# Would anyone like to critique this 'exegesis' of Romans 9?



## john_Mark (Mar 11, 2005)

It's called: The Bubba Club Broken: An Atomistic Exegesis of Romans 9 by James Patrick Holding.

The opening paragraph is as follows:

Seeing as how certain Calvinist alpha males and their junior apes have chosen to make monkeys of themselves responding to our material, it seemed judicious to provide what they think is not present, and hoist their own rug of "exegesis" out from under them. The following is our exegesis of Romans 9 in "bubba club" format -- showing that it does not support the Calvinist view, and melds hand in glove with the scholarship we have been consulting for the subject. This is a draft that will be added to as we avail ourselves of further resources.

Here is the link: http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/bubba9.html

Thoughts?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 11, 2005)

people will see what they want to see. with their so called free will. 

blade


----------



## govols (Mar 11, 2005)

Makes me want to beat my chest and throw bananas at him.


----------



## Brian (Mar 14, 2005)

In attempting to give a counter-exegesis that is both intelligible and interactive with their commentary, I'll try to refrain from quoting chunks that are too big. I'll refer to them as "TAM" (Tektonics Apologetics Ministries). I have not read White´s book, but I have read Piper´s _Justification of God_ and it is perhaps one of the best biblically faithful representation of Romans 9:1-23. I pray we will all be awed as the Holy Spirit, through His instrument Paul the Apostle, constructs an amazing chain of salvific logic. But on with exegesis"¦

*Romans 9:1-5*
The TAM is correct in noting that Romans is addressed to Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church, and this is important for later on. Most of this section is their own "rhetoric[al] pathos," and much of it is indifferent to our purposes here. However, they slightly skew the necessity of Romans 9ff. They say,


> Although Calvinist commentators like White (TPF, 205) are correct in seeing that Paul is answering the question, "If the Jews are the covenant people, why do they reject the Gospel?" the dynamics of the situation are far more complex. Paul is also entering a situation in which he seeks "the reduction and elimination of conflict between groups through recategorizing two (or more) groups in conflict under a new common subgroup identity." (Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 271).


 Basically, what TAM is saying is a subversive form of ecclesiastical unity, which is suprisingly similar to the NPP, i.e., justification has more to do with uniting formerly divided Gentiles and Jews. (Since they are starting with this flaw, we should expect to see class confusion and individual vs. collective errors in what follows.) Consequently, we see that in their view (similar to justification among covenantal nomists) election in Romans 9 has more to do with racial tensions in an ethnically diverse NT church.


> As Esler puts it: "...a precondition to a successful process of recategorization is that no attempt be made to extinguish the two subgroups, since this might lead to countervailing efforts by their members to maintain their distinctive identities in a way that would render the establishment of a new common identity difficult, if not impossible." [ibid.] In this respect it is rightly said that the theological and social are inseperable in this letter; Calvinists neglect the latter at the expense of the former.


 However, TAM falls prey to their own preconceived notions, in that "recategorization" of Jew and Gentile fails to see the beauty that in Christ Jesus there is no longer Jew and Gentile. They do this because the problem is not a racial one; the problem is that the Israelites _are the people of God_ and the Gentiles, by nature, are by nature enemies with God. So ethnicity and culture only gets at the deeper problem that Gentiles have an intrinsically atheistic culture/worldview/way of life. I think we have heard too much about "racial reconciliation" nowadays and compared Jew/Gentile tensions with white/black racial struggles. While this is true on a level, it misses the hugely vast ontological divide between two groups of people, one intrinsically _holy_ (at least viewed that way) and one intrinsically profane. Therefore, to say "Calvinists neglect the latter at the expense of the former" is a great way to show the theological naivete of your own tradition. In the words of Machen, "Isn't the reformed faith grand?"

Just for clarification, the real issue on Romans 9 is chapter 8. Perhaps the most glorious chapter in the Bible, Paul gives the believer unfathomably precious promises. These promises, however, are all founded on God's covenantal faithfulness. Hence, the biggest objection for any Christian to believing the promises of Romans 8 is, "But what about the Jews? Has the Word of God fallen concerning them (cf. 9:6)?" This, therefore, is the question that will determine and chart the course for chs 9 - 11.

Paul´s answer is that "œnot all Israel are Israel." How we subdivide these will play huge dividends later (especially in 10 and 11), but suffice for ch. 9 that spiritual Israel will inherit the spiritual realities in which vv. 3 "“ 5 pointed to, even though natural Israel had them as well.

*Romans 9:7-9*
I will here show that the most plain reading of the text leads to classically Calvinistic conclusions, rather than the befuddled and textual-twisting performed by TAM. Paul notes that not all of Abraham´s children can be correctly seen as his seed. To ground this assertion, Paul appeals to the fact that Abraham´s seed was called in Isaac. Everyone knows about Ishmael and that, though he was blessed by God, his descendents did not enjoy the benefits of God´s covenant with Isaac. So Ishmael, as a legitimate and legal heir, could have been the one through whom all nations were to be blessed. 

However, both redemptive history and Romans 9 makes it clear that such is not the case. To clarify this, Paul shows that it is not any child that Abraham births (cf. with being in his loins, a common exilic conception of nominal Judaism) that receives the covenantal blessing, but rather the child of promise, namely, Isaac. V. 9 grounds the fact that it will be miraculous and that the child will have Sarah as his mother. Thus Paul shows from the Torah itself that any reader would have to concede that Isaac is the promised babe. Genesis notes this well, in that once Isaac is born, the whole narrative swings "˜round to spotlight on him and his descendents, while Ishamael and his seed become minor subplots driving the main drama that is Israel and her covenant status with YHWH.

TAM, at this point, reacts against two conclusions drawn from White: that God´s election is the determining factor, and that God´s election results in salvation/damnation. The first conclusion is sneered at, in that White is attempting to smuggle in "œCalvinistic dogma" to his own advantage. The second is rejected by means of this specific language is nowhere in the text. 

I do not think White is wrong in anything that he says (again, I am only reading their quotes of him, I have not read him nor am I knowledgeable of the context), but we do not need to necessarily stand and die on this hill. His first conclusion is largely uncontroversial, and TAM is just looking for a fight. The second conclusion, is correct. However, we can still agree with TAM that up to this point in the text, Paul has not mentioned personal salvation. We can happily concede this, since Paul is going to make that so evident only verses later.

At this point, it is good to show that TAM elucidates two thoughts from this text: both are ridiculous, though in a progressive manner. First,


> Thus as yet Paul is not concerned with "salvation" -- he is merely addressing the specific point that ethnic identity is no guarantee of fulfillment of promise of any sort (not salvation in particular); by expansion one may say as well, nothing about a person guarantees that God will give them something -- and this meaning, from the point of view of men (more on this shortly). The covenant promise to Isaac was about land and blessing in this life -- the soteriological aspects of the promise (the Temple cultus) would not be presented for many years yet. Thus at most it would only be right to say that "Paul is talking about salvation" in the sense that it would be right to say that someone saying, "the animals of the world are glorious" is "talking about badgers."


 This is completely erroneous, since it is clear that God DID have special favor on Ishmael, and favor merely because Abraham was his father (cf. Genesis 17:20; 21:13). Granted, it is not the same as for the promised child, but favor nonetheless. So God _does_ bless all of Abraham´s seed, just not in proportionate ways. 

Secondly, "œThe covenant promise to Isaac was about land and blessing in this life" as proof that therefore there was no salvific purposes for Isaac is absurd. At the very, very, most minimal claim, all the nations which would be blessed through Isaac have a very salvific purpose, in that blessing had huge soteriological undertones.

The other problematic difficulty with TAM in this section is their inability to see election when its ready to bite their noses. Consider,


> But for the first time the question is raised, "Why Isaac and not Ishmael?" Paul gives no reply; as a loyal Hebrew, as Wilson would put it, he would consider the question pointless, for it would be quite obvious what the answer would be: God is holy, just and good; therefore whatever the reasons for His choice of Isaac over Ishmael, it was right. Why bother of the details? "¦ God is love; his choice is motivated by love (meaning, in the sense of agape, the greater good); so Isaac was chosen over Ishmael because it served the greater good.


 Though this is quite ridiculous, what is evident is that God elects Isaac as the child of promise (cf. Galatians 4:21ff). How Isaac is "œthe greater good" of Ishmael, and their respective people groups, is a matter of divine providence, and how anyone could possible imagine any people group going through more suffering than the Jewish nation in all their years is beyond the pale. Greater good? They must not have thought anyone was going to read this.

The correct answer, of course, is that Isaac represents God´s sovereign ability to create despite infertility and old age. There is nothing miraculous about Ishmael´s birth. The way Paul is going to show that God´s word has not fallen is by showing that He is in complete control of whom He calls, so that it is not up to human willing or running, but according to God who has mercy.

I´ll post on Romans 9:10ff later. We´ll simply see that Paul is going to make it even more obvious that election is not up to descent, and that not all children of the promised ones are children of the promise.

Brothers, my hearts desire and prayer to God for them is reformation, a reformation that is according to the Scriptures, is fed up with man-centered reason and religion, and looks to God as only glorious.

To be continued,
BRIAN


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 14, 2005)

Brian - you mind if I e-mail JP and point him to this thread ?


----------



## lycaphim (Mar 25, 2005)

JPH apparently accepts the works of Sanders, Dunn and Wright so I guess it's okay to group him in the NPP camp. (See his Book Reviews section on Sanders and Dunn's works at Tektonics.org)

Oh, and anyone want to critique his article on Unconditional Election? Forgive me if this has been done, but maybe we should all get together and post some comments or something. 

[Edited on 3-26-2005 by lycaphim]


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 30, 2005)

*Hey lycaphim*



> _Originally posted by lycaphim_
> JPH apparently accepts the works of Sanders, Dunn and Wright so I guess it's okay to group him in the NPP camp. (See his Book Reviews section on Sanders and Dunn's works at Tektonics.org)



I looked in his book review section too and noticed that he does recommend those above mentioned authors' works.



> Oh, and anyone want to critique his article on Unconditional Election? Forgive me if this has been done, but maybe we should all get together and post some comments or something.



Okay, let's take a look at it. Let's start a thread about it. I can try to start it if I have time or whoever beats me to it.


----------



## openairboy (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> James White has responded to some of J.P. Holding's foolishness as well on this website:
> 
> http://aomin.org




J.P. responds?

openairboy


----------



## lycaphim (Mar 31, 2005)

I have read the response and would like to note the disrespectful way Holding treats fellow believers. I wouldn't mind him treating atheists like that, but Christians???


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> It's called: The Bubba Club Broken: An Atomistic Exegesis of Romans 9 by James Patrick Holding.
> 
> The opening paragraph is as follows:
> ...


I am surprised at Holding. Usually I give him much respect for his research into history and how it relates to apologetics. But this would make me rate him a little lower that I would.


----------

