:6-7
. There you will find that God’s name as Yahweh is explained to mean that he is: merciful, gracious, patient, faithful, covenant loving [chesed], forgiving, and just. We cannot forget that he is just and to fully declare his glory to us, he must display his justice as well as his mercy and grace and love and faithfulness and forgiveness.
Also look in Exodus 33:19
where God says how he will exercise his mercy and grace, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” He will give it to whomever he chooses. He will love whom he elects to love. What is interesting about this verse is that the first part he answers Moses prayer to show his glory [kabowd] by declaring his name. In Exodus 34:6-7
he explains his name to mean he is gracious, merciful, and just. But he says he exercises those attributes however he choses. Thus he is gracious to whom he chooses to be gracious and is just with whom he chooses to be just [or punishes according to his righteous standard] and it always is for God’s glory.
Also, we can never forget that everything God does is always good. If he predestines some to eternal life and then passes over the rest to be judged for their sins according to his Law, then it is good. But what God calls good is not always what we call “good.” My dad worked for a grocery store for almost 25 years before he was let go. We did not think that to be a “good” thing. However, he got a job that he absolute loved. Still further, he did not like that particular job on account of the time spent away from home. After my parents built their last home, that company went under. We would not call that “good.” But that job gave us tons of free stuff for the house. Now he has a new job where he is home all the time and is off every weekend. That is a good thing. But this would have never had happened if my dad was still at the grocery store. All this is to say God is good in everything he does, even though you and I might not think it is good. Never divorce God’s goodness from his sovereignty.
Proverbs 16:4
says, “The LORD has made everything for its purpose,even the wicked for the day of trouble.”
Let me get this straight. God damns some to hell before the beginning of the world. They have absolutely zero chance on their part to have any chance whatsoever to avoid everlasting hell and torment. And then you point away from God’s love towards God’s nature as just, righteous, and holy. Then claim that we just have to “never forget” anything you claim God does that defies all rationality of justice, righteousness, and holiness is actually “always good.” Oh, then equate eternal torment in hell with your realizing a move turned out to be a good thing. Instead of trying to convince people they can’t think and put two and two together, maybe, just maybe, your extensive, long, and complicated theory created by an ex-Greek philosopher might be the more logical choice.
Jay,
I sense a little hostility on your part. I noticed that your comment did not use Scriptural support for your refutation of the doctrines of grace. I like for you to come back and post some objections based upon biblical texts so that we can have an open and honest debate about what God has revealed in his Word. What I detect in your comments are a man-centered view of the gospel. In what follows, I hope to show you a more radically God-centered gospel. Again, I really hope you come back and discuss this Scripturally as this would be most honoring to our Lord and Savior to see his people striving to understand his Word together as brothers in Christ.
In response to what you have said I will say this. You do not understand the theological system as a whole. I start with the simple fact that texts like Genesis 6:5
; Genesis 8:21
; Psalm 14:3
; Psalm 51:5
; Jeremiah 3:17
; Jeremiah 13:23
; Jeremiah 17:1, 9
; Matthew 7:11
; John 3:18-20, 36
; Romans 1:23
; Romans 3:9-12, 23
; Romans 8:6-8
; Ephesians 2:1-3
all teach that man is utterly and totally depraved. Man from birth does not seek after God and does not desire him. He could be given every chance in the world and he would reject God at every turn.
; Psalms 115:3
; Psalm 135:6
; Proverbs 16:4, 9, 33
; Proverbs 21:1
; Matthew 10:29
; Romans 9:20-23
; Ephesians 1:11
all say that God is completely sovereign and does whatever he wants to do, apart from any outside constraints or wills. I am curious how you can reconcile these texts with what I am guessing is your belief in “free” will.
Secondly I believe that texts like Exodus 3:14
One thing that I find is that this sovereignty is the very good news, the very gospel, that I have been waiting for. Listen to Isaiah 52:7
,
That God sovereignly saves for himself a people from all of the earth is absolutely wonderful. Apart from this absolute soverignty, no one could be saved, let alone would be saved.
Also, what do you make of texts like Acts 13:48
, Acts 16:14
, Romans 9
, Ephesians 1:4-6
, Ephesians 1:11-12
, Romans 8:28-30
, John 6:35-40
, John 6:45
, John 6:65
, John 10:26-27
, Galatians 1:15, 2
Timothy 2:25
? How do these verses fit into your view of free will?
There is something peculiar about the death of Christ. Romans 3:25-26
gives us one of the most central reasons for the death of Christ upon the cross two thousand years ago. Every person who was saved before the New Testament era was saved by a faith in what was to come. But their sins were never atoned for. They violated God’s law and righteousness therefore dishonored the most valuable thing in the universe: the glory and honor of the name of God. But God kept allowing these people to be saved and never making true atonement for their sins. Christ’s death solves this problem. This demonstrates that God is a just God who punishes sin. Therefore when God saves a sinner he is still just in performing this saving act. That’s why Christ died, bore our sins, took up our curse upon himself. He did that so that God could save us and still uphold the honor of the name that we have spent our lives offending and dishonoring.
Again, Ezekiel points out the reason why God instituted the new covenant that Christ’s blood bought (Luke 22:20
). Ezekiel defines the covenant in Ezekiel 36:26-27
as, “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” Now listen to the why he will do this in Ezekiel 36:22-23
,
Yahweh said that the whole reason why he was about to institute a covenant in which he creates within the people a new heart of flesh and puts his spirit within them to cause to obey his commands and laws and decrees is for his own sake and not Israel’s. He does not save us for our sake but for the sake of his name and honor and glory which we have profaned. He will vindicate his name.
“Oh, then equate eternal torment in hell with your realizing a move turned out to be a good thing.” I wasn’t equating a move to going to hell. I was pointing that whatever God does is good, even if our depraved views of “good” and “righteousness” and “justice” and “holiness” and “love” doesn’t see it that way. God being God is a good thing. God punishing sinners is a good thing. God saving sinners is a good thing.
From the way you worded this statement it sounds like you actually approve of my theory. But given the hostile and sarcastic tone, I’m betting you don’t. I will say this. I never said you can’t think, we are only depraved. In fact, I presented an argument based upon Scripture to let all who read this post and its comments think for themselves if I am indeed teaching what the Bible teaches. Also as a fyi/side note, I did not come to the teachings of the doctrines of grace from a French ex-Greek philosopher but rather some no-name Puritan pastor in Northampton Massachusetts you might have heard of on the off chance: Jonathan Edwards. Then there was the little German monk from the sixteenth century who had these ninety-five things he wanted to discuss with the church: Martin Luther. I am very open and honest about this one fact: I have barely read any of Calvin’s writings, including his Institutes of the Christian Religion. On that note, I have only read Luther’s Bondage of the Will and an abridged version of his commentary on Romans and parts of his commentary on Galatians. I have read many sermons of Edwards, including one on Romans 9:18
which is very good. Check it out here.
I really hope that you will respond back to me with some biblical arguments, Jay. I love discussing Scripture with any and all who are willing to discuss God’s Word seriously. I know that this is really lengthy and might speak of more than what you had intended in our comments. But this might give you something to chew on and stir up some really good and juicy questions I have not been asked before. I am praying for you Jay and hope to hear from you soon.
Hey, i go to a Bible college that preaches hard on election. I can definitely see that it is talked about in the Bible. I do not deny that. I believe in the free will view of salvation. and agree that man is totally depraved and apart from God no man can come to Him. I also believe in eternal security. These are the first and last of the five points of calvinism. So i guess i am a two pointer. But i do have to ask, why would Christ die for those condemned to Hell according to Romans 9
. 2 Peter 2:1
says that they denied the Saviour who bought them. 2 Timothy 4:10
says that He is the Saviour of all men. This would include the idea that Christ gave all men a chance to receive Him and only a few will. So I do go a little backwards into Romans 8
when i say that in verse 29 he talks about the foreknowledge of God. I’ve heard it said that this is saying that he is talking about God already knowing those whom He would save. Knowing God is our basis for getting into Heaven, otherwise He says, Depart from me i never knew you. So does one actually have to believe according to that line of thinking if God already knows them. I would argue that God doesn’t “know” a person until they accept Him through which that line of thinking takes me to, “can a person resist the calling”, to which i must say yes. Acts 7:51
clearly teaches that the people of Israel, as in Romans 9
, have resisted the Holy Spirit. Also within the entire Bible we see that God is a God of choice, throughout the Bible He always gives the people a chance to repent and live for Him or they will be destroyed, whether its Israel or not, this is what He does. I hope you can see my point. I do not argue to prove my side but to show the possibility for another doctrine to which i hold to be true. I do not look down, ever, on my brothers who hold to the doctrine of grace but even so they look down on me. I would say that which ever way is right, Matthew 28
still holds true and that if someone doesn’t witness because of that doctrine they better be SURE that they are right. God sent us into the world to spread His Word so that EVERYONE should hear it, even if they don’t accept it He still died for them, 2 Peter 2:1
, and they can make that choice. God moves through His Spirit to draw men but only if they hear the Word which we are spreading.
Thanks and I will enjoy a response because I love to hear responses no matter if you disagree.
Tim,
It is nice to hear from you. Let me begin by saying I know what it is like to go to a school that teaches very strongly against what you believe. The school I go to is not a Calvinistic school. I have had many a debate about this very topic with several profs and students. It can be tough. I admire your conviction to stand by what you believe and not changing because Dr. So-and-so says so.
I have read your comment several times. I take it you are just commenting on Calvinism in general and not the above post. But one thing you might want to consider when studying this topic is what I said in the above post. When I discuss the Romans 9
passage people almost always raise the objections found in Romans 9:14
and again in Romans 9:19
. This tells me that I am on the right track because Paul is anticipating these objections.
As far as your comment goes I need to make something clear. Your position is untenable when you say that you hold to free will (I assume from your post you mean a libertarian understanding of free will) while maintaining total depravity and eternal security. The two-points of Calvinism and the understanding of free will contradict each other. Total depravity means all mankind is enslaved to sin at the level of the will and therefore it is not “free” as a libertarian would argue. The sinner only desires to sin and to reject Yahweh and rebel against him. That is the only choice s/he will make. S/he isn’t free to choose God. As far as eternal security the same is true from the opposite end. In eternal security the now saved sinner will never apostatize so much that he will be lost forever. God will not allow that and act in such a way that those who are his will be fully and finally saved. Libertarian free will cannot be maintained in Reformed theology.
People often quote 2 Peter 2:1
in refutation of Particular Redemption/Definite/Limited Atonement. Here is an article that argues 2 Peter 2:1 doesn’t even address the atonement. Peter uses the participle τὸν ἀγοράσαντα to say men were “bought.” This verb is used several times in the NT to speak about the atonement. However when it does, there is something in the immediate context that speaks specifically of the cross. There is 1 Cor. 6:19-20
which uses “price;” Revelation 5:9-10
uses “slain.” But Peter does not do this with τὸν ἀγοράσαντα. There is nothing in the context to indicate the cross is in view. Also, the name that Peter uses for God/Jesus is not savior, nor is it κύριος the covenant name for Jesus that we confess for Salvation. It is the name that we call upon to be saved (cf. Acts 4:12
; Romans 10:9-10
; Romans 10:13-17
; Philippians 2:6-11
). Rather Peter uses the name δεσπότην. Salvation is just not in view.
I assume you mean 1 Timothy 4:10
where Paul says that God is the savior of all man, especially believers. The word μάλιστα (especially) here is being used to qualify what Paul means by “all mankind,” that is believers. Jesus is not a tribal deity but the only true God over all nations and humanity and therefore he is the savior of all mankind.
Acts 7:51
is not speaking of salvation. The calling of the Holy Spirit is not the effectual calling spoken of by Paul in a text like 1 Corinthians 1:23-24
. You also link it to Romans 9
. There is a problem here. There are two Israels in Romans 9
. There is the Israel that is related to Abraham because of their genes. Then there is the Israel that is Israel because of God’s word spoken to them, not every Israelite but only a certain group chosen by God alone. The larger group “Israel,” to whom the word/promises of God (Romans 9:6
) were not spoken to, can and does resist God. The smaller “Israel,” to whom the word/promises of God were spoken, does not resist God and his call.
Personally, I appreciate you making this a textual discussion, using the Bible to talk about this topic. I think though–and I don’t mean to be rude–that you need to do a bit more study because one cannot be a One- or Two- or Three- or even a Four-Point Calvinist. All five points of TULIP go together. It sounds like, and I could be wrong, you are a Southern Baptist from what you are saying. Your position on this is identical to many Southern Baptist leaders’ position.
I agree also that if one’s doctrine of salvation prevents them from obeying the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20
with all joy and gladness then that person needs to rethink their theology. Just my thoughts. Good comment.
Great post, I will definitely look into all that you said!