Romans 9 - Election - How much clearer could it be?

[panta dokimazete]

I am trying to get back on track with my Bible reading plan and by the grace of God am in Romans - particularly Romans 9.

I was once again struck by the clear teaching of God's election - that He glorifies Himself through His expression of mercy for the elect and His exercise of justice for the "vessels of wrath".

It is with great fear and trembling that I consider, but for the grace of God, I would justly be a "vessel of wrath"!

Praise be to Him whose mercy endures forever!

Praise be to Christ, who gave Himself so that many may escape the Father's just wrath! Hallelujah!

 

[Anton Bruckner]

this is the most scariest and most beautiful of doctrines. Sometimes I look back over my life and see the heinous sins that God kept me from even in my unbelief. Much and many of these sins could have ended up with me being dead. But for His grace He kept me and brought me to repentence.

 

[Davidius]

But seriously, how much clearer could it be?? I don't see how the doctrine of election could possibly be more clearly spelled out. This is why I sometimes wonder whether "Arminians" who look this passage square in the face and deny God's sovereign power can actually be Christians, not because they deny Calvinism, but because they're basically rejecting the authority of scripture by denying the ridiculously clear and obvious meaning of the passage. They hate the reality of God's nature and refuse to acknowledge it. (I'm just throwing that out as a thought I've had.)

 

[Anton Bruckner]

The doctrine of election is clearly spelt out from the beginning of Genesis. Poor Cain, poor Nimrod. Blessed Abel, blessed Noah.

 

[danmpem]

But seriously, how much clearer could it be?? I don't see how the doctrine of election could possibly be more clearly spelled out. This is why I sometimes wonder whether "Arminians" who look this passage square in the face and deny God's sovereign power can actually be Christians, not because they deny Calvinism, but because they're basically rejecting the authority of scripture by denying the ridiculously clear and obvious meaning of the passage. They hate the reality of God's nature and refuse to acknowledge it. (I'm just throwing that out there as a thought I've had.)

After discussion my Calvinism and a good friend's open theism, I showed him Romans 9, and he exclaimed "Dan, if you're right about that, then I don't think this is a God I think I want to know!"

 

[Davidius]

But seriously, how much clearer could it be?? I don't see how the doctrine of election could possibly be more clearly spelled out. This is why I sometimes wonder whether "Arminians" who look this passage square in the face and deny God's sovereign power can actually be Christians, not because they deny Calvinism, but because they're basically rejecting the authority of scripture by denying the ridiculously clear and obvious meaning of the passage. They hate the reality of God's nature and refuse to acknowledge it. (I'm just throwing that out there as a thought I've had.)

After discussion my Calvinism and a good friend's open theism, I showed him Romans 9, and he exclaimed "Dan, if you're right about that, then I don't think this is a God I think I want to know!"

Exactly. Isn't that what it comes down to? I still don't want to make any categorical statements, but I don't see how a person can be regenerate who hates God in some of his most basic, foundational attributes and blatantly rejects and/or twists the plainest of scriptures like Romans 9. In other words, not a person who has never really looked at Romans 9 (in my older churches I never heard a sermon preached on it and when I first discovered it I was wondering how I could've missed it!), and who might be willing to consider it along with all the other clear evidence, but someone who outright rejects it when it's so clear.

 

[DMcFadden]

Personally, I think Ephesians 1 is a pretty powerful election text and equally clear.

Non Calvinist scholars (particularly those schooled in our post-modern era) say that we only see election in Romans 9 because we "privilege" the election verses over the free will verses. They argue that if we privileged the free will verses we would explain "away" the apparent predestinarian Paul of Romans 9 the same way we currently explain "away" the apparent free will emphasis of the NT in favor of infra or supralapsarian decretial theology.

[Yech! I can't stand post-modern thinking!!!]

 

[Anton Bruckner]

After discussion my Calvinism and a good friend's open theism, I showed him Romans 9, and he exclaimed "Dan, if you're right about that, then I don't think this is a God I think I want to know!"

that's the existential crisis that everyone who comes across this doctrine goes through. At least the guy is honest. In our natural state this is not the God we want to know. Its the Holy Spirit that has to change our heart to see the beauty and the loveliness of God.

 

[Jared]

After discussion my Calvinism and a good friend's open theism, I showed him Romans 9, and he exclaimed "Dan, if you're right about that, then I don't think this is a God I think I want to know!"

that's the existential crisis that everyone who comes across this doctrine goes through. At least the guy is honest. In our natural state this is not the God we want to know. Its the Holy Spirit that has to change our heart to see the beauty and the loveliness of God.

I had never really thought about it that way. If they don't believe what scripture reveals about God, do they really know Him?

I might add however, that some people hold God's sovereignty as a mystery. Some of these people are the ones who say they're in between Calvinism and Arminianism. They see a problem with classical Arminianism but are still not willing to go all the way. I don't understand it. It's not logical, but perhaps it's better for these people to have a high view of God's sovereignty and still be Arminian than to have a low view of His sovereignty.

 

[Jared]

BTW: Romans 9 is what got me. I couldn't find any way around it.

 

[KMK]

Personally, I think Ephesians 1 is a pretty powerful election text and equally clear.

Non Calvinist scholars (particularly those schooled in our post-modern era) say that we only see election in Romans 9 because we "privilege" the election verses over the free will verses. They argue that if we privileged the free will verses we would explain "away" the apparent predestinarian Paul of Romans 9 the same way we currently explain "away" the apparent free will emphasis of the NT in favor of infra or supralapsarian decretial theology.

[Yech! I can't stand post-modern thinking!!!]

And, hence, they must trod down the road of 'non-inerrancy'! "Obviously the election passages and the free-will verses cannot both be true because I cannot understand it! And if I cannot understand something, then it cannot be true!"

Honestly, I can understand why election is hard for those who don't know their Bibles very well. But how do explain those theologians who know the Bible inside and out and still believe in man's sovereignty?

 

[Greg]

I've heard some try and redefine election by stating that God does not elect individuals, but rather He elects corporately. We become part of that corporate elect when we place ourselves there by faith. Until we exercise faith, we are not elect.

 

[Shane]

How not to believe in election

Well I think most guys like to use one of these bible markers to back up there anti election ideas.

 

[mshingler]

I believe that one other way an Arminian might interpret Romans 9 is to say that the point is that God saves whom He wishes (God's Sovereignty) and that no one can lay claim to God's saving grace. God chooses to save those who trust in Christ, not those who trust in their own works. Hence, the works oriented Jews could not lay claim to salvation on the basis of the heritage, their circumcision or their works.
For me, Romans 9 was not the decisive passage that convinced me of unconditional, sovereign election. I actually found a study of the concept of "calling" to be very compelling, particularly as "the called" are described in 1Cor. 1:26-31. That's not to say that Rom. 9 is not quite compelling in itself, but it was the corroborating support of other scriptures that really "sealed the deal" in my mind. I also think Rom. 8:28-30 is pretty hard to get around for the Arminian.

 

[Quickened]

Romans 9 is a doozy

Over the past year or so i noticed election and the whole like littered all over in scripture. As in the fact that not one person chose God. God had the habit (if you will) of choosing whom he wished. Be that moses or Paul or nehemiah.

 

[Zenas]

Ephesians is as clear as Romans, I think.

 

[Confessor]

I'm not sure how normal this is, but there was no Bible passage that changed me to Reformed thinking. It was simply a matter of understanding God's sovereignty. I could not fathom how God could give humans libertarian free will and simultaneously have a decretive will of His own. If humans were allowed to do as they please among several choices, then it would not be possible for God to ordain every event. I tried to salvage my Arminianism by positing that God allowed for a "pocket" of free will (as I termed it) in regards to salvation, but at that point I was already well on my way towards Calvinism, and my "pocket" theory held absolutely no water.

Of course, I later discovered a noble attempt to retain free will and God's sovereignty, Molinism, but it still fails, for it makes God to be "doing the best He can" rather than exactly what He wants. Additionally, there are philosophical problems with libertarian free will, but this discovery came after my conversion.

 

[staythecourse]

Thanks JD,

You made me walk down memory lane. Twenty years ago I had a conversation with a friend which I can still recall to this day. The doctrine of election was a new revelation to me and chapter 9 of Romans was a beacon in Scripture. My now pentecostal friend would not/ could not believe God would elect some and harden others.

I read to him:

"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared R466 for destruction?"

And he said "It says, 'what if.'" It's hypothetical.

Then I all but shouted the next verse:

"And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called."

"Whatever"

"Is that all you can say?"

"That's all I can think of."

 

[moselle]

But seriously, how much clearer could it be?? I don't see how the doctrine of election could possibly be more clearly spelled out. This is why I sometimes wonder whether "Arminians" who look this passage square in the face and deny God's sovereign power can actually be Christians, not because they deny Calvinism, but because they're basically rejecting the authority of scripture by denying the ridiculously clear and obvious meaning of the passage. They hate the reality of God's nature and refuse to acknowledge it. (I'm just throwing that out as a thought I've had.)

I grew up in the church (not reformed in any way), and read the book of Romans several times as a child. But it wasn't until I graduated from college and went to a "reformed" bible study on the book of Romans, that I ever "saw" those passages. The ones that are so clear. And now I find them all over the place. You can't miss them. I am befuddled, except to know that the Holy Spirit was gracious enough to open my eyes and heart to read the truth.

I have a vague memory of being taught at least portions of Romans 9; the explanation was that God made different people to have different abilities - singing, teaching, mathmatics, athletics, etc., and we aren't to question why God made us the way he did. I probably applied this lesson to everything vaguely related to election. "Predestination" of course, was a very naughty word not to be mentioned under any circumstances unless you wanted a severe scolding.