Dan Chapa

Robert Hamilton’s commentary on Romans 9 generally fits under the category of “election of Nations”, but it contains several unique features worth mentioning. Hamilton considers God’s election of Israel as a form or particular prevenient grace, unconditionally dispensed solely at His discretion. This grace provides increased opportunities for salvation, but doesn’t actually save. God provides a general prevenient grace to all mankind, which is sufficient to enable faith, but He gives this particular prevenient grace only to some. Hamilton starts out with the introductory context of Romans 9, by explaining that the question in Romans 3:3 is essentially the same one in Romans 9:6. He also explains Romans 8:29-30 as corporate rather than individual election; an election that establishes the grounds on which the Body will be comprised in relation to the Head and the individual is considered as elect only insofar as they are considered united to Christ. In considering Romans 9:6 and 9:7

Steve provided another post in our exchange on choice and determinism. Steve: a) A Calvinist doesn’t define the meaning of the word “choice” in terms “You can choose X if it’s your strongest desire.”b) For that matter, a Calvinist doesn’t even have to define the concept of choice in terms of “You can choose X if it’s your strongest desire.”The basic idea of choosing is simply to make a decision. I didn’t say Calvinists define choose as “You can choose X if it’s your strongest desire”, I said they avoid the common sense definitions and use exotic, philosophical counter-definitions; like the ones Paul provided. But Calvinists seem to have at least three options: 1) inconsistently hold to common sense definitions, 2) exotic, philosophical counter-definitions, or 3) use boiled down definitions that are missing some (or all) of the essential ingredients in the common sense definitions. If one removes enough essential elements of a definition, they end up with a tautology (choose = choose).

In James Arminius’ commentary on the 9th Chapter of Romans , he argues that the topic at hand is justification by faith. He humbly admits that for some time the chapter was of the “greatest obscurity”, but he now sees it clearly. I can relate. Arminius finds Paul answering an implicit question by saying: though most of the Jews are rejected, yet the word of God does not therefore fail. Arminius spends some time grappling with the exact nature of the implicit question and concludes it was: “Does not the word God become of none effect, if those of the Jews, who seek righteousness, not of faith, but of the law, are rejected by God?" He basis this conclusion on Paul’s use of the “children of the promise” and “the children of the flesh”, which represent believers and those who attempt to attain righteousness through the law. He finds further support in the examples of Ishmael and Isaac, who represent the Law and the Gospel in Galatians 4. Similarly, with Esau and Jacob, we find G

Steve Hays added his thoughts to a discussion I had with Paul Manata on choice and determinism . Steve says: Dan fails to distinguish between semantic equivocation and conceptual equivocation. Between the meaning of words and the meaning of ideas.The compatibilist/incompatibilist debate is fundamentally a debate over the concept of freedom, not the meaning of words in a dictionary. This seems like a key issue, because it moves the debate away from exegesis to philosophy. The question is not if philosophy is permissible and useful in theology. I am not opposing all philosophy; only the practice of reading technical philosophical definitions into scripture. Nor is the question if setting up technical definitions is normal philosophical behavior. But philosophy can be discussed in ordinary language by “tight wording” and specificity. Indeed scripture discusses philosophy in common language. To show that I have no hard feelings towards setting up special definitions in philosophical

In Bob Moore’s Calvinism, Ten Little Caveats , he provides a step-by-step analysis of Romans 9 , and he contrasts his view with John Piper’s. He first admits that Romans 9 is difficult to interpret and we need to lay down our presuppositions and try to put ourselves in Paul’s shoes. He points out that the key issue of the chapter is God’s way vs. man’s way. Paul address the Jewish challenged that God must require works for salvation, by showing that God chose to save through faith. Moore sees the blessings in Romans 9:4 as conditional, Piper sees them as unconditional, but non-salving. Moore sees the choice of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as providing blessings but not salvation, but they illustrate that God saves through faith not works; Piper sees the election of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as unconditional individual election. Both Moore and Piper see “it” in Romans 9:16 as God’s bestowal of mercy, but Piper sees faith as part of “willing” and “running” because he thinks of faith as a kind

This is part of an ongoing discussion on determinism... ( Paul , me , Paul , me , Paul , me , Paul , me , Paul ) Determinists require equivocation to survive. Since they don’t hold to common-sense meanings to terms like "choose", "alternative" and "possible", they develop slightly varied definitions to the terms, as opposed to getting rid of the words altogether. Here’s a few examples of how this works. They might say “you can choose to eat the ice cream”, but what they mean is only “you can choose to eat the ice cream, if it’s your strongest desire .” More interestingly, they say “you could have chosen to eat the ice cream”, meaning “you could have chosen to eat the ice cream, if it had been your strongest desire”, when in fact it wasn’t your strongest desire. This example is inbound to the choice (i.e. the normal model is desire leads to choice, which leads to action and this example deals with desire leading to choice rather than choice leading to

In Adam Clarke’s commentary on Romans 9, he argues for that God choice of Jacob and Esau were primarily national 1 , rather than the unconditional individual election and reprobation. The idea is that God chose to bless the Jews and reveal Himself and His plan of salvation to them, but now God is choosing to bless the Gentiles and call them to salvation as well. But just as the Gentiles could be saved and Jews lost in Old Testament times, so also Jews and Gentiles can be saved now; so national election doesn’t guarantee individual salvation. Clarke argues that we must understand the whole Old Testament context of the quotes Paul makes, based on Paul’s making use of Esau’s running and the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, even though Paul’s OT quotations regarding Esau and Pharaoh don’t include running or hardening. Then Clarke argues that Israel’s blessings in verses 4-5 are national, not individual, the election of Jacob over Esau in Genesis 25:22 was national, not individual, the lo