" Romans 9 has always been one
of the most contested
battlegrounds in Reformed-
Arminian disputes, so much so
that R. C. Sproul has
proclaimed that Arminian
theology is demolished by a
single verse from the chapter:
"So then it does not depend on
human will or effort, but on
God who shows mercy." How
can anyone read that verse and
then claim that salvation does
depend on human will or
effort? Arminians, for their
part, do not help themselves by making
outrageous statements like, "Oh, I don't believe
in predestination," and by more or less
ignoring the book of Romans in their
preaching and theology.
This is especially unfortunate given the
potential that Romans has for both Arminian
and open theist readings, provided we keep in
mind the unity of the letter as a whole and the
covenantal issues that Paul is dealing with. So
without attempting to be entirely
comprehensive or persuasive, I do want to give
a reading of Romans 9 that free-will theists can
offer as a more plausible interpretation than
the Reformed version.
The basic Reformed reading of Romans sees
the declarations that God has mercy on
whomever he will, that human beings are clay
in his hands and that God accepted Jacob but
rejected Esau prior to anything they did as
straightforwardly teaching that God chooses
some individuals for salvation and others for
damnation based on nothing but his own
sovereign decision. Needless to say, I think
that is a deeply misguided reading, for a
number of reasons.
Most primarily, Paul is not dealing with the
salvation of individuals here. He dealt with
that in cc. 3-6. What Paul is dealing with here
is God's covenant-faithfulness. Paul
establishes his anguish over the fact that, by
and large, Israelites are rejecting Jesus while
non-Jews are entering into the promises God
made to Israel. The center of the debate is
located in verse 6, as James White (of all
people) correctly notes. The promises God
made to Israel seem to be unfairly being given
to another group of people. "Has the word of
God failed?"
But Paul says that it has not failed, because
not all who are biological descendants of Jacob
are truly Israel. Nobody deserves to be
counted as 'Israel' because they were born
Jewish, or because they keep the works of the
law. To illustrate why this is the case, Paul
points out that God chose to continue Israel's
line through Jacob instead of Esau, for no
reason that can be found in either of them.
But there is a serious problem if we take this
to mean that Esau was damned, because Paul is
clearly referring to being chosen to carry on
the line of Israel.
This is even more clear if we follow the
reference that Paul is making in verse 13, "As
it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I
have hated," which is from the first few verses
of Malachi. In it (a sort of prophetic play),
God tells Israel how he has loved them, and
Israel responds, "How have you loved us?"
God replies, "Look at Esau. Even though he
was the older brother, I loved Jacob and hated
Esau. Look at how Esau's mountains are a
wasteland, and how his inheritance is being
consumed by jackals of the desert." It is the
same situation as the Genesis account and the
same situation that Paul is addressing: God has
chosen one group of people as his
representatives on earth, and overlooked
another. It has nothing at all to do with
individuals being chosen for salvation or
damnation.
Still, Paul senses a possible objection, which is
that God is unfair to decide who his covenant
people are. Paul's answer to this objection is
simply that God is free to choose. What is
significant for a free-will reading of the
passage is to recognize that while God is free
to harden whomever he wants, his decisions
are not arbitrary. Later in chapter 9, Paul
summarizes his thoughts, observing that
Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness,
have obtained righteousnessnamely the
righteousness that comes from faith. But
Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has
not achieved the law. Why is that? Because
they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it
were by works.
So if God has hardened Israel, it is not
because of his prior decision to do so, but
"because they did not pursue [righteousness]
by faith." In chapter eleven (cc. 9-11 form
one literary unit, all dealing with the question
posed in 9:6), Paul, utilizing the metaphor of
pruning a vineyard, observes that "[Israel's
branch was] broken off by unbelief" (11:20),
but "even they, if they do not remain in
unbelief, will be grafted in, because God has
the power to graft them in again" (11:23).
Paul does not believe that God has decided
irrevocably in advance that Israel will not be
saved, but rather portrays God responding to
Israel's faith or lack of faith as it arises. In
fact, Paul seems to portray a partly open
future, although he ultimately believes that "all
Israel will be saved," though it is difficult to
say what exactly he means by this, given his
statement that not "all who are descended of
Israel are Israel."
Paul's vision of a partly open future also
comes across in his choice to quote Jeremiah
18, which far from presenting God as statically
exercising his will as determined in ages past,
presents God flexibly responded to his
creatures as situations change.
Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you
in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I
announce that a nation or kingdom is to be
uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that
nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will
relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had
planned. And if at another time I announce
that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and
planted, and if it does evil in my sight and
does not obey me, then I will reconsider the
good I had intended to do for it.
Here in particular Calvin's analysis of the
biblical text looks clumsy, as he describes
passages like this as examples of God "lisping"
to us, speaking baby-talk, the way a nursemaid
babbles nonsense to an infant.
A case study for Paul's understanding of
hardening is presented in Pharaoh's role in the
Exodus, where the text first tells us several
times that Pharaoh hardens his own heart and
only then tells us that God hardened Pharaoh's
heart. Paul is certainly right that God has
mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and
hardens whom he wants to harden. But why
would we take from Romans 9 that he has no
basis for determining who he wants to have
mercy on or harden? He hardens Pharaoh
because Pharaoh wanted to play hard ball.
God hardened Israel "because of their
unbelief." God shows kindness to you
"provided that you continue in his kindness."
Across the board, Romans 9 shows God
responding to the morally responsible choices
of his people.
So when my Reformed brothers and sisters
point to Romans 9 as the linchpin of their
theology, I'm just not convinced. Paul simply
isn't talking about individuals being appointed
to salvation, and his thinking all seems to
assume that God acts based on the response he
gets from people. I think the burden is
definitely on Reformed readers to demonstrate
that Romans 9 has anything to do with their
doctrines."
From:
www.revelife.com/716636301/romans-9-a-free-will-reading/
