One of the more things about the Arminianism/Calvinism debate is how both sides are devoted to the Scriptures and both sides ground their understanding of their theology in the Scriptures. Which means that any proof-text once side may use, the other side will always have a lot to say about that passage as well.
Romans 9 is a go-to passage for Calvinism. This is despite the fact that it has nothing to do with Calvinist theology. Yet, because Calvinists think it does, we at SEA have a great deal of resources showing otherwise. Down below are some classic examples:
- Brian J. Abasciano, “Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner”
- Kieth Schooley, “Romans 9: An Arminian/New Perspective Reading”
- Arminius on Romans 9
- Dennis McCallum, Exegesis of Romans 9 and Romans 9-11
- Ben Henshaw, “An Apparently Not so Brief Response to C. Michael Patton on Rom. 9”
- JC Thibodaux, “Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: “Not of Works” Means “No Conditions””
- Dan Chapa, “James White on Romans 9”
- Robert Hamilton’s, “Election in Romans Chapter Nine”
- Kingswood Hart, “Romans 9:1-5 — Why is Paul so upset?” (This is the first article by Hart focusing on specific verses in Romans 9 in a great series of articles that goes through the chapter. For more in the series and other posts by Hart, see this link: http://evangelicalarminians.org/category/arminian-authors/hart-kingswood/)
- Brian Abasciano’s “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis”
