Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity

My interpretation of Romans 9, 10 and 11 accounts for ALL the OT references given in the text itself and does no violence to the OT contexts, and shows how Paul is using Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ishmael, Pharaoh, the metaphor of the olive tree, and counters ALL the scriptures from these 3 chapters that Calvinists use (misinterpret) to “prove” Calvinist predestination, i.e. “not of him who wills or runs” “has mercy and hardens whom He will” “prepared beforehand” “foreknown” “chosen” etc.

 

IF Paul is making the argument that Calvinists say he is - why does he use Jeremiah 18, which is conditional? In chapter 10 he references Deuteronomy 30:11-14, which is conditional. He quotes Isaiah 28:16, which is conditional. He also references Deuteronomy 32:21. Verse 19 indicates God is dealing with Israel on a conditional basis. Paul, in Romans 10:20,21, references Isaiah 65:1,2 – verse 7 - conditional! Psalm 69 – conditional! Isaiah 29 – conditional! In Romans 11 the metaphor of the olive tree is conditional! Romans 9:30-33 – In Paul’s conclusion, Israel stumbled over the stone BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF – not because they were predestined.

 

I don’t think Paul is saying what Calvinists think he is, otherwise he wouldn’t have used these OT texts. If he was arguing for predestination as defined by Reform Theology, he would have used other texts that appear to more clearly indicate God’s sovereignty i.e. “The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.” “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but the counsel (decree) of the Lord, it will stand.” “Man’s steps are ordained by the Lord, how then can man understand his way?” “The steps of a man are established by the Lord…” There are many OT texts that would be much more appropriate to use in support of the Reformed position, namely, all the OT texts that Calvinists use to support predestination, NONE of which Paul uses. Here are a few more:

 

Joshua 11:20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

Deuteronomy 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people.

 

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

 

1 Samuel 12:22 For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people.

 

2 Chronicles 6:6 But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel.

 

Psalm 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

 

Psalm 65:4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

 

Ecclesiastes 3:14,15 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

 

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth.

 

Psalm 71:6 By thee I have been sustained from my birth…

 

Psalm 139:16 Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance and in thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there were none of them.

 

Also we could cite: Isa 41:4, 41:8, as well as others. I have refutations of the Reformed interpretation of all these scriptures, but that’s beside my point. The point being that Calvinists, following Calvin’s lead, use many of these texts in their argumentation for double predestination. Why doesn’t Paul use these instead of the ones he used? It just doesn’t make sense that Paul would use the OT scriptures that he did, rather than the ones above that Calvinists are so fond of using, IF he was teaching something even close to Calvinist predestination in Romans 9.

 

The Calvinist interpretive hermeneutic on this issue goes something like this: When a New Testament writer quotes, paraphrases, or refers to an Old Testament text, however he is using it is precisely how God wanted this text applied in a New Testament context. Therefore, one should exegete the Old Testament text in its context and then the New Testament text in its context, and this process will generally indicate the New Testament writer’s intent in using the Old Testament text that he does.

 

None of the contexts of the OT passages (exegete the OT text in its context) that Paul uses in Romans 9-11 indicate that God monergistically immutably predestines every individual from eternity past to salvation or reprobation or that God sovereignly imputes mercy and/or wrath apart from any distinctive in man. The MOST that can be implied from SOME of them is the foreknowledge of God, which is not causative. EVERY SINGLE OT REFERENCE IS NATIONAL AND CONDITIONAL! How does that SUPPORT the idea that Paul is using “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated” as an argument for INDIVIDUAL predestination? IT DOESN'T! Therefore, Paul is NOT arguing for individual predestination in Romans 9. If he is, he’s breaking every hermeneutical rule in the book, not to mention the fact that the OT contexts he references in support of his argument actually refute it. The context of every single OT passage Paul uses must, without exception, be ignored in order to make Romans 9 say what Reform Theology says it is saying.

 

Calvinists would respond by saying that the New Testament is the inspired interpreter of the Old Testament and would insist that Paul’s inspired interpretation of the OT passages that I have so carefully documented (that are all to a text conditional) is THE interpretation that we must receive.

 

It’s true that I’ve gotten my interpretation of Romans 9 based in part on using the contexts of the OT passages Paul cites. I’m doing this based on the presupposition that “…the Bible is one book, from one Mind, and is consistent in all its parts.” Calvinists apparently disallow that hermeneutic when interpreting Romans 9. They say that Paul’s inspired interpretation (read: the Calvinist interpretation of what Paul is saying) of the OT passages is THE interpretation I must receive. Ok - so – what is Paul saying? Whose interpretation of Romans 9 is the correct interpretation of the inspired interpretation of the OT passages that Paul cites? How would we know?

 

One of the ways that we would know would be that the correct interpretation of Romans 9 must harmonize with the OT contexts that are given in the text itself. Consider the following hermeneutical principles:

 

1) The Bible is one book, from one Mind, and is consistent in all its parts.

2) Scripture is it's own interpreter. Therefore careful attention must be given to the way one passage of Scripture is used in another (i.e. an Old Testament passage used in the New Covenant).

3) The plain passage interprets the less plain.

4) God has spoken by the prophets and His Son to a particular people in their language in particular situations. The meaning of Scripture today is its meaning to its original hearers.

5) Interpret Scripture in light of its immediate context: a text taken out of context is usually a pretext for error.

 

None of the above conflicts with my primary hermeneutic, which is: Immediate context only – comparing one scripture with another is allowed only if the text itself makes the comparison. Any scripture that I have quoted that is not given in the text itself (Rom 9-11) can be disregarded and the loss of those scriptures will not weaken my argument at all. The main section where I gave a bunch of other scriptures I heavily qualified in several ways, not the least of which is titling that section – “Unnecessary Comparisons.”

 

When Calvinists say that Paul is interpreting OT texts out of context to make his point, they are saying that the Apostle Paul is disregarding ALL the hermeneutical principles stated above. For example, when they say that Paul is applying the prophecy in Genesis 25 to Jacob and Esau as individuals, they are saying that Paul is disregarding #4 - because the prophecy EXPLICITLY concerns the descendants of the twins and not the twins themselves. So they have Paul saying, “The prophecy to Rebekah does not mean today what it meant to the original hearers.” They are disregarding number 5 when they say that Paul is arguing for individual, double predestination in Romans 9, 10, and 11. They are applying a subject, individual salvation, to a text that is dealing with Israel’s failure to retain the things she had received and the inclusion of the Gentiles into the promises to Abraham. Consequently, Calvinists have Paul saying something that he wasn’t talking about. He wasn’t using Jacob and Esau as examples of individual salvation and reprobation. That is COMPLETELY OFF his subject. He’s using them as allegories of Israel and the Gentiles JUST LIKE he explicitly uses Ishmael and Isaac allegorically in Galatians.

 

JOHN PIPER

 

NOTE: My beloved opponent sent me John Piper's book The Justification of God with high praise as an example of a "most cogent and irrefutable presentation of a modern Reformed exegesis of Romans 9."

 

John Piper, in his book, The Justification of God, in making the same argument that I am dealing with above, concedes that the OT contexts do not support what he (Piper) thinks Paul is saying in Romans 9. On page 64, he says,

 

“We may grant, for the sake of argument, that in the demonstration of this principle of God’s freedom in election Paul uses Old Testament texts that do not relate explicitly to eternal salvation.”

 

In the footnote on the same page that relates to this statement he says, “How else could Paul have argued from the OT for the principle of God’s freedom in election, since the eternal salvation of the individual as Paul teaches it is almost never the subject of discussion in the OT? Therefore Paul’s selection of texts may reflect the limited scope of his sources…”

 

My response would be: Paul could have used the OT scriptures I gave above, especially the ones from Psalms and Proverbs, which ARE speaking of individuals. Those scriptures are much more appropriate to the subject that Piper THINKS Paul is talking about. The OT sources are NOT limited in that regard.

 

Piper starts with the Reformed understanding of Romans 9 (God’s freedom in election, i.e. immutable, sovereign, predestined individual salvation/reprobation) and so must disregard the OT contexts that Paul uses instead of using the OT texts to help him determine what Paul is actually saying. He ignores the OT contexts, in favor of what he THINKS Paul is saying, in spite of the oft-repeated contention that the Bible is “one book from one Mind, and is consistent in all its parts.” If that is true, then Paul should not have to use OT scriptures out of context to support what he is teaching. In my opinion, Piper is, with great sincerity, very methodically and with what appears to be impressive scholarship, begging the question.

 

I am not willing to say that Paul quotes the OT out of context, that he is disregarding the OT contexts he quotes from, but Reform Theology, as illustrated by John Piper above, IS willing to say that Paul is “applying” the OT verses he quotes out of context. Which position is more consistent with the idea that the Bible is One Book from One Mind?

 

A HERMENEUTIC THAT MISLEADS

 

Many people (not just Calvinists) use what Calvinists call “the doctrine of scripture” or “the analogy of faith” to connect different scriptures from different books of the Bible to build up supporting texts for their position. This technique is illustrated by the following hermeneutic principles:

 

1) All the Scriptures on a given subject/theme/motif in the Bible become the doctrine of that subject (the method of systematic theology).

2) We are not to expect, in every place, the whole circle of Christian truth to be fully stated, and that no conclusion may be drawn from the absence of a doctrine from one passage that is clearly stated in others.

 

At first glance these statements sound entirely reasonable. If used very conservatively I would acknowledge that they could be useful. However, one must realize that when one makes a comparison between two texts not given in the text itself, one has gone beyond scripture. This introduces a variable into the mix, which is the validity of the comparison. Not only in the case of Calvinism, but in many other erroneous and harmful teachings as well, scriptures are “compared” that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They are about different subjects entirely. Because of Reform Theology’s propensity for “comparing” scripture to scripture, I have included several passages below that Calvinists “compare” to Romans 9 to support their arguments concerning predestination and the exhaustive sovereignty of God. Most of these texts have nothing to do with the subject of Romans 9, as I will demonstrate.

 

Again, the best way to go through the following material is to click on the link below and follow the first link at the bottom of each page.

 

NEXT Section: Predestination