Romans Chapter 9

See my earlier explanation.

 

Why did God hate Esau?

No where in Romans 9 does God say that He is in a great election program for all of His humankind of all ages.

Calvin had some good thoughts as did Arminius, but give the Holy Spirit a little credit too. If He was not able to teach us ' . . . all things.' [John 14:26] He would not have told us this fact.

 

Romans 9
Solicitude for Israel
1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,
2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Paul will learn in a minute that God does not actually care for those that are not coming to Christ and neither should he (at least that is what our Calvinist bretheren would have us hope for).

4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Paul will learn later in the chapter that God never actually does all that work for those He cares nothing for. Paul will need to pipe down on this point since it appears that God's sovereignly chosen "Holy Nation" and "Royal priesthood" idea did not work. (At least that seems to be what our Calvinist bretheren would have us believe).

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”
8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Really good save on Paul's part for the Arminian idea - but utter failure for Calvinists - SINCE Calvinst need to conclude NO failure/NO Change to God's Sovereign Predestining-Will. In fact it is just the "intended" way it has always been (the spiritual jews are the only ones God is concerned about from the Start) then there would be NO CHANGE from the OT to NT system! Given the Calvinist model - this should be the system "working as designed" so "no change needed"!!

9For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”

Really good example of foreknowledge here - but a real Calvinist problem since God willed Sarah to have a child and was apparently ALSO willing Sarah to laugh at God over it at the time. Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Cavlinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.

10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11for 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,
12it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”

Good example of God knowing the future. Although I am sure some Calvinists would point this out as God arbitrarily picking Jacob without any reference to the actual choices for obedience vs rebellion in the two men. However the text itself only deals with relationship between the two brothers - not good vs evil or love-vs-hate. The mother is told which Son will be dominant - which one will have the blessing.

13Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

Interesting quote of Malachi AFTER both Jacob and Esau were dead and the history of Rebellion was fully manifest in Esau's descendants (and referenced in that chapter).

Would have worked MUCH better for Calvinism if that quote had come from something said before the twins were born, as iif God has ALREADY decided ot hate Esau arbitrarily. But that is not the source of the quote. Paul appeals to the nature of the fact that God showed past-tense his actions toward the descendants of Esau who were in constant rebellion - and the descendants of Jacob.


14What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
16So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17For 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.”
18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
20On 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?
21Or 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?

Perfect Calvinist point here - the chapter should END here to preserve the Calvinist point and not wreck it. It appears that maybe God is claiming that it is not man's choice - but rather God's choice to NOT have Mercy on the many but just have mercy on the few that he knows to be saved - on the CHOSEN people ONLY. Limitted atonement in action IF we could have ended the point here and turned a blind eye to the full teaching of the chapter.


22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Ooooops! Hold it - hold the phone! That just messed up my Calvinist arguement that God DOES NOT have MERCY on vessels He knows to be destined for hell. Instead Paul argues that the case depends on God who HAS mercy (And not on JUST the FEW). Having mercy on the LOST ALSO messes the whole limited atonement thing . Oh well let's try another chapter.

23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Hold it. How does it convey the "riches of God's Glory" to the "vessels of mercy - to show mercy and kindness and longsuffering upon those that God foreknows will ultimately reject Him? This IS the Arminian argument that the JUSTICE of God is shown by His compassion, kindness and efforts to reach the lost - "I will Draw ALL unto ME" John 12:32. Paul is making the case that in the EFFORT God makes toward those that He KNOWS will not be saved by their own choice - God is REVEALING his Glory to the saints that ARE saved. Limited atonement fails here - and so does the concept that God arbitrarily predestined them to be lost because the combination of longsuffering and effort for the lost would not "show the riches of Gods glory" IF it could be proven that God arbitrarily predestined their failure.

God is "Not willing that ANY should perish" and Paul declares that God is "Calling all men everywhere to REPENT" - but knows the end from the beginning and so - STILL chooses to endure with much patience those who will be destroyed.

25As He says also in Hosea,
“I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘MY PEOPLE,’
AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ‘BELOVED.’”
26 “AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, ‘YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,’
THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD.”
27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED;
28FOR THE LORD WILL EXECUTE HIS WORD ON THE EARTH, THOROUGHLY AND QUICKLY.”
29And just as Isaiah foretold,
“UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY,
WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH.”>>

Oh no WORSE for the Calvinist because INSTEAD of selecting the saved just from the Soevereignly CHOSEN NATION - He is going to BOTH the CHOSEN (Holy Nation, Royal Priesthood) and the non-chosen GENTILES.

More BAD news - He claims that He SHOWS mercy EVEN to the finally-lost FOR the benefit of the saved. He shows that LIMITTING His mercy JUST to the saved would not be as much benefit FOR THE SAVED as EXTENDING it to BOTH groups. Hmmmm what a devastating blow to Calvinism. We commend Paul - the inspired author of the book of Romans for showing details that reveal God showing His MERCY and KINDNESS to BOTH the chosen and the non-chosen. "For it is the KINDNESS of God that LEADS you to repentance" Rom 2:4.


30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33just as it is written,
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

{Wow - NOW God is really trouncing the entire sovereignly CHOSEN/ROYAL/HOLY nation by CONTRAST with the NOT-CHOSEN Gentiles. End of Calvinism.) How could that be?? IN the Model of Calvinism what is "supposed to happen" is the utter disregard for those "NOT Chosen" and "should have been" sole concern - and sovereignly directed success for the "Chosen", sovereignly elect and chosen at Sinai.

Notice the definition for "LAW of Righteousness" and how that is contrasted to the gentiles who DID "attain Righteousness". The term "LAW of Righteousnes" being pursued by the jews is a :Law pursued APART from FAITH and "as though it were by WORKS".

It is clearly introduced as - apart from Christ, apart from Faith, Stumbling over Christ rather than receiving Him - because Christ declares that all are sinners and all need a savior.

[ October 17, 2002, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Romans chapter 10 deals with salvation..romans Ch 9 does not.

Romans 9 is dealing with the Nation of Israel specifically.

you are incorrect in your understanding Ken.

 

Ken,

Romans chapter 9 deals with personal salvation. It deals with the fact that no one in "Israel" is chosen simply because they are the fleshly seed of Abraham. Only those personally elected by God are heirs of the promises given to the Patriarchs.

The mistake of Calvinists here, as everywhere, is to assume that "election" means "unconditional election."

Indeed God will, "have mercy on whom he will have mercy." And Paul tells us plainly in Romans nine upon whom God will have mercy. He says:

"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith. But Israel, which followed after righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore?"

Now the Calvinist would answer that "Wherefore?" with "because they were not among those unconditionally chosen by God fromt he foundation of the world." But Paul says no such thing. Paul answers the "Wherefore?" thusly:

"Because they SOUGHT IT NOT BY FAITH, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone: As it is written, Behold I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM shall not be ashamed."

Amen! Praise God!

"Whosoever will, whosever will, send the proclamation over vail and hill!"

Let God be true and every man a liar!

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark I hate to disagree with you but Chapter 9 of Romans has Nothing to do with individual salvation. where is salvation refered to in any part of the chapter?

the people personally elected by God are the Jews..The Nation of Israel(Isa.45:4) they are to recive the promises that God gave Abraham..

Chapter 9 is God explainig his turning from Israel to the Gentiles because of his chosen people's (Israel) rejection of Christ. He explains the manner in which the elect people failed to seek him by faith and were consequently set aside.

Nothing in this chapter on idividual salvation..

 

Really? Please explain vss. 23-24.

 

Shilo,

"They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

And,

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblinstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

The whole point of the chapter is that the fact that Israel is a chosen nation does not mean everyone born into that nation is chosen of God. Only those with faith in Christ are the children of God. And the fact that the nation, as a whole, rejected the Lord does not effect the personal standing of any believing Jew. As Paul said in chapter 11,

"Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamen."

Paul is telling us that God has always had, and always will have, a remnant of believing Israelites. Paul is telling us who the true Jews really are - those Jews who have faith in Jesus Christ.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Is this a little dispute in the ranks of the arminians here?? SUrely not. That would be the death knell of arminiamism ... at least if you listen to some other such as Chappie who bewail the fact Calvinists disagree on some things. The reality is arminians disagree too ...

 

To answer the original question,
Verses 1-9 are dealing with salvation.

Verses 10-24 are an illustration Paul brought in to build up his point that salvation is not by inheritance [i.e. "nations being chosen for a non-personal, non-salvific purpose"--being apart of this nation does not guarantee salvation as people thought].

Verses 25-33 are picking up from that point with salvation.

 

I have come to the conclusion that most are missing the boat on Romans 9. I have changed my view some in the last few days in thinking about this. I think Romans 9 is addressing the fact that God can do whatever he wants because he is God. Jacob/Esau, Israel, Pharoah are all examples of how God can do what he wants. He is beholden to no man and no man has the right to question God about God's choices.

 

Of course, there is an overall emphasis that God does as He pleases. (But of course this doesn't necessarily prove that certain acts people are ascribing to Him are what He in fact "pleases")
Still, you've changed your view some? (You thought it was teaching God's doing as He pleases and us all missing the boat on that before)