Why do people think Romans 9 is about absolute individual predestination?

[timtams]

Clearly it's about God choosing the Gentiles who are faithful to the gospel while rejecting Israel who seeks righteousness through the law. How did people read the doctrines of the Greek philosophers Zeno and Plotinus into that and conclude it's about no free will and absolute individual predestination?

 

[Tree of Life]

Romans 9 is about God's sovereign election of individuals to salvation from both the Jews and the Gentiles.

Romans 9:22-24 - 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

The "us whom he has called" refers to the elect - the object of this text. The elect are individuals called from both the Jews and the Gentiles.

I don't know much about Zeno or Plotinus but I don't think that their ideas are necessary for understanding Paul's words on election here. Neither is a strange concept like "freewill" necessary for understanding Paul's words. This passage has nothing to do with the philosophical concept of freewill. It's about God's sovereign election of individuals to salvation.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

who's zeno and Plotinus?

 

[Albion]

Perhaps the opinions given by real experts could settle this:

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/romans/9-24.html

 

[timtams]

Perhaps the opinions given by real experts could settle this:

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/romans/9-24.html

How can these "experts" you link to, who disagree between themselves, with some accepting absolute individual predestination and some denying it, settle this? Do you know what you post before you post?

 

[Albion]

How can these "experts" you link to, who disagree between themselves, with some accepting absolute individual predestination and some denying it, settle this?

I hope you noticed that almost all of them flat-out rejected the notion that the verse refers to the Jewish people collectively. And this was the case with those who inclined towards election as well as those who were believers in freewill.

 

[timtams]

I hope you noticed that almost all of them flat-out rejected the notion that the verse refers to the Jewish people collectively. And this was the case with those who inclined towards election as well as those who were believers in freewill.

They were mostly (though not entirely) calvinists, so by definition they would have a calvinistic view of it. But if you are content linking their words as the end of the matter, then we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter.

 

[bcbsr]

Clearly it's about God choosing the Gentiles who are faithful to the gospel while rejecting Israel who seeks righteousness through the law. How did people read the doctrines of the Greek philosophers Zeno and Plotinus into that and conclude it's about no free will and absolute individual predestination?

Yes, I agree. He starts of Rom 9 with "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel." And he goes on to speak of them as a category. Likewise Rom 10 he starts,"Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness." And again in Rom 11 "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah— how he appealed to God against Israel" Again speaking of Israel as a category.

Romans chapter 9,10,11 are all about the same thing. Calvinists tend to isolate certain verses in Romans 9 to push their fatalistiic theology, but if read these chapters together you find a different story.

 

[Albion]

They were mostly (though not entirely) calvinists, so by definition they would have a calvinistic view of it. But if you are content linking their words as the end of the matter, then we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter.

Oh, I think its correct to say that there was a mixture there. John Wesley was certainly not a Calvinist, and he's not the only one there whose views are of that sort.

 

[timtams]

Oh, I think its correct to say that there was a mixture there. John Wesley was certainly not a Calvinist, and he's not the only one there whose views are of that sort.

And to be fair, that does answer my OP, namely why do people hold the individual absolute predestination view, as those quotes present that view quite clearly.

 

[timtams]

Romans 9 is about God's sovereign election of individuals to salvation from both the Jews and the Gentiles.

Romans 9:22-24 - 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

The "us whom he has called" refers to the elect - the object of this text. The elect are individuals called from both the Jews and the Gentiles.

So you would interpret "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" to mean that God chose some to eternal destruction from eternity. I do not believe that interpretation can be sustained from the passage. Do you see anything in the passage that would require your interpretation?

 

[Tree of Life]

So you would interpret "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" to mean that God chose some to eternal destruction from eternity. I do not believe that interpretation can be sustained from the passage. Do you see anything in the passage that would require your interpretation?

Yes. "Vessels of mercy" clearly refers to individuals elected from both Jews and Gentiles. So the parallel "vessels of wrath" would also refer to reprobate individuals. The example given of a vessel of wrath is Pharaoh - an individual. Also Esau, an individual, is given as an example in God's sovereign purposes. I know that both of those individuals have national implications, but I believe the focus is on individual election. God does not elect nations for salvation. He elects people.

 

[sdowney717]

Clearly it's about God choosing the Gentiles who are faithful to the gospel while rejecting Israel who seeks righteousness through the law. How did people read the doctrines of the Greek philosophers Zeno and Plotinus into that and conclude it's about no free will and absolute individual predestination?

Maybe because that is what it says. Who cares what man or you says? Scripture is unbreakable. Deceivers are everywhere, satanically inspired, but the true genuine sheep of Christ
don't hear them.

 

[BrotherDave]

So you would interpret "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" to mean that God chose some to eternal destruction from eternity. I do not believe that interpretation can be sustained from the passage. Do you see anything in the passage that would require your interpretation?

God did not choose any to eternal destruction. He created us "good and in His image." Then with our free will we chose to sin and as a result, all of us were sentenced to "eternal destruction". We justify the sentenced with every sin me make. It is only out Gods mercy and love that He chose to save anyone (Ro 9:15, Ex 33:19) of us.

 

[timtams]

Yes. "Vessels of mercy" clearly refers to individuals elected from both Jews and Gentiles. So the parallel "vessels of wrath" would also refer to reprobate individuals. The example given of a vessel of wrath is Pharaoh - an individual. Also Esau, an individual, is given as an example in God's sovereign purposes. I know that both of those individuals have national implications, but I believe the focus is on individual election. God does not elect nations for salvation. He elects people.

I take this to mean that God can choose to show mercy to the called of the gentiles who have faith in Christ and is not obligated to show mercy to the Jews who seek righteousness by the law.

I would have two responses for this. One, asking how it can mean what you say, and a second, in which I would state how I understand it.


First, if it were eternal, individual predestination, why does it say God hardens whom he wills? According to the reformed view, all are born beyond hardening and into actual total inability and incapacity to respond to God, not simple hardness?

Vessels of wrath are those God shows great patience with, knowing that they will not repent. This, in turn, hardens them. God shows mercy to whom he wishes (gentiles who exercise faith in the Messiah) and he hardens whom he wishes (by showing patience and forbearance).
Pharaoh was an example of one who refused to repent and whom God raised up knowing that he would not change or repent, and he used that to bring himself greater glory.

How would your interpretation answer the argument of the chapter? "God hasn't forsaken his people Israel because he has chosen some individuals to salvation and some to damnation"? I don't see the connection. The answer is, he hasn't forsaken his people because it was never on the basis of keeping the law but on the basis of faithfulness, and God did not destroy the natural seed, vessels fit for destruction, but showed great patience in order to bring glory to the gentiles who are called, the vessels of honor.

 

[Hank77]

John Wesley had the view of what we can loosely call, freewill. His best friend, George Whitefield, was of the Calvinist persuasion and it caused many arguments between them.

Wesley's Explanatory Notes
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

What if God, being willing — Referring to Romans 9:18,19. That is, although it was now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief, To show his wrath - Which necessarily presupposes sin.

And to make his power known — This is repeated from the seventeenth verse.

Yet endured — As he did Pharaoh.

With much longsuffering — Which should have led them to repentance.

The vessels of wrath — Those who had moved his wrath by still rejecting his mercy.

Fitted for destruction — By their own wilful and final impenitence. Is there any injustice in this ?

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus says nothing about God hardening their hearts, He didn't say they weren't chosen to believe. He clearly says that they would not believe.
Did He weep over Jerusalem because His Father hadn't chosen them? Or did He weep because He loved them and they chose their own destruction?

 

[Tree of Life]

Did He weep over Jerusalem because His Father hadn't chosen them? Or did He weep because He loved them and they chose their own destruction?

These two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[sdowney717]

Christ wept because clearly they had rejected Him, the Lord of life. He was a man,, and also God. He came to his own, and his own did not receive him.

 

[msortwell]

Rom 9:12-15
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.What shall we say then? Is thereunrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

(v. 15) τῷ γὰρ Μωσῇ λέγει Ἐλεήσω τῷ γὰρ Μωσῇ λέγει Ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω

In verse 13, by referencing Esau and Jacob, Paul intimates that election/predestination is individualized. The point is reinforce in verse 15 which, in the Greek shows clearly (ὃν ἂν translated as "on whom" is singular) that God determines to have mercy and compassion on some individuals. He also hardens individuals . . .

Rom 9:18, Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

ἄρα οὖν ὃν (whom, again - singular) θέλει ἐλεεῖ ὃν δὲ (and whom, again - singular) θέλει σκληρύνει

 

[timtams]

Yes, whom he wills, and he has willed to have mercy on Gentiles who trust in Christ over Jews who seek righteousness by the law.