Romans 9 Debate

Turretinfan has agreed to a debate on the correct interpretation of Romans 9. We have yet to work out the timing, rules and resolution but will be doing so shortly, DV.

In the mean time I have been going through Romans 9 and translating it. At the time I wrote this article:

http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/romans9.html

I hadn't yet studied Greek. So far, my reviewing the chapter in Greek only provides minor modifications to my understanding of the chapter. When I have finished I plan on posting a few translation notes.

Comments

Anonymous said…
There are differences of opinion even within Arminianism. My position on Romans 9 is as follows: God sovereignly chose, first, a geneological lineage of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (and bypassing others) onward to the nation of Israel, for extraordinary blessing and historical destiny to forward God's plan of salvation to the world and to produce the "seed."

This ties in with the promise in Genesis of "All nations on earth will be blessed through you and your seed." (Gen. 26:4b-NKJ) Who is the seed? It is Christ and those who are in him. (Gal. 3: 16, 29)
The chosen destiny of Israel was to produce the Messiah and the Israel of faith.

John D. Wagner
November 3, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Godismyjudge said…
John,

Thanks for stopping by. Yep there are differences even among Arminians. I think most agree that Romans 9 teaches the national election of Israel. But that national election is somehow tied to salvation. Exactly how salvation is tied in with national election is where there is a bit of disagreement.

For me the key is explaining why the word of God did not fail and that not all Israel is of Israel. That is to say God's original plan succeeded and within national Israel there is a subset of spiritual Israel. The passage is probably more focused on rejection than acceptance. Its explaining why national Israel is rejected. So I am not sure that an explanation that states God choose to spiritually bless the nation of Israel is complete, because it doesn‘t account for the Jews rejection. Rather, I think the passage is teaching that God's national election of Israel illustrates His choice to save by grace through faith in Christ, and His rejection of Ishmael and Esau illustrates His rejection of national lineage and the works of the law. God's original promise to Abraham was national the election of Israel, but spiritually the Gospel. The spiritual aspect accounts for why the Jews are rejected. They are seeking slavation through works and not through faith. God’s choice stipulated how He would save, not who He would save.

God be with you,
Dan
November 3, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more