On the benefits and promises of God, and principally of election to grace, or calling to faith.

"1. But that man may not just perform the commandments of God thus far explained, but also willingly want to perform them from the mind, God willed for his part to do everything necessary for effecting both in man(a), that is, he determined to confer such grace to sinful man by which he might be suitable and apt to render everything which is required of him in the gospel, and even more, to promise such good things to him, whose excellence and beauty might far exceed the capacity of human understanding, and that the desire and certain hope of this might kindle and inflame the will of man to render obedience in acts to him.

"Indeed, God habitually both makes known and bestows all these benefits to us by his Holy Spirit(b) (about which we have declared more fully above).

John Goodwin, An Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans with the Banner of Justification Displayed (London: Baynes and Son, 1835)

Where in the bible is it stated that one's election is based on an eternal decree? That question led Arminius as well as subsequent Arminians to question the Calvinistic theory of election. McGonigie stated,

Our election is in Christ, not in God's so-called 'hidden' purposes or in secret prelapsarian decrees. God loves the world of sinners in His Son and all His plans for our salvation, Arminius never tired of emphasizing, are in the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension and intercession of his beloved Son . . . God is known to us in the revelation of His Son Jesus Christ, and all our salvation is grounded, guaranteed and offered to us, and to all mankind, in the finished and still ongoing work, of our blessed Redeemer. Evangelical theology needs to give far more attention than it has previously done to James Arminius' theology of grace . . .1

Among such biblical texts as Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1, Calvinists are convinced that John 6 secures the notion that Jesus taught a Calvinistic soteriology. I am convinced, however, that Calvinists tend to see Calvinism in every text. I know. I used to be one.

My zeal for Calvinism clouded my interpretation of Scripture. Whatever scriptures I encountered which contradicted Calvinism, I had to find a way to make it mean something other than its simplistic meaning. I am not saying that all Calvinists are necessarily guilty of this very thing. But I will admit that I was immersed in the writings of John Calvin, John Piper, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, John Owen, Martin Luther, Loraine Boettner, John Murray, and others, and was raised, spiritually speaking, on a strict Calvinistic hermeneutic of Classical Reformed theology.

What decree is that? The "dreadful" decree I am referring to today is the decree of Reprobation, its consequence being Unconditional Election (for how could there be one without the other?). Now, calling it "dreadful," while I would agree, actually comes not from me or any other Arminian today, but from John Calvin himself!

Calvin wrote, "The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated (Bernard, in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2).

So, to sum up, according to the Augustinian/Calvinist interpretation, which assumes faith in Christ for salvation and arises in opposition to Pelagianism and later the medieval Catholic church:

• Paul begins by agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to salvation through faith in Christ (9:1-5).
• Paul’s solution is that not all of Israel is Israel; i.e., not all of Israel is elect (v. 6).
• Paul demonstrates God’s prerogative to elect whomever he wills by having elected Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau (vv. 7-13).
• God has mercy only on those whom he chooses to have mercy, and hardens the rest, as exemplified by Pharaoh (vv. 14-18).
• At this point, Paul hypothesizes a questioner who articulates the Arminian contention: if God has chosen to harden someone like Pharaoh, how can God then judge him for what he was predestined to do (v. 19)? Paul rebukes the questioner for impiety, and uses the potter-clay illustration to reiterate that God has the right to elect some and reprobate some as he deems fit (vv. 20-21).
• Paul then adds, as a supporting argument, the fact that when God chooses to reprobate someone like Pharaoh, he has to bear patiently their sin and arrogance, but does so, in order to demonstrate his glory to his elect, which turn out to be among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews (vv. 22-24).
• He thus brings the discussion back to the issue of Jewish unbelief in Christ, from which his discussion of election has been an excursus.

From that point, the rest of the chapter is interpreted with regard to the Jew-Gentile question and salvation by faith, as opposed to works, without explicit reference to election (vv. 25-33).

Up to this point in this series on Romans 9, I have argued the following points:

Up to this point, I have argued that the passages dealing with election in Romans 9 must be interpreted in the context of Paul's overall theme in chapters 9-11 of the implications of the Gospel for ethnic Israelites, and that Paul's use of the examples of Isaac and Jacob refer not to each as an individual and election to salvation, but rather to the nation of Israel that descended from them and election to membership among the covenant people.

Paul buttresses his contention that his doctrine does not in fact imply injustice with God by citing Exodus 33:19, where in reference to Moses, God states

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. (Rom. 9:18)

In verse 7 of Romans 9, Paul quotes Genesis 21:12 to explain that, even before Isaac was born, God had determined that Abraham’s offspring would be “reckoned” through Isaac—in other words, that the covenant people would pass through the line of Isaac rather than that of Ishmael. The original context of this passage, incidentally, makes it clear not only that Isaac is to be chosen, but that Ishmael is to be rejected in favor of Isaac. Yet God makes it clear that Ishmael is to be rejected by Abraham, so that the covenant line is clearly through Isaac; nevertheless, He reassures Abraham in the very next verse

Introduction

Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election: It discusses God’s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather than Esau, without regard to any merit of the chosen or demerit of those who were not chosen. It counters what would later be the Arminian objection that unconditional election appears unjust to our human sense of justice, and uses Pharaoh as an example of someone whom God 'raised up' for the express purpose of becoming a demonstration of God’s power. God bears with great patience these 'objects of wrath,' in order to glorify himself before the 'objects of his mercy,' that is, the elect (see Augustine, “To Prosper and Hilary” 14; Calvin, Institutes 3.22.4-6).

I would contend that this interpretation ignores the larger context of Romans 9-11, whose main theme is struggling with the implications of the Gospel for the nation of Israel. It also ignores the Old Testament contexts of Paul’s quotations, which when viewed in proper perspective shed a distinctly different light on Paul’s argument.

Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election: It discusses God’s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather than Esau, without regard to any merit of the chosen or demerit of those who were not chosen. It counters what would later be the Arminian objection that unconditional election appears unjust to our human sense of justice, and uses Pharaoh as an example of someone whom God 'raised up' for the express purpose of becoming a demonstration of God’s power. God bears with great patience these 'objects of wrath,' in order to glorify himself before the 'objects of his mercy,' that is, the elect (see Augustine, “To Prosper and Hilary” 14; Calvin, Institutes 3.22.4-6).

I would contend that this interpretation ignores the larger context of Romans 9-11, whose main theme is struggling with the implications of the Gospel for the nation of Israel. It also ignores the Old Testament contexts of Paul’s quotations, which when viewed in proper perspective shed a distinctly different light on Paul’s argument.

Please click on the attachment to view Robert Hamilton, "The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep".

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

A co-worker of mine bought me a Life in The Spirit Study Bible [which used to go by the name Full Life Study Bible]. This Study Bible has several articles and verse by verse notes from a Pentecostal Arminian perspective. The notes are well researched and easy to understand. I do not hold to a pre-trib view, however, so I found the notes and articles on eschatology unsatisfying and unconvincing, though I think they did a fine job describing the pre-trib position. The only other draw back is that this study Bible is, to my knowledge, only available in the KJV and NIV.

Please click on the attachment to view Skinner, Christopher. "Predestined for Hell?", which is basically a brief exegesis of Romans 9.

Please click on the attachment to view Robert Hamilton's "Election in Romans Chapter Nine."