Calvinism and Romans 9

As you may or not have noticed . . . I haven’t blogged for awhile. I’ll not bore you with all the details behind this but a lot has been happening that has kept me busy on other projects.

What prompted to post now is a letter I received from Don Ross. Don and his wife, Betty, have been friends of our family since long before I was born. They were in seminary with my parents, Eldwyn and Alice June, in the 1940’s. Furthermore, the Rosses and my parents worked together in Brazil as missionaries for seven years (1959-1966). The Rosses, who arrived in Brazil before my folks, served in that country for over 30 years. The Lord eventually moved my parents on to Paraguay and then Chile.

Don e-mailed me some comments regarding the Calvinism issue which was on this blog back in April. I’m reproducing his comments verbatim below:

DOES ROMANS CHAPTER NINE REALLY SAY WHAT SOME THINK IT SAYS?

I never cease to be amazed at the way this chapter is used by my Calvinist brothers to establish their concept of God’s sovereignty in saving some and leaving others (or, as some say, appointing others) to eternal destruction. The problem seems to lie mostly in an interpretation of Rom. 9:21-23.

Two distinct purposes of God are indicated here in God’s strategy toward Pharoah (and now toward unbelieving Israelites, for this is the real issue of Rom. chaps. 9 through 11). Paul begins with the expression "What if…?" Paul uses the "Rabbinic" (or Semitic) method of argumentation against his opponents (unbelieving Jews) something akin to this: "What if (God did this or that), then what would you have to say to that?" Well, let us look at his premise: "God used tremendous patience and restraint in ‘enduring’ (tolerating) certain ‘vessels of wrath, fitted (prepared..not "appointed") for destruction…" The argument has been made that these vessels had been totally abandoned by God to a destination of hell-fire with no chance of recovery. If this were the meaning, we must ignore Paul’s argument in Rom. 2:3-5 (same objectors in mind, that is, Jews who pooh-poohed the idea that God, who had once chosen Israel, could now be rejecting hardened Jewish rejectors of salvation through Jesus, the Christ…They were the first Augustinian unconditional electionists!). He points out that they condemned themselves for the following reasons: "Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know¹¹ that God's kindness leads you to repentance? ⁵ But because of your stubbornness¹² and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment is revealed!" NIV This clearly shows by what means these unrepentant Jews became "vessels of wrath", that is how they were "prepared for destruction". Note it does not say "who were BEFORE fitted out for destruction" as the verb "before prepared for glory" which is said of the "vessels of mercy". The truth is, if you go to hell, you personally choose freely to do so! And it is not merely for "being a depraved sinner" (though certainly that’s what the unbeliever is), but because of refusing to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. "He that believeth not is condemned already, BECAUSE he has NOT believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God". If language means anything, this verse says that a person is condemned to hell BECAUSE of his choice not to believe. The same is affirmed in II Thess. 2:10b and 12: "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. …and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in (chosen) wickedness." NIV emphasis mine. (Note in following verses the contrast between these condemned and those whom God had chosen "through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth!" v. 13)) Which is all to say that God was sparing such "vessels of wrath" through His patience (according to Rom. 2 which is discussing the same problem of Jewish unbelief) in order to give them time for repentance (cf. with II Pet.3:9 which states the purpose of God’s "longsuffering" toward the wicked).

Another overlooked factor is that the Rom. 9 passage about God being the potter and the Israelites (Paul’s target audience) being the clay is based on Jer. 18:1-17. New Testament writers like Paul expected their Jewish hearers to connect any brief (or otherwise) quote from the O. T. to the CONTEXT of that passage. In this case, Paul’s argument in Rom. 9 becomes clear: Jeremiah was sent down to the "potter’s house" to learn an important lesson about God’s manner of dealing with Israel or "any nation". The potter is shaping the clay on his wheel into a certain vessel, but it is "marred (spoiled, ruined) in his hand". He then uses the SAME clay to form another kind of vessel. God asks the question of Israel through the pen of Jeremiah: "Don’t I have the same (sovereign) right to do the same thing with you, Israel, as the potter does with his clay?" He goes on to affirm that the principle is also true in his treatment of any other nation. If he has promised to bless that people, but they turn their backs on Him and say "we will do as we please and follow our own ways" God has the right to renege on the blessing and instead bring on them a calamity. The argument here is the same as Paul’s in Rom. 9: either way, whether they repent or rebel, God will get glory! And woe be unto the arrogant rebel who questions God’s right to do so!

As others have expressed, I have a good many great friends in the ministry who are either "moderate" or "hyper" Calvinists, and I do not hesitate to fellowship them because of their position. This is no "personal vendetta", but rather a brief statement to add to the discussion!

Don Ross
Hurst, TX
2007