Romans 9 (the parenthetical argument)

[Sonoftheday]

So I attended the evening service at the local baptist church tonight because they were supposed to teaching on Romans 9. It turned out however that the teacher was instead discussing the covenants and had a dispensational timeline drawn on the chalk board. Tonight the discussion was on the Tower of Babel I am unsure as to why that was one of the spotlights for discussing the covenants much less Romans chapter 9 but I digress. I mentioned to the teacher that I thought the class was over Romans chapter 9 and he said well yeah they've been going through the book of Romans and now Paul is making a parenthetical in his letter and discussing the covenants so the teacher wanted to lay some ground work first. As if the dispensational timeline didnt already have the sirens going off in my head I am almost certain that this guy is going to be making an argument for the interpretation of Romans 9 much like the one found here.

http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/286

This is the summary of the teaching for those who haven't the time or interest to read the whole thing.

The present interpretation that I have given recognizes the significant paradigm shift that takes place in the first century with regard to the identity of the people of God. It contrasts with the traditional one chiefly in terms of keeping the dominant issues of the Jews and of salvation by faith in mind throughout.

* It begins, as before, with Paul agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to faith in Christ (vv. 1-5).
* He has to confront the Jewish objection that, if his gospel were correct, it would mean that God’s promises to the Jews had failed. His response is that God’s promises have not failed, but others are inheriting the promises, because not all of Israel is Israel: i.e., not all of Israel has followed Abraham in faith (v. 6).
* Ethnic descent from Abraham is not enough to be considered “Abraham’s children,” as the examples of Ishmael and Esau demonstrate; Israel has already been granted unmerited blessings as compared with other descendants of Abraham (vv. 7-13).
* Therefore God is not unjust if he now excludes those descendants of Jacob who do not come to faith, because anyone he blesses, even Moses, is a recipient of his mercy (vv. 14-16). God may choose to spare for a time even someone like Pharaoh, whom God has chosen to harden—knowing that he will harden himself in response to God’s challenge—in order for God to glorify himself through that person, who can be viewed as both an example of God’s mercy and hardening (vv. 17-18).
* The implication is therefore that the Jews have been given mercy in the past but are not guaranteed mercy in the future if they do not come to faith in Christ. The hypothetical questioner asks why God still blames the Jews, if He has hardened them (v. 19), refusing to recognize that the Jews are hardened just as Pharaoh was hardened, by their own stubborn refusal to repent. Paul therefore rebukes them, and uses the potter-clay illustration to point out that God has always dealt with Israel on the basis of its repentance, and it is only those who refuse to repent who argue back to God that he made them as they are (vv. 20-21).
* Paul then points out that God has to bear patiently the “objects of his wrath”—the unbelieving—in order to make his glory known to the “objects of his mercy”—those who come to faith, which he specifically identifies as having come not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24). The supporting quotations from Hosea and Isaiah make clear the point: that many of those whom the Jews had considered excluded from the covenant (the Gentiles) would in the end be included, while many whom the Jews had considered included in the covenant (themselves) would be excluded (vv. 25-29).
* The basis upon which Gentiles have been included and Jews excluded is made explicit in vv. 30-33: it is that the Gentiles are obtaining righteousness through faith, while the Jews have pursued it by works.

So it will be a few weeks before the guy gets back to Romans and I'm considering going to the class to add to the discussion of the text. The class has a lot of discussion. I have a friend who is a member there that is a Calvinist so I am going to make sure he goes that day as well so I a somewhat outsider (not really since I was raised there but kinda since I left) am the only one making the case for the historic reading of the text.

Anyways all that to ask this. How would you loving confront this teaching of the text. I say lovingly because the setting will be a class discussion and I an "outsider", and this isnt taking place on the internet where we can just blast their interpretation.

 

[OPC'n]

Just calmly keep asking him the questions that force him to the correct answers! He'll either give up or change his belief system!

 

[Sonoftheday]

What sort of questions would I ask?

One that immediately comes to mind is this. IF this passage is telling us God's promises apply to those who believe, not simply physical seed then what is Paul's point in saying "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call"?

Another question that is glaring is, if the purpose of this passage is to further declare salvation by faith alone, then how does one have faith?

 

[Herald]

Anyways all that to ask this. How would you loving confront this teaching of the text. I say lovingly because the setting will be a class discussion and I an "outsider", and this isnt taking place on the internet where we can just blast their interpretation.

Bryan, proceed carefully. If you are going in order to challenge this church's doctrinal stand, you may be seen as disingenuous. You may be able to ask a few well placed questions in order to stimulate discussion, but you don't want to be seen as a trouble maker; especially during a worship service. Your friend may have more of a leg to stand on in private conversations with this teacher since he is a current member.

 

[OPC'n]

Is this a worship service or a Bible study....two different things entirely. If a worship service then you shouldn't ask any questions if not then I don't see why asking questions is wrong... we do it in our Bible studies.

 

[Herald]

Is this a worship service or a Bible study....two different things entirely. If a worship service then you shouldn't ask any questions if not then I don't see why asking questions is wrong... we do it in our Bible studies.

See the OP...

So I attended the evening service at the local baptist church tonight...

 

[discipulo]

Hi Brian

In case the present and future of the Ethnic Israel will be discussed, particularly on the context of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, I encourage you to read

Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God.

in my opinion it has the most clear exegesis of Romans 11, showing clearly how the idea of the Church being a Parenthesis as God will later catch up with the Jews oncemore is nonsensical, it’s eisegesis, just reading into the text,.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I don't believe it is necessarily wrong (or uniquely dispensational) to refer to Romans 9-11 as parenthetical in nature. Paul's argument up through chapter 8 raises some questions with regard to Israel and the promises of God. He stops and addresses those anticipated questions in chapters 9-11.

E.g. Matthew Henry introduces 9-11 in this way.

The apostle, having plainly asserted and largely proved that justification and salvation are to be had by faith only, and not by the works of the law, by Christ and not by Moses, comes in this and the following chapters to anticipate an objection which might be made against this. If this be so, then what becomes of the Jews, of them all as a complex body, especially those of them that do not embrace Christ, nor believe the gospel? By this rule they must needs come short of happiness; and then what becomes of the promise made to the fathers, which entailed salvation upon the Jews?

The questions will come with the exposition of the text itself in those chapters.

 

[CharlieJ]

I'm not sure what the problem is with the interpretation given in the quote box of the OP. It sounds right to me, even if as a Calvinist I would want to stress more the unconditional nature of election and how it extends to every individual. Romans 9 is not just a proof-text for election; it's part of a discussion about the fate of Israel.

 

[Sonoftheday]

Don't have much time but wanna give a little more info on situation.

It is not a worship service but a small group Men's bible study led by a layman. The church does not hold a position either Calvinist or Arminian but they hold to whatever the newest Baptist Faith and Message is (2008 I think). I am unfamiliar with the BFM 2008 but studied thoroughly the bfm2000 and it seemed to lean towards Calvinism but I was reading it through Calvinist eyes.

The pastor of the church holds to unconditional election, Total depravity, some form of irristable grace I am unsure if he holds to regeneration preceding faith but I know he agrees that salvation is totally monergistic and faith is a work of the Holy Spirit through the working of God's word on the sinner, and being SBC he of course holds to Perseverance of the saints. And actually holds that it is perseverance of not simply eternal security of the saints.

There were some comments made by the teacher that showed he definitely believed regeneration was a result of our choice. And their was some language mentioned that seemed he held to a prevenient grace given.

Also so it doesn't seem I am just some guy running around to every Arminian bible study I hear of to cause strife. I grew up in this church, I love the people of this church, My parents and brothers attend this church (when they attend), the Church is less than 5 mins from my house many of my neighbors and close friends attend there. I have a desire for the reformation of this church, and a passion for the people in it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Romans 9 and the discussion of election is an integral part (not parenthetical) of Paul's complete gospel presentation. It is presented in a most helpful place in the discussion, a place (I should add) that John Calvin followed as he matured as a theologian, and revised his Institutes.

 

[Sonoftheday]

I also must add that I have a great love for this passage because the Holy Spirit used it to change my entire perspective and destroy my ego. I tryed reading all the Arminian explaining aways of this passage but the clear teaching of the text is God's Sovereign choosing of who he shows mercy. I read this passage in a NRSV liberal study bible and I even tried to seperate it from the book as if it were simply a parenthetical but the intellectual dishonesty of such a reading did not hold up. My reasoning for going to the class is I want to give the thought that maybe the straight forward reading of the text is not some crazy fringe thing but is the way it has been historically understood and should be understood now. We should bow our knee to God's word not twist it to fit our own ideas of libertarian free will.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Romans 9 and the discussion of election is an integral part (not parenthetical) of Paul's complete gospel presentation. It is presented in a most helpful place in the discussion, a place (I should add) that John Calvin followed as he matured as a theologian, and revised his Institutes.

I agree that it is a diservice to refer to 9-11 as parenthetical. The fact that Paul changed his focus to provide clarification and added insight for his readers does not mean it is parenthetical in the sense of unnecessary.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jim,
My take is that the question (which is only alluded to, and not expressed verbatim, 9:6) arises as other questions have (e.g. 3:7-8; 6:1,15), in the context of the gospel message. These are questions and objections which Paul encounters many times as he proclaims the gospel--and which he had answered, and would answer in ways that furthered the whole gospel presentation.

I don't think the subject of Election changes Paul's focus, or ours as the audience, any more than, for example, the questions of ch6 that served to bring us into the discussion of Sanctification changed Paul's focus.

Paul does less "digressing" in his letters than we often seem to think. Especially this letter to the Romans is a masterwork of tight argumentation, and a lively style. It was a meticulously planned work of introduction and presentation. Other than a few minor stamps of personality quirk and individuality, there is no possibility that this letter was composed "off the cuff", or that a major section of it as chs 9,10&11 was a path run down, as it were, "to tie a loose end".

If I am asked "What is the specific purpose of the section that begins with ch9?" I answer: that having explained the superstructure of God's plan of personal human redemption, Paul proceeds to then show how it rests on a sure foundation of election and God's eternal decree, which then leads into the rationale for preaching the gospel (ch10), and explicating the true constitution of "the people of God" (ch11), culminating in doxology.

 

[Sonoftheday]

If I am asked "What is the specific purpose of the section that begins with ch9?" I answer: that having explained the superstructure of God's plan of personal human redemption, Paul proceeds to then show how it rests on a sure foundation of election and God's eternal decree, which then leads into the rationale for preaching the gospel (ch10), and explicating the true constitution of "the people of God" (ch11), culminating in doxology.

Ohh how you make my brain work brother. This is the same idea I have of this passage (only put in better more concise terms than I have use of).

 

[Spinningplates2]

Go and let the teachers words give you your questions. You do not know exactly what he is going to say so how can you preare exact queations. Do your study of the Romans chapters and no matter what the teachers says you will be ready and God will be blessed.