Confronting Calvinism's Romans 9 - Part 2 - Proof Text Exposed

Calvinists revere and hold to Romans 9 as their greatest proof text in all of the Bible.  If you get into a discussion with a Calvinist they will usually start their support of Calvinism with Romans 9.  By their own admission Romans 9 is the best that they have.  For me the idea that Romans 9 proves Calvinism is laugh-out-loud delusional because its message has nothing at all to do with personal salvation or redemption let alone being proof of unconditional election.  This is Part 2 of this series on Romans 9 and in this article I will expose the passage of Romans 9 that Calvinism claims is proof of their doctrine of unconditional election.

Let's get into these specific scriptures that are used by Calvinism to try to prove their points regarding unconditional election.  Note that Calvinists use surgical exegesis to simply cut out verses 9 through 23 and ignore the full context of Romans 9 which establishes that Paul's agenda is Israel from start to finish.  We start at verse 9 of Romans 9:

9 For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, 12 she was told, “The elder will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Jacob and Esau
In verse 9 Paul continues the discussion about Israel and this includes a reference to Rebecca and the two children that were in her womb.  Paul mentions that God chose Jacob over Esau and Calvinists love this statement but there are problems with their conclusion.  This passage is not about personal salvation in any way, shape or form as Calvinism attemps to construe it to mean.  Paul's statement is clearly about the lineage of Israel.  Paul's statement is about God's choosing of Jacob to continue the line of Israel and not Esau. This is proof of God's election for his purposes but is not proof of unconditional election leading to salvation.  Drawing this conclusion from this passage is very poor exegesis.

Some Calvinists go so far as to say that verse 13 indicates that God hates the people whom he does not choose for election but this too is bogus.  God simply uses hyperbolic language to show that he chose Jacob to be a founding father in Israel's line and not Esau.  Using the comparison of God loving Jacob while hating Esau is only Paul's demonstration as to how God had preference for Jacob as the continuing seed for Abraham's line leading to the birth of Jesus.  Where is there anything that says this passage is about salvation?  There is nothing!  This passage is about election as to the messianic line and is not about election unto salvation.

Consider the use of "hate" too in this passage.  When Jesus used the word "hate" to describe how we should love God more than our family (Luke 14:26), Jesus did not mean that we should actually hate our own family since Jesus even told us to love our enemies.  God "hating" Esau is only about God favoring Isaac, not Esau to continue the seed of his father, Isaac.

What Paul is really getting to here is found in Genesis 23.  Read the account and note what occurred:

20 And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.

21 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord.

23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two   manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.

26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

So by Paul's intention he connects Romans 9 to Genesis 25 and Paul and the key verse that explains everything is verse 23.  In the passage, Rebekah comes to God in confusion about the war going on in her womb and God tells her that there are two nations in her womb.  We know that the seed of Jacob becomes the nation of Israel. Even Jacob's name is eventually changed to Israel.  Esau becomes the nation of Edom and scripture records the rancorous history that takes place for many years between the nations of Israel and Edom.

Romans 9 is about Israel and the promises God gave to it.  Calvinists never share Genesis 25 and the verses that I shared above.  Why?  Because this totally proves that Romans 9 is about Israel and Romans 9:13 is strictly about God choosing Jacob to become Israel.  There is nothing here about unconditional election.

So Romans 9 continues with Calvinism's desperate stretch to make Romans 9 their best proof text:

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Moses
In verse 14 Paul asks if God was at fault by choosing Jacob over Esau?  The answer of course is "no". In verse 15 Paul reminds the Romans that God had spoken to Moses and told him that he alone was the arbiter of mercy.  Paul quotes from Exodus 33:19 and the passage is specifically about God choosing by his mercy to show himself to Moses.  How does God showing himself to Moses have anything to do with Calvinist unconditional election? There is nothing here about personal salvation. .

God showed his mercy to Moses by showing him his glory. Where is the unconditional election here?  There is none.  God shows his mercy to Moses because Moses was faithful and God chooses to bless him by allowing him to see his glory.  What does this passage have to do with the salvation of anyone?

Verse 16 then is a continuation about God giving certain men special gifts and this is how he shows his mercy.

So far it is abundantly clear. Romans 9 proves nothing regarding unconditional election. 

There is still more scripture from Romans 9 that Calvinists use too:

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I

raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Pharoah
Okay, what about Pharoah?  Doesn't God hardening Pharoah's heart show that God hardens some people's hearts from the beginning so they cannot be saved?  No, this is sheer fantasy.  This passage about Pharoah is not about salvation either.  Pharoah was a leader that God rose up so that Israel would go free and has nothing to do with personal salvation.  Calvinists show negligence by failing to inform

folks when teaching Romans 9 that Pharoah had already hardened his own heart before God hardened his heart. God does harden people for his purposes at times and that is all that this is about. God does elect some to be used for his purposes over others but this does not include salvation.  Verse 20 declares that we cannot complain against God if we are not chosen for special purposes. God will raise up for special purposes those whom he will raise up.
We are not all raised up to be put into some great position and some who rebel against God may get used by God to further his purposes too. Either way, no one can complain against God and that is all this passage is stating.  Pharoah who was in rebellion to God was raised up and used by God for his purposes.  What does God's dealings with Pharoah prove about unconditional election? NOTHING!

Verse 21 has been quoted by Calvinists as proof God makes some for destruction and others for honor and proclaiming this is proof of unconditional election. However, this is not what the scripture says at all.  The verse is speaking to the honor and dishonor of people in terms of the distributions of callings and giftings and not about salvation. Honor and dishonor has to do with special considerations.  This is exactly the point that Paul makes in Romans 9.  Moses and Jacob were chosen to receive special honor and Esau was not.   Dishonor does not mean that God makes some people to be reprobate.  That is a huge stretch.  Honor has to do with receiving something special and dishonor is simply not receiving that special gift.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record: This too is not about salvation!

Verse 22 is about God showing longsuffering even to those who were folks who deserved destruction.  God is patient and longsuffering.  He let Cain live and marked him so that he would not be killed.  He let Ishmael and his mother live and protected them and their seed became many nations.  God let Esau live a prosperous life even after he chose a meal over his birthright.  Verse 22 is about God's patience with those who deserve punishment.

Verse 23 speaks of those whom God does choose to experience more of God's glory. This included Moses who was able to see God as God "made known the riches of his glory" to him.  This includes Jacob who went on to become Israel.  This speaks of all those whom God has chosen to receive a special knowledge of God's glory.  It has nothing to do with personal redemption and certainly proves nothing about the doctrines of Calvinism.

In conclusion my friends, all of Romans 9 is about Israel and how God rose up a people to advance his purposes as it applies to that chosen nation.   It tells us that God elevates some to positions to advance his purposes and that he shows his glory to whomever he pleases.  This passage is not about personal salvation or redemption.

If Romans 9 is Calvinism's best as most Calvinists admit, it can easily be concluded that the doctrine of unconditional election and all of Calvinism has been improperly exegeted. Romans 9 has as much to with unconditional election as Disneyland has to do with living in California.  The truth is that God has not predestined some to salvation and some to damnation without any responsibility on their part.

God is glorious and marvelous and all his ways are often hard for mere men to comprehend.  But he has given us his scripture and it proves he is loving, kind, merciful, patient and longsuffering.

Glory to God!

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin.)