# Romans 9



## Coram_Deo (Nov 26, 2003)

Sorry to bring this back up, I'm sure it's been talked about before and I hate to run a topic into the ground. But I was wondering why one would have to hold that Romans 9 is speaking about individual election. As many would like to argue and do argue the idea of Romans 9 is more of a general election. I fail to see how it is general, i hold to specific but what is thrown back at me then is that the reason i see it this way is because I don't understand the context in which Paul was writing. Supposedly this would trigger something within the people to whom Paul was writing to and draw them back to Jer 18 and Malachi 1 where individual election wasn't being talked about. Just wanted to know your thoughts. thanks.
g n p
michael


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2003)

You are refering to the argument that Paul is speaking of Israel's election to service as a nation rather than election to salvation?
The problem with this argument is that Paul specifically is taking about why most of Israel did not believe and why only a few, a remnant of this &quot;elect&quot; nation, believed on the Messiah. How would the Arminian arguement above fit in that context? It doesn't. 
Also, it contradicts itself because a nation is a group of INDIVIDUALS. So the Armininan still has a problem with individuals being chosen and rejected. 
Finally, the distinctions of some being chosen as vessles of mercy or vessels of wrath doesn't fit with the Arminian model either, for now you haev a group, or pagan nation of individuals ordained for wrath. 
You must bring your friends back to the question Paul is asking and answering. Why did so many Jews not believe? He answers for &quot;not all Israel are Israel.&quot; 
Hope this helps.

[Edited on 11-27-2003 by puritansailor]


----------



## Bryan (Nov 26, 2003)

Get yourself a copy of The Justification of God by John Piper. I used to hesitate bringing up Romans 9 in discussion due to all the arguemnts I have heard thrown around regarding it and I did not have a firm enough understanding to hold my ground. After finishing off this book last week I now have a much better understanding of the context, and how Paul shapes his argument. Piper also does a good job of answering objects raised, many of which I have been asked about before.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2003)

If I was the Arminian, I would be much happier with an individual elective decree than one at a national level!


----------



## Coram_Deo (Nov 27, 2003)

thanks all for your help. I appreciate it. It means a lot.
g n p
michael


----------



## LauridsenL (Jul 9, 2004)

I recognize that this is very late to post to this thread, but I heartily second Bryan's recommendation of Piper's, Justification of God: An Exegesis of Romans 9:1-23. Piper exhaustively and carefully examines the text and demolishes any suggestion that Paul is referring only to corporate election. Some of the reasoning has been briefly touched on in this thread (e.g., the corporate view doesn't explain Paul's anguish over unbelief by many, but not all, of his Jewish brothers). 

One of Piper's points that will always remain with me is that the corporate view also doesn't explain why Paul must respond to the objection that God's election is unjust. It is precisely because the objector understood that Paul is teaching that God chose Jacob but rejected Esau -- before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, and despite the fact that they were from the same parents and were twins -- that the objector cried out that God is being unfair. No one gets worked up or accuses God if God merely generically chooses groups of individuals for earthly service. Its only when people hear that God is choosing the eternal destiny of individuals that they get outraged. To read this as a corporate choosing only is to remove the very thorn that might lead one to question whether God is unjust. (God forbid!) Notably, Paul doesn't respond to the objector by saying -- &quot;no, the questioning of God's justice is misplaced because He only chooses corporately and for historical, earthly purposes, and not an individual's eternal destiny.&quot; On the contrary, Paul defends God's righteousness by emphasizing that God's righteousness consists of His eternal vigilance to defend His name and essential character -- &quot;For He says to Moses, &quot;I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.&quot; (Rom 9:15) (See Exodus 33:19 &quot;I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.&quot In other words, far from running from, or denying the factual basis for, question of whether it's unjust for God to choose individuals, Paul shows that it is part of God's very character -- even His name -- to be sovereign over whether He is merciful or not. Of course, Paul then expands the discussion to consider God's hardening of Pharoah's heart, and comes to the same conclusion.



[Edited on 7-10-2004 by LauridsenL]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 9, 2004)

If we are to look at the book of Romans as a whole, it's obvious that this chapter, like many others, are talking about Salvation, in my opinion.:book:


----------

