Friday Files: Arminius on Romans 9

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 God teaching that He hates those who seek righteousness through the works of the law, but loves those have faith in God’s call. So God’s plan all along was to justify through faith and His word isn’t overturned by the Jew’s rejection; it’s established by it.

Paul deals with the charge of injustice by pointing out that God’s choice was merciful (which presupposes sin), so it’s not a question of justice. When men will and run to obtain justification through the law, they are rejected, and do not obtain mercy through the Gospel. If God is free to declare His glory by punishing and hardening Pharaoh, He is free to punish those who seek salvation through the law. The hardening of Pharaoh (and the implication that the Jews were being hardened) gives rise to the object “why does He yet find fault, for who has resisted His will?” Arminius explains that hardening is a punishment for prior sins, and even though the person at that moment cannot avoid sinning, they are still responsible, because they deserved the hardening of freewill. Paul first reproves the objector for insolence and then explains that God forms sinners who reject His grace into vessels of wrath, and through grace forms people into believers and vessels of honor.

Comments

Jnorm said…
Thanks for doing this post Dan.




JNORM888
February 20, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Godismyjudge said…
You are quite welcome.

Dan
February 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM
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