Featured Concerning Romans 9:16

There is a third (and more common) choice.

I am not advocating or rejecting this option, just adding it to the thread.

That is God draws men to Himself but men are not numbered among the elect until they believe. The positive result (salvation) is God's work. The negative (lost) is man's work.

One could argue that man's ability to reject God equates to a work based salvation because refraining from this work results in salvation (is a work itself), but that is a philosophical argument which is not logical.

Again, not taking sides - just noting it is not a two option issue.

 

I disagree that the third option does not support the text.

The reason I disagree is that the third position depends entirely on God's mercy for salvation. Human merit is not a factor. Man's work (to gain salvation or save himself) only results in damnation. Man can only be saved by the grace of God.

 

I never disagreed with God being the first cause.

I merely pointed out that the OP resented two choices when there are more.

Then I offered a third view - That is God draws men to Himself but men are not numbered among the elect until they believe. The positive result (salvation) is God's work. The negative (lost) is man's work.

In this view God is the first cause. But the order is different than presented in the OP regarding election.

You incorrectly said that that view is not supported by the text of Romans 9:16. I pointed out you were mistaken on that assessment.


Here is the verse:

Romans 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Here is that third option you posted did not support the text (I think you meant that the other way around):

God draws men to Himself but men are not numbered among the elect until they believe. The positive result (salvation) is God's work. The negative (lost) is man's work.


God drawing man would be God as that first cause. In fact, God could draw all men yet many not be saved and He would still be the first cause of those who are saved.


That third option is the Classic Armeanian position (I am not an Arminian but thought we should at least include the position given its prominence).

 

The text does not say a lot. It dies not, for example, define the "it" that doesn't depend on man.

You are making a huge mistake by trying to build a doctrine with one verse at the exclusion of passages.


But to explain - Christians who accept Scripture as true believe that God draws men to Himself.

God is the "first cause" of salvation. And salvation is by grace.

You get to your verse which states that "it" is not a result of Man but the grace of God. But your solution is not the only one that is supported by that verse.

You may not like that you have not stumbled upon a view that alone is supported by Romans 9:16, but facts do not care about feelings.

 

But you cannot discuss just one verse with any gain. All you can hope to do is attempt to reinforce one position over another.

Remember that Scripture was not written in chapter-verse form. All Scripture is profitable.

When you look at positions you need to examine the topic using God's Word.

Now, if you want to just look at a verse within the context of the passage that is another story. I didn't think that was your intent because of your conclusions. Sorry if it was.

I will shift to just look at the Romans passage.

 

Romans 9:8–22 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?


The "it" in verse 19 refers to being Israel. Not all are Israel who descended from Israel. The question then turns to God's just nature. The solution is we have no grounds to go there - the Potter has rights over the clay.


This is one passage I use to justify reprobation.


My point, however, is not my position but that the Arminian position is actually supported by the same passage.

 

I disagree.

The reason is Paul specifically points out that Israel (God's people) is not all the descendents of Israel (he continues to include Gentiles as well).

Then Paul goes through examples of God choosing (for various purposes). He concludes this just.

The argument is against the backdrop of Israel being God's people and designed to demonstrate God just even as not all of the descendents of Israel are included.[/QUOTE]