Friday Files: Godet on Romans 9

In Frederic Louis Godet takes a “National Election” approach in his commentary on Romans 9. He summarizes the flow of Romans 9-11 as follows: “1. That of God's absolute liberty in regard to every alleged required right, upon Him, on man's part; this is the subject of chap. ix. 2. That of the legitimacy of the use which God has made of His liberty in the case in question; such is the subject of chap, x., where Paul shows that Israel by their want of understanding drew upon themselves the lot which has overtaken them. 3. That of the utility of this so unexpected measure: this forms the subject of chap, xi., where the beneficent consequences of Israel's rejection down to their glory one final result are unfolded.” Godet explains the chapter verse by verse and along the way he picks apart the grammatical details to draw out Paul’s point. The OT examples of Isaac, Jacob, and Moses are not talking about eternal salvation, but rather God’s merciful (but not arbitrary) choice to reveal Himself and bless them. Godet sees the election of Jacob as primary national, but also teaching that God chooses to justify by faith. Godet summarizes the chapter as: “The word of God has not therefore been made of no effect by the fact of the rejection of the Israelitish nation (ver. 6). For, 1st, the principle of divine selection which controlled the early destinies of the patriarchal family is only realized anew in the distinction between believing Israelites and the carnal and rejected mass (vv. 6-13). 2d. God, when making choice of this people to prepare for the salvation of the world, did not abdicate His freedom to reject them on certain conditions, and if lie came to think this good ; neither did He abdicate His liberty of calling other individuals not belonging to this people, on certain conditions, and if He came to see good reason. And the use which He actually makes of this liberty, in rejecting His obstinately rebellious people while sparing them as long as possible, and even after the greatest crimes, is not tantamount to the annulling of His word (vv. 14-24).”

The two big takeaways I had were: 1) National Election and Corporate Election explanations of Romans 9 are not mutually exclusive and 2) Godet is the best at “grammar analysis” that I have seen so far.

Comments

A.M. Mallett said…
I find those thoughts to be quite compelling. The corporate approach to the OT atonement must also recognize that all those within her borders, alien and Jacob alike, were included in the work of the High Priest for Israel in his offering on the Day of Atonement ... an offering for all of Israel.
May 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Trav, I agree.

God be with you,
Dan
May 18, 2009 at 9:23 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