Why I am Not a Calvinist Part 6 - Romans 9

At some point in my views of Calvinism I have to deal with difficult passages of scripture. And the most difficult is Romans 9. So here goes nothing...

I was always told as a young college student that a text without a context is a pretext. I had no idea what that meant, but it made "context" a part of my vocabulary. So while I often struggled with the implications of the words in Romans 9:10-18...

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Clearly this is good support for a predestinarian view. And I admit it was troubling. But, at least to my own satisfaction, context helped me through it.



The entire context of the book of Romans contrasts the attempt to obtain salvation through a system of external forms with that of understanding and believing God’s promise. As such, Paul in Romans 9-11 is speaking of the attitude of his Jewish brothers, who believed that strict outward adherence to Jewish law would save them, with that of Abraham and the Gentile heirs of Abraham’s promise, those who recognized their own righteousness was insufficient but trusted God’s promise. This is the first clue - that the issue is works vs faith, not grace vs. free will.

The second is the order of words between foreknowledge and election. Calvinists typically insist God can only foreknow what he has decreed, so as a result, God has predestined some for salvation. His foreknowledge of who will be saved is based on his eternal plan. But Romans 8:29 clearly says that predestination comes after foreknowledge, not before.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
To invert the word order here, it would seem to me does violence to scripture. That was the second clue.

Continuing through the passage, Romans 9:30-32 summarizes the main point Paul is making, that salvation is by faith, not by works.

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.”

Note the word pursued used three times in this short passage. The strict predestinarian must reinterpret this to mean that they pursued what God decreed they would pursue, and only by the grace and decree of God, hence the word pursue becomes essentially irrelevant (humanly speaking) because it is a deterministic concept. But the point is that the issue Paul is addressing is justification by Jewish Law vs. justification by faith apart from works. Predestination is incidental to the point.

A third clue, by the way, is that Romans 10:11,12 seems to contradict limited atonement, indicating that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

A fourth clue, is that salvation seems to be spoken of as a universal offer which only some accept:

“As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

Once again, the strict predestinarian cannot deal honestly with the word “all”. He must re-interpret the word to mean some, those God specifically elected.

There is more. The very people Paul speaks of as NOT being elect, are said to have opportunity to turn and believe, likewise, the elect can be “cut off” if they persist in unbelief. Hardly seems consistent with an irresistible decree. Romans 11:11 says:

“Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!”

And verses 22 and 23 make the case further that those who now are believers who have been grafted into the tree of salvation can be broken off because of unbelief.

“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.” 

At face value, this hardly supports an absolute view of "perseverance of the saints".

It is certainly possible that Calvin and his followers have in good faith “drawn out” of scripture certain ideas that have a degree of validity, but it is often a temptation to take a system of theology carefully crafted and impose it back onto scripture where apparent contradictions to the system cannot be resolved. Far too many passages in scripture, including passages immediately surrounding Romans 9, speak clearly of human choice - free will - and seem to deny absolute predestination. When Romans is seen as a contrast between Jews who had the law, and Gentiles who did not, Paul's point seems to be that Gentiles can depend on God's mercy and Jews must do the same.

Which does not mean, as Paul clearly lays out, that humans earn their salvation. It is a gift. It is based on God's mercy, not on our will or our running. All we can do is bow the knee or not. The rest is up to God's mercy and grace.

So though I have friends who are committed Calvinists, and I respect their commitment to following where scripture leads, I find myself on the other side of this issue. Hebrews 6 played a role in my understanding as well...to which I well turn shortly.