Friday Files: Keith Schooley on Romans 9

In Keith Schooley's Article: Romans 9: An Arminian/New Perspective Reading, he skillfully uses the OT to explain Romans 9. Paul refutes "those Jews who would say that, if Paul’s gospel were correct, then “God’s word had failed” (9:6). His response to them is that God had never made the unconditional promises, based either on “works” or ethnicity, that they were claiming. God sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael; He sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau; and by implication, He can sovereignly choose on the basis of faith in Christ, as opposed to works of the law or ethnicity."
Keith has an interesting take on hardening. Since both Pharaoh and God are said to harden Pharaoh's heart, Keith sees various roles in the hardening process. God provides the impetus for harding and Pharaoh responds by hardening his heart. Regerading the objector in Romans 9:19, Keith explains the objection as "the questioner is asking why faith in Christ should be necessary. That is, how can God blame the Jew for expecting to be among the chosen people because he’s a Jew—in other words, because he’s descended from Abraham and because he’s kept (in a relative sense) the Law? How can God blame the Jews for failing to come to faith in Christ, since faith was not what the Jews were led to expect to be the criterion of election?" Keith then explains that vessals of mercy and wrath are dynamic, not static, groups.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Neat!I liked it. Thank you, dear Dan.

Schooley has his own way to put things, I remember really enjoying his simple but to the point piece on Calv/Armin. general differences and common misunderstandings..
here:
http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2006/10/arminian-perspective-on-election-gods.html

Blessings,
Odeliya
March 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Anonymous said…
I like it too. I've had similar thoughts on Romans 9, but it is always difficult to express. We have to keep the focus on verse 6 as setting the stage for the argument. I think Schooley's approach will be the common way to go in the future, finally putting the Calvinist on the defensive. Throw in a little Barth, and you got a compelling doctrine of election.
March 6, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Odeliya,

Glad you enjoyed it. I really liked his use of the OT.

God be with you,
Dan
March 7, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Kevin,

You might be interested in Brian Abasciano's work on Romans 9. It's the best I have seen.

God be with you,
Dan
March 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Kevin Davis said…
Thanks for the Abasciano recommendation. I'll have to check into it. Too bad it is so expensive.
March 9, 2009 at 12:36 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

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more