Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity
A Critique of Reformed Theology
Romans 9 - What Shall We Say Then?
This rhetorical question (Rom 9:30) is indicative that Paul is going to give his conclusion from all the arguments he has previously made. If Reform Theology’s interpretation of Romans 9 is correct, we would expect him to say something like, “God has monergistically predetermined to save the Gentiles according to His own will, and He has monergistically predetermined to harden Israel according to His own will.” Is this Paul’s conclusion? No it, isn’t. The conclusion Paul himself gives concerning his own argumentation is, “That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.”
Do we see anything that even remotely hints at monergistic predestination? No, we don’t. What we see are explicit statements in the active voice, indicating that the actions (believing or disbelieving) are initiated by, are coming from, the subjects (Jews and Gentiles). Reform Theology’s position disagrees with Paul’s OWN CONCLUSION!
The discrepancy between Reform Theology’s understanding of what Paul is saying and Paul’s OWN CONCLUSION should give anyone who buys into Reform Theology’s interpretation pause. Serious pause. Because it is indicative that Reform Theology has SERIOUSLY misinterpreted this whole passage.
WHAT IS PAUL SAYING?
Now I must define the argument that Paul is making in a positive manner. After all, it’s easier to attack an opponent’s position than it is to present and defend one’s own. And what is that argument? What do I think Paul is saying? Calvinists say that Paul is saying that man has no part in the matter - it’s all God – God monergistically hardens whom He will and He has mercy on whom He will, and that this is done by His sovereign choice from eternity past and that nothing that man can do has any effect on the choice that God has made. Calvinists constantly appeal to Jacob and Esau as an illustration of God’s predetermined salvation and reprobation of individuals. So I have a question – if this is indeed what Paul is saying, why does he refer to OT scriptures that are EXPLICITLY SPEAKING OF NATIONS, (Gen 25:23, Mal 1) not individuals, and are EXPLICITLY CONDITIONAL, (Jer 18, Exodus 33) not predeterminative?
To succinctly review: I have established that Paul is speaking of nations, not individuals. I have done this based on the scriptures he “compares” as well as the immediate context of Romans 9. I have established that “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated” was NOT a distinction that was made before the twins were born, but was the result of actions taken by Edom against Israel centuries after Jacob and Esau were born, lived, and died. I have suggested that Pharaoh’s hardening was the result of his arrogance. It says that God PROVOKED Pharaoh. This implies volition on Pharaoh’s part. I have also suggested that Paul is using Pharaoh to speak of the nation of Egypt in the same way that He’s using Jacob and Esau to speak of Israel and Edom.
I have pointed out that the potter and the clay analogy from Jeremiah 18/Isaiah 29/Isaiah 45 is God dealing with Israel on a conditional basis. Jeremiah/Isaiah is saying that Israel is spoiled in God’s hand even as the vessel was spoiled in the hand of the potter. Jeremiah/Isaiah is clear that Israel was not spoiled by the will of the Potter but because of disobedience, and so the Potter remakes Israel as it seems good to Him. That is Paul’s answer to the question, “Why does He still find fault?” The answer is, “Because they disobeyed.”
All the above reasoning goes AGAINST the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9, and is completely contradictory to it. How do Calvinists reconcile Jeremiah 18 with what they THINK Romans 9 is saying? Concerning the idea that Paul is speaking of Jacob and Esau as individuals, how do Calvinists reconcile the fact that BOTH scriptures Paul quotes concerning Jacob and Esau are EXPLICITLY talking about descendant nations, not individuals?
Simplistically speaking, they don’t. Reform Theology, in so many words, holds that the OT contexts are irrelevant and that Paul’s infallible application or use of them is what we are to go with. They take the position that Paul is saying what they think he’s saying (begging the question) IN SPITE OF the OT scriptures he refers to that indicate otherwise.