Featured The Objector in Romans 9 is an Arminian

The objector to the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 may be an "Arminian," but the actual objector to Paul was a Hardened Jew who God had 'held out his hands to all day long' with 'great long-suffering' but who is now being used for the ignoble purpose of being blinded in his rebellion so as to bring redemption to the world.

 

So, God is willingly sending untold number of people to hell on purpose because He wants to keep them unable to believe that the Gentiles might have this time.

Is that what you are admitting?

Seems that is contrary to the typical non-cal thinking.

 

Indeed. Thanks for being objective about that point...

Sure, not a problem.

18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 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?"

First, Calvinists tend to think of those being shown mercy as those elect to certainly be saved, and those being hardened as those passed over for certain condemnation. But that is inaccurate considering the fact that some of those shown mercy may ultimately be condemned and those hardened may ultimately be saved.

Consider Romans 11:14 and following where Paul lays out how those hardened may be provoked to envy, grafted back in and saved. Paul concludes that chapter saying, "God has bound all men over to disobedience that he may show mercy to all men."

Generally speaking God is hardening the nation of Israel (cutting them off), and showing mercy to the Gentiles (grafted them in), but obviously not all Jews are condemned and not all Gentiles are saved. But what really makes this passage more complicated is that Paul is also addressing how certain people from Israel (of the same seed...from the same lump of clay) are chosen for noble use or common use in order that God's ultimate purpose in electing Israel might stand. Jacob and Esau are of the same seed, yet one is chosen for the noble use and the other for common, as was Isaac over Ishmael. That really isn't about their individual salvation, as I can point to many texts that reveal God's genuine care for both Esau and Ishmael and the descendants they represent (two nations in you).

KEY POINT:
Paul is attempting to prove that God's purpose in electing Israel has not failed by pointing to how God has worked throughout history in a way that parallels how He continues to work in the present day. If Paul can show that his doctrine is not some new teaching of how God works by revealing a precedent then his hearers may be convinced. What are some of the parallels?

OT: God chose Jacob to be the father of the Messiah, not Esau, in order that God's purpose in electing Israel would stand. (yet they are both of the same seed, so is that fair? Paul is saying that it is because this is not a new way of working...God has always done this...who are you to question Him now if he is doing the same thing today as he did with our forefathers of old?)

NT: God chose Paul to be an apostle, not his teacher Gamaliel, in order that God's purpose in electing Israel would stand. (Gamaliel, as far as we know, remain hardened and even in being hardened he may have helped to fulfill the purpose of redemption...again, is that fair since they are of the same lump/seed? Who are you to question God? He has always done this to ensure His redemptive plan!)

OT: God hardened Pharaoh from the truth of the revelation in order to reveal His glory and bring about the Passover.

NT: God hardened Israel from the truth of the revelation in order to reveal his glory and bring about the Passover.

I could go on, but let's see if this is making sense before I do...

 

Close, but not exactly.

God hardened or blinded (sent a spirit of stupor) to Israel AFTER patiently holding out his hands to them for a very long time (Rm. 10:21). Israel is being cut off, they have stumbled, they are being blinded from the truth BUT only because they have continually and 'FREELY' rejected that truth up to this point. In other words, they deserve to be 'given over to their defiled minds' because they have had a very long time to respond to God. HOWEVER, even still, their being hardened is NOT unto certain condemnation. NOTICE:

1. They have been cut off but they may be grafted back in again.
2. They have stumbled, but not beyond recovery.
3. They have been blinded, but they may be provoke by Paul's ministry to the Gentiles and saved. (Rm 11:14-32)

God's act of hardening Israel is actually merciful because in doing so it could wake them up (almost like when you cast out a rebellious church member or child from your home).

"God has bound all men over to disobedience (cut them off) so as to show all men mercy." Romans 11:32

That is because most people don't know scholarly non-Calvinistic teaching. They only know the namby pamby easy free willy believism crud taught by those who couldn't find their way out of a theological paper bag.

 

:applause::thumbs::jesus:...........That is all.

 

God already said"God so loved the WORLD... REALLY"!and God says in 1John 4 that Christ was given as "The Savior of the WORLD" and God says in John 6 "The Life I give FOR THE WORLD is my own flesh" and God already said in 2 Peter 3 "God is NOT willing for ANY to Perish but for ALL to come to repentance" and God already said that Christ is "The Atoning Sacrifice for OUR SIN and not for OUR sin only but for the Sins of the WHOLE WORLD" in 1John 2:2 and ...

But if Rom 9:19-21 were the "only text in all of scripture" with nothing before and nothing after (as Calvinism so often needs to cast its proofs) THEN Calvinism would have a leg to stand on.

IF Rom 9:21 had ended the chapter and 9:19 started it without GIVING the 9:15-16 and 9:22 ANSWER -- then Calvinism could simply "make up the answer" for 9:21 (as it does today).

As has already been quoted (and omitted from your response) the 9:15-16 and 9:22 ANSWER to 9:21 is precisely what Calvinism "hopes to avoid".

The answer from chapter 9 for 9:21 is God's OWN ANSWER showing that it is God who "DOES have MERCY" not the Calvinist idea of god "WHO DOES NOT HAVE MERCY" on the MANY of Matt 7.

Instead of God DRAWING ALL (John 12:32) and "So Loving the WORLD" John 3:16 -- Calvinism is hoping to find a text saying "God has mercy on just the FEW and so loves the FEW and draws only the FEW"...

Sadly for Calvinists - that "Calvinist bible" is missing.


Romans 9 shows God Having mercy on the Lost as well as the saved - this actually negates the whole limited atonement thing for Calvinism!!
Notice the patience of God in Romans 2:4 and 9:22

He DID SO - for what reason? He Endured with Much patience - SO that He could MAKE KNOWN the riches of His Glory??

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?
In the Calvinist model – God is only “tricking the saints by His apparent concern for the lost”.
In the Arminian model – God is serious. His effort for the lost – is real.

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.
The saints are SEEING God be patient and caring EVEN of the Lost - and the text says that REVEALS to them - His Glory.

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"2Peter 3 and Paul declares that God is "Calling all men everywhere to REPENT" - but yet He still knows the end from the beginning and so - STILL chooses to endure with much patience those who will be destroyed.

(And that principle "of the God that never changes" remains true EVEN in the fires of Rev 14:10-11 where they are burned "IN our Presence". The Presence of Christ "AND His Holy Ones")

in Christ,

Bob

 

Calvinist doctrine of arbitrary selection defined:

Arbitrary and unconditional a choice based on ignoring what God knows about the future AS IF God had told Calvinists that He does certain things in total ignorance of what He knows about the future.

Which of course God did not.

God never makes any decision out of ignorance of what He already knows to be true. A huge problem for Calvinism.

A perfect illustration of one point where Calvinism makes God the cause of His own lament.

Arbitrary selection defined "again"

Arbitrary: Nothing at all about the person chosen is included in the selection process. Whim is used as the "Basis" of selection according to Calvinism in total ignorance of what God knows about the future.

This is the poster picture for the term "arbitrary selection"

 

Romans 9:15-16 the emphasis is on God HAVING mercy it does not say the much anticipated “God DOES NOT HAVE MERCY as it pleases Him”.

Rom 9
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.
[FONT=&quot]
....
[/FONT]
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?

Vs 22 God is defending his right to have mercy, patience, kindness on those who He knows by foreknowledge will not be saved. He is defending himself against the Calvinist complaint!

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.


But what is "Worse" is that in 9:22 God shows that the mercy kindness compassion and long suffering of God includes "Vessels of WRATH prepared for destruction"!! – Surely God knows that not ALL will be saved – and so when He gets to those whom He knows will choose to reject the Gospel – even to them the argument is for God enduring with much patience and longsuffering.

What is missing here? – the language that would be of the form "Mercy ONLY on the FEW of Matt 7 but NO MERCY on the MANY of Matt 7".

Romans 2 is that it is the GOODNESS of God that leads to repentance and in Romans 9 it depends on God WHO DOES have Mercy! – The “Does not have mercy, DOES not call to repentance” texts – are missing from Romans 9 AND Romans 2.

The chapter did not END with 9:21 – the answer to the question above is found not ONLY in 9:15-16 but also in vs 22.

 

Notice that in the opening context for Romans 9 -- in Romans 2 God says He is NOT doing the very thing that Calvinism claims God IS doing in Romans 9 as if Romans 2 did not exist in the context for it!

Romans 2
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

===========================


Romans 2

do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who will render to each person according to his deeds:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,

10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my Gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.



26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
=======================

 

I second that! A concise example of a true hermeneutic.

 

Yes, isn't it great when the adults take the time to do some Bible for us?

Thanks Skan!

 

lol............

 

Do you understand that Skandelon and his amen corner are ignoring v.24?:

....not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles

 

"Amen corner", lol. Golf much? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Not at all... that statement goes to prove that the apostle has been addressing Israel up to that point but now is referencing God's inclusion (grafting in) of the Gentiles as well. We've never 'ignored' this part.

 

I cannot and will not speak for what Biblicist believes, but you seem to be accurate in your assessment, if I'm understanding you correctly (which can be a big 'IF' at times). I don't know if I would say that our view neglects 'God's sovereignty in choice,' but instead our view approaches it from the perspective of God's overall redemptive plan for each nation and some of the individuals chosen from one of those nations (Israel) to ensure that plan is ultimately accomplished (i.e. 'that God's purpose in electing Israel will stand.') Make sense?

 

It is unclear to me - how it is assumed that this post misses Romans 9:24

How would ignoring vs 24 have been of benefit to either Calvinist or Arminian side??

in Christ,

Bob