Romans 9 -- What Is It Saying?

If it were about the Jewish nation the charge made in verse 14-19 would be superfluous. I have spent many years examining this and the Arminian position seems to me to be totally untenable. I would recommend one read Douglas Moo's commentary on this. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is also very good.

 

Paul has just declared that God works all things together for the good of those who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). That purpose is then spelled out in Romans 8:29-32 for the called who are specifically identified as "the elect."

In Romans 9 Paul anticipates an objection to God's effectual purpose of redemption.If God is working all things for the good of his elect then how do you explain God's purpose for Israel as the elect nation of God and their rejection of Christ? Paul's answers this anticipated objection in Romans 9-11.

Paul first asserts that God does have an elective purpose for the salvation of Israel - (Rom. 9:1-5) and their present unbelief in Christ does not alter that promise or make it of non-effect (Rom. 9:6a). He then defines the proper understanding of God's purpose of election (Rom. 9:6b-13). Election of Israel does not mean that God will save every natural born Jew, as not all natural born Jews are of the promised elect Israel that God purposed to save. Elect Israel consists only of Jews who have been twice born, or Jews who have been supernaturally born by God as typified by Isaac rather than only natural born Jews as typified by Ishmael (Rom. 9:6b-9).Second, the promise refers only to Jews who have been individually chosen by God based upon unconditional election before they were ever physically born into this world as typified by Jacob over Esau (Rom. 9:10-13). Thus God's promise to Israel is inclusive only of twice born Jews who individually are unconditionally elected by God.

Now in Romans 9:14-11:28 Paul anticipates objections to what he has just taught. Now, consider the kind of objections that he anticipates. Are these objections that would characterize the Calvinist position of election or the Arminian position of election? The objections anticipated are as follows:

1. Unconditional election makes God unjust - vv. 14-18
2. Unconditional election makes God the author of sin - vv. 19-23
3. Unconditional election is only a Jewish thing - vv. 24-26
4. Unconditional election of unrighteous Gentiles does not make sense over Jews who follow after righteousness - 9:27-10:13
5. Unconditional election does not harmonize with the preaching of the gospel - Rom. 10:14-21
6. Unconditional election does not accomplish the promise that "all Israel" shall be saved but only results in a 'remnant" of Israel being saved - Rom. 11

Does the anticipated objector sound like a Calvinist or an Arminian? For example, let us consider the first anticipated objection:

Rom. 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

He just said that Jacob was chosen by God according to God's purpose of election before he was born and not based upon either good or bad foreseen behavior. He just concluded that such a predestinated election demonstrates God loved Jacob but hated Esau. Now, whose theology would cause them to respond that kind of unconditional election makes God unrighteous - unjust? Would a Calvinist respond that way or would an Arminian?

What is Paul's response? His immediate response is "God forbid" or no, unconditional election or particular redemptive love does not make God unjust. He then defends that response in Romans 9:15-18.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Instead of backing down from unconditional elective love, he defends it by basically saying God can love whom he wills and he can reject whom he wills and election is not condition upon him "that willeth or him that runneth" but is wholly based upon God's mercy and mercy cannot be demanded or it ceases to be mercy. Therefore unconditional election is not a matter of justice but a matter of mercy. What does that mean? It means that mankind is considered as condemned already as sinners and all of mankind justly deserves God's wrath and election is an act of God's mercy which cannot be demanded by any sinner.

He then gives Pharoah as an example of one who deserved justice and got exactly what he deserved rather than mercy and God determined to exercise justice upon Pharoah rather than mercy because Pharoah was condemned already as a sinner and his response manifested that sinful condition. This whole argument of unconditional election is based upon the assumption that man is already in a fallen condition and justly deserves God's wrath and election is an act of God's mercy which He can sovereignly bestow upon whom he wills without being unjust to those he does not bestow it.

It may help to understand the hardening of Pharoah's heart by this illustration. It is the same sun that shines upon butter and clay. The sun hardens the clay and melts the butter. The difference is not in the sun but in the natures of clay and butter. Sinners apart from God's mercy are always hardened when exposed to God and his light. Hence, the more Pharoah who is a sinner by nature, and thus one who is by nature at enmity with God and not subject to the law of God is exposed to God and his light, he will always freely respond by hardening against God. In contrast, one who is the object of God's unconditional elective regenerative mercy will freely respond by softening or submitting to God. Thus the human will operates freely within the boundaries of its own nature. Not even God's will or volition can operate contrary to his own nature. For example he "cannot lie" as that is contrary to his own holy nature. Sinful man cannot submit to God (Rom. 8:7) because it is contrary to their own sinful nature but their will operates freely within the boundaries of their nature just as freely as God's own will operates within the boundaries of his own nature.
(Continued)

 

Hi, Postman Pat, not sure why you resurrected this thread from 2006, since we have discussed Romans 9 several times since. Rather than tell us (non-Cals) what Romans 9 is not teaching, why not tell us what it is teaching.

Here is a simple outline:
1-5 Paul is sorry the nation of Israel is separated from Christ.
6-8 Israel is not made up of blood line descendant, but of believing Jews.
9-14 God's choice is sometimes according to His purpose, regardless of the works of those chosen.
15-19 God chooses to have mercy of some and harden others according to His purpose.
20-21 God has the right of creator to choose some for mercy and pass over others.
22-26 God can choose from among Jews and non-Jews to have mercy.
27-29 Only a remnant of believing Jews remains, although a large number of blood line Jews are alive.
30-33 Those that believe (Jews and Gentiles) did not stumble over the snare of works based salvation, but trusted in the work of Christ.

 

Give up being an exegete. Your outline of verses 1-5 is wrong. Your outline of verses 6-8 is wrong and your outline of verses 9-14 is wrong.

In verses 1-5 he is positively expressing hope of their salvation yet as he continues to express hope in Romans 11:1-5 and 25-28. In verse 6-8 he is defining the elect Israel as double born Jews, natural birth followed by supernatural birth rather than natural birthed Jews. In verses 9-14 there is no "sometimes" but God ALWAYS saves individuals according to his purpose of grace according to unconditional election.

 

What? God's purpose in election will stand. It certainly is according to His purpose. What nonsense you spout by saying it is "sometimes according to His purpose." Go take Bible 101 ASAP.

 

LOL, two advocates of the nameless doctrine shouting "taint so!"

Very difficult to actually discuss scripture while others seek to preclude it.

Romans 9 in a nutshell:
1-5 Paul is sorry the nation of Israel is separated from Christ.
6-8 Israel is not made up of blood line descendants, but of believing Jews.
9-14 God's choice is always according to His purpose, sometimes with or without regard for the works of those chosen.
15-19 God chooses to have mercy of some and harden others according to His purpose.
20-21 God has the right of creator to choose some for mercy and pass over others.
22-26 God can choose from among Jews and non-Jews to have mercy.
27-29 Only a remnant of believing Jews remains, although a large number of blood line Jews are alive.
30-33 Those that believe (Jews and Gentiles) did not stumble over the snare of works based salvation, but trusted in the work of Christ.

 

Well, at least you changed your mind on that vital doctrine. That's good.

Now you have changed your mind once more -- only you have gone against the Word of God.
It is not by works -- but by Him who calls.

 

Pay no attention to Mr. Rippon, he misrepresents the views of others.

Did God choose the babies of Rebekah, to keep the promise to Abraham? And did He not conditionally choose the younger so that the older would serve the younger? All these "elections" were based on the characteristics of those chosen, thus conditional elections. And when God chooses individuals for salvation, He chooses them through faith in the truth, a conditional election.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support anywhere in Romans 9 for the bogus nameless doctrine.

 

1 Corinthians 1:26-30 presents God choosing individuals for salvation, for they were placed in Christ by God, verse 30. Part of God's purpose was to shame those well born, or rich, or powerful and well educated, by choosing blue collar folks to spread the gospel. Thus condition upon condition were part and parcel of His choice. 9-14 God's choice is always according to His purpose, sometimes with or without regard for the works of those chosen. Judas was well chosen to be the betrayer. It was not the luck of the draw. His characteristics were know from the beginning.

 

The above was from Van's post 63.

 

The above is from Van's post 66.

 

Titus 3:3-7. 'For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various pleasures and lusts, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.......'
For which of these characteristics do you think God saved Paul and Titus?
'..........But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that having been justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.'

'Washing.....and renewing of the Holy Spirit.' 'Water and the Spirit' (John 3:5). By His grace, God gives His elect new birth, they believe on Christ and are justified by grace through faith.

 

Spiritual separation (spiritual death) from God is to be separated from the holiness of God (and from the life and light and love of God). Titus 3:5 and John 3:5 describe the new birth in relationship to restablishing holiness as a creative act within the elect. There is a negative and positive side to creating man in true holiness and righteousness or back into the moral image of God. The INWARD uncleanness and defilement of sin described in Titus 3:3-7 must be removed which under the ceremonial law was pictured by "washing" with "water" the exterior body of a Person. That is the negative side. The positive side is the establishment of inward true holiness and righteousness.

In each aspect of spiritual separation from God there is a negative and positive consequence of this creative act or restoration of spiritual union with God. Just as true holiness replaces the defilement of depravity; the light of knowledge replaces the darkness of ignorance which metaphorical 'light of knowledge' is "eternal life" as "this is eternal life to KNOW the only true God and Jesus Christ" and thus by a creative act of God similar to Genesis 1:3 God commands the "light of knowledge" to displace the darkness of ignorance "in the heart":

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 4:6

It is interesting that in the first epistle of John that the grammatical construction used in relation to the new birth (the perfect tense verb "born" with a present tense participle) demonstrate that a person cannot do righteousness (1 Jn. 2:29) cannot love or know God (1 Jn. 4:7) and cannot savingly believe in Christ (1 Jn. 5:1) without new birth. The creative act of God that restores spiritual union with God produces regenerative faith, love, light of knowledge and righteousness.

 

Yet another display of willful ignorance, for my post said people chosen for salvation are chosen through faith in the truth. Now Paul was chosen from the womb to fulfill a purpose of God. So once again the biblical truth is presented, God chooses individuals sometimes without regard to their characteristics, i.e. Paul from the womb, and sometimes with regard to their characteristics, i.e. their faith. Thus God's choice is sometimes both according to His purpose, and without regard for the works of those chosen. At other times God's choice is both according to His purpose and with regard to their characteristics, i.e. faith.

 

No, election occurred before the world began without any regard to future actions good or bad just as Paul clearly states in Romans 9:13 and just as he previously clearly stated in Romans 8:28-32 where eternal purpose is the basis in Romans 8:28 for foreknowledge and predestination and justification by faith that ultimately concludes with glorification.

 

Romans 9 summary:
1-5 Paul is sorry the nation of Israel is separated from Christ.
6-8 Israel is not made up of blood line descendants, but of believing Jews.
9-14 God's choice is both according to His purpose, and sometimes with and/or without regard for the works of those chosen.
15-19 God chooses to have mercy of some and harden others according to His purpose.
20-21 God has the right of creator to choose some for mercy and pass over others.
22-26 God can choose from among Jews and non-Jews to have mercy.
27-29 Only a remnant of believing Jews remains, although a large number of blood line Jews are alive.
30-33 Those that believe (Jews and Gentiles) did not stumble over the snare of works based salvation, but trusted in the work of Christ.

 

The corporate election before creation of the world of those God's Redeemer, would redeem is not at issue. The issue is scripture teaches God makes both unconditional and conditional elections, and our individual election for salvation is through faith.

BTW, Romans 8:28 supports my view, God acts in behalf of those who love Him. And God's call was for both Jews and Gentiles living their physical lives, thus able to love God.

The nameless doctrine has no basis in scripture, but is a product of reading into scripture what it does not say.

 

Repeating it does does not make it any less false than the first time.

 

Election is individual and personal not corporative. Paul individualizes the person (Jacob) with personal a name that is chosen according to the purpose of grace before he was born (Rom. 9:13). Election like salvation is personal and individual as we are "chosen unto salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13) and salvation is personal and indivdual and so election must be just as personal and individual for anyone to be "chosen unto salvation." Moreover the proof of election is demonstrated on an individual and personal empowerment of the gospel (1 Thes. 1:4-5).