The 9th Roman Calvinist - A Critical Re-examination

The 9th Roman Calvinist: A Critical Re-examination

Calvinism and Predestination | Eternal Security | False Doctrine

Note: Much of the content of this article comes not from myself, but from a very insightful commentary on Romans 9 written by Keith Schooley. I heartily recommend reading his exposition of Romans 9, as well as other responses to Calvinism on Keith's website.

Has any Christian felt the liberation and joy brought by seeing the theory of evolution demolished? The Calvinist doctrine of predestination or unconditional eternal election is similar, causing many to stumble and leaving Christians wondering, "how could a loving God predestine someone to hell?" The writer has struggled personally with this doctrine before seeing it refuted and its proof texts revisited. We are privileged to offer the reader the same liberation from this cruel doctrine, looking at Romans 9:6-24.

Now the Calvinist might be wondering, 'how in the world are you going to get rid of predestination from Romans 9? That is impossible. Is this just a desperate attempt to save your doctrine of free will and conditional security? Romans 9 will destroy your doctrine!' There are two things we believe we can offer in this discussion:
1) Not some ingenious or contrived answer, but an honest, objective, and fairly simple view of verses 6-24 that preserves free will
2) Proof that the Calvinist position -- and not the Arminian view -- actually suffers shipwreck on Romans 9!

Not only is the Calvinist doctrine unbiblical, but it inadvertently maligns God and causes the believer to stumble -- both in his concept and relationship with God. It makes God to be the cause of human evil. It also creates an obstacle for unbelievers coming to Christ, giving rise to skepticism and causing skeptics to blaspheme our God. This is unnecessary and very unfortunate.

We will be arguing against the Calvinist view in support of the Arminian or patristic view. We call our view the patristic view because all the early Christians up to about 400 AD believed in free will and rejected the Calvinist understanding of this passage. The Calvinist view did not appear in the Church until St. Augustine after 400 AD. Thus, the fact that the Arminian view is also the most ancient position of the Church is strong testimony in its favor, while the Calvinist searches in vain for ancient support of his doctrine.

Here are a few principles which we believe are key to studying Romans 9:
1) Envision a first century Jew asking, as James Arminius stated, "Would not the word of God fail, if those of the Jews, who seek righteousness, not of faith, but of the law, are rejected by God?"
2) Old Testament (or OT) references should be examined in light of their original OT contexts
3) Try to see Paul's strong statements herein as referring to God's covenant with Israel, not the salvation of individuals
4) Since chapters 9-11 are intimately connected, chapters 10 and 11 are integral to understanding chapter 9

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
Paul has thus far in his Epistle discussed the principle of righteousness through faith. First, in a general sense with regard to all men, both Jew and Gentile (1:16-3:20); second, with regard to Christ, the object of our faith (3:21-31); third, seeing the principle with Abraham long before Moses (4:1-4:25); fourth, its role illustrated in Adam and Christ (5:1-5:21); with regard to believers (6:1-8:39) and pre-Christ Jews (7:14-25). Now, Paul looks at righteousness through faith with regard to the nation of Israel.

This isn't immediately obvious to us today, but back then the question everybody was asking was, "What about Israel?" Israelites were wondering, "What about God's promises to Israel? We have Abraham as our father! God has always required fleshly descent through Abraham and keeping Moses' Law. How can He change the rules in the middle of the game, and now make it 'through faith for everyone' and break His promise to the Jews?" We get a glimpse of this Jewish attitude in Matthew 3:9-10 -- thinking that God's promises depend on being a descendant of Abraham and keeping Moses' Law -- and Paul writes about how those things were never the point. The point of the Law was never to justify, but rather to act as a tutor and a guide for a disobedient, wandering people, that they would be justified by faith -- just as Abel and Enoch and Noah and were justified apart from circumcision and long before the Law. "Okay I believe in Jesus as the Son of God, but how could He abandon His people the? What about God's promises to Israel?" We should note the urgency of this question, as it threatened to destroy the faith of Jewish believers. As a defense of this justification through faith, Romans 9-11 is central to the theme of the Epistle and of greatest importance. It is no mere 'tangent.'

Missing the point, the Jews were asking Paul, "God can't just abandon Israel, can He? We're children of Abraham. Has the word of God failed? Has He broken His promises?" In verse 6, Paul proceeds to demolish this 'children of Abraham' argument. He says that the word of God has not failed, but is being carried out in the true Israel. In other words, Paul hits them bluntly and says, 'It's never been about fleshly descent. You want to be in the Israel of God? Then do the deeds of Abraham!" (Mt. 3:9, Gal. 6:16, Jn. 8:39)

This explanation of verse 6 seems to fit better with the preceding verses (vs. 1-5) than does the traditional Calvinist view. The Calvinist explanation requires verse 6 to mean 'only the Israelites arbitrarily predestined to salvation are truly Israel,' and thereby waters down verses 1-5. And in verses 1-3, Paul is apparently more merciful than God! How could Paul wish for the salvation of his countrymen, who were predetermined by God to go to hell? Paul would be out of step with the Spirit and insulting God in this!

7 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.
9 For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
"But we're children of Abraham." That didn't mean much, considering only 1 of 318 children of Abraham inherited the covenant. In the same way, Paul says that merely being a natural son of Abraham does not make one a child of promise. Paul makes the brilliant analogy (also in Gal. 4) that those Israelites putting confidence in the flesh have no advantage over the slave children of Hagar who did not inherit the covenant.

Notice that this is perfectly consistent with our patristic view and the passage does not require the Calvinist view. In fact, the patristic view seems to draw out the depth of Paul's words. This divine choice did not mean that Isaac goes to heaven and Ishmael goes to hell, for we read that God heard the boy crying, and he told Hagar to fear not, and that He would make Ishmael into a great nation too. (Gen. 21:16-20) We read that God was with the boy as he grew up. So we see that God's choice of Isaac was not one of election or damnation, with Isaac being saved and all the other children being sent to hell. Although God chose Isaac with reference to the covenant nation of Israel, we see that God still showed love and mercy toward the other children.

10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac--
11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
But the Jew says, "We're not slave children, we are legitimate children of Abraham." Therefore, Paul brings forth an even stronger argument, 'So was Esau.' Here we have another restriction on the covenant with Abraham, and Esau and his posterity are excluded. This time, both children were born of Rebecca -- Isaac's true wife. This point stops the tongues of Paul's objectors.

"The purpose of God according to election" means that not all of Abraham's descendants were to share in his covenant, but a choice is made between the child of promise and children of the flesh. God chose to continue the covenant of Abraham through Jacob rather than Esau. We heartily agree that this was a divine act, "not of works, but of him that calleth." We agree with the Calvinist that this is a type of unconditional election, but not of the salvation/damnation sort. Paul cannot possibly mean that Jacob and Esau are personally, eternally predestined, for the original passage refers not to individuals, but rather to the nations they represent

And Jehovah said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, And two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels. And the one people shall be stronger than the other people. And the elder shall serve the younger. (Genesis 25:23)

In this passage, Jacob and Esau are "nations" and "peoples" (the Israelites and Edomites). If, then, this passage is referring to the respective nations of Jacob and Esau, we see that Paul does not have eternal destiny in mind, but rather a choice of God to continue his national covenant with Israel through Jacob. Calvinists believe this passage is saying that God decided to bring Jacob personally to salvation. We believe, however, that Paul is saying God chose to channel the covenant through Isaac and his posterity -- a position that is much more consistent with the immediate context and with the original OT context. Although God sovereignly chose how His nation would be built, each brother was left to freely decide whether he would be saved, just like Ishmael.

13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
The Calvinist who tries to argue for predestination has a few problems. (1) As Coffman writes, this condemnation "was not written of Isaac's sons before they were born, but centuries afterward, this being a quotation, not from Genesis, but from Malachi 1:2-4." (2) That passage in Malachi is definitely referring to the respective nations of Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom). Thus, both OT passages quoted (in vs. 12,13) refer to nations, not individuals. (3) A quick reading of Malachi gives a very different perspective. Far from being soothing words of unconditional salvation for the Israelites, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is a stern pronouncement of guilt, that despite God's blessings, Israel has turned and rejected Him. This statement does not free them from condemnation -- it increases their condemnation! Malachi goes on to tell the Israelites that they need to repent. By no means is Malachi saying that all the Israelites are saved. In the same book God says both "Jacob I loved" (1:2) and "I have no pleasure in you." (1:10) And please do not say, 'Yes the original OT context is national, but Paul uses it as...' The importance of context in this passage, dealing primarily with the nation of Israel, cannot be ignored. And Paul was addressing Jews primarily, whose knowledge of scripture was such that contextual matters lost on us would not be lost on them.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
This verse serves as a valuable barometer to our discussion. Does the Calvinist view work here? Does the patristic view work? Paul's fictitious Jewish heckler is offended at something Paul says in verses 6-13. Let us assume that the Calvinist view is correct -- that is, that this passage has actually been referring to predestination of individual people. But what Jew would think it unrighteous of God to elect Isaac to salvation rather than Ishmael? Or what Jew would find it unrighteous of God to elect Jacob to salvation rather than Esau? No Jew in the first century would consider that unrighteous of God, given their mindset as God's chosen people! Consider, for example, Acts 21:28: "Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."

Then what did trigger this objection from the Jew? The only possibly reason was Paul's distinction of true Israel and illegitimate Israel (v. 6) and implicitly placing them in the latter category with Ishmael and Esau! This is what the Jew finds so objectionable. 'But we keep circumcision and the Law of Moses, He can't reject us!' Even if God had acted according to Calvinism, no Jew would consider God's personal eternal election of their forefathers--to the exclusion of other nations--unrighteous.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
Schooley has explained this passage very well. Many Calvinists have come to see verse 15 referring to Pharaoh in its implied negation -- God's refusal to grant mercy or compassion -- instead of its positive affirmation of God's mercy. However, it was originally addressed to Moses in Exodus 33:19 in the positive case, and Paul applies it to Moses in the same way.

"But I obey the Law of Moses." Paul had told them that God did not owe them salvation for being natural descendants of Abraham. He showed that it was "not of works, but of him that calleth" and illustrates this fact with Moses. Turning to Exodus we read:

And he said, Show me, I pray thee, thy glory.
And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of Jehovah before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Exodus 33:18-19)

Paul's point in verses 15-16 is, if Moses couldn't boast before God in being a natural descendant of Abraham or by his adherence to the Law, how much less could the Jews of Paul's day? God owed them no such thing, even Moses was justified only by God's grace. Furthermore, God decides on whom He will have mercy, namely, those who have faith in Christ. Although it is true that "faith" is never explicitly used in 9:6-24, yet based on Paul's conclusion (vs. 30-32) and its emphasis in the surrounding context, it is safe to assume that Paul never got away from his central idea of justification through faith.

But verse 16 can be taken too far to mean that "nothing" in Moses was considered by God in granting the request. Certainly Moses had to make the request in order for it to be granted, but neither did that "earn" him the right to see God's glory. We find it absurd that many Calvinists have misused this verse to minimize the saving role of faith, viewing it as merely symbolic rather than effective for salvation. Paul's point is this: not even Moses could claim the blessing as a wage earned.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Is this really saying that God created Pharaoh just to destroy him? Let us look at the OT passage, which the NASB renders accurately:

"For if by now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth.
"But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth. (Exodus 9:15-16)

"Raise you up" here literally means "spare you" or "allow you to remain," as in the NASB. So God is not saying that He created Pharaoh just to hit him with plagues and destroy him and send him to hell, thereby manifesting His glory. Rather, God is saying that He will manifest His glory by keeping Pharaoh around longer, although He could have destroyed him a long time ago. Is that not what Exodus 9:15-16 tells us? Yes, this is what God did! Although God had His way with him, Pharaoh had only himself to blame for his own destruction. Therefore, Paul can say "He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth." If God wants to have mercy on believing Gentiles and harden unbelieving Jews, God has the right to do that. No Calvinism required.

God Hardened Pharaoh's Heart
Since many are vexed by statements in Exodus that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart," we would like to devote an entire section to this issue. The reader would do well to pull out a piece of note paper, search Exodus 4-14, and designate five columns for verses which indicate: (1) God prophesying that He will harden Pharaoh's heart, (2) passively that Pharaoh's heart "was hardened," (3) Pharaoh's heart described as "it was hard," (4) Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and (5) that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. The writer has performed this analysis from Exodus 4-14 and found the following:

(1) Prophetic	(2) Passive	(3) Descriptive	(4) Pharaoh hardened	(5) God hardened Pharaoh
4:21, 7:3, 14:4, 17	7:13, 22, 8:19	7:14, 9:35	8:15, 32, 9:7, 34, 13:15	9:12, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:8

What is interesting, as one reads those early chapters in Exodus, is that the verses in (4) are generally earlier than those in (5). This could be explained by saying that Pharaoh hardened his own heart early in the game, and then God "gave him over" (Rom. 1:28) later on. This is perfectly compatible with free will.

There is another way to show that free will was preserved in Pharaoh's case. Exodus 9:34 says that Pharaoh sinned and hardened his own heart, but two verses later (10:1) God tells Moses that He has hardened Pharaoh's heart. Which is it? Does scripture contradict? The answer is that God sends plagues and Pharaoh responds by getting angry and hardening his heart. From two frames of reference, it can be truly said that (1) Pharaoh hardens his own heart, or (2) God hardens Pharaoh in the sense of providing Pharaoh an occasion to become angry. But God's action does not free Pharaoh from personal responsibility. Pharaoh could no more blame God for hardening his heart than a person can blame the weather for his or her bad mood.

Most peculiar of all, the Calvinist, who argues for predestination, is doing nothing more than the Gnostics were 1800 years ago! He is going against the unanimous view of the primitive Church and agreeing with the heretics. At least three early Christians -- Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen -- wrote that the Gnostics were misinterpreting this passage in Romans to mean arbitrary predestination. Origen masterfully defends free will, writing around the year 225 AD:

Let us consider how the good and just God could harden the heart of Pharaoh., ... If the sun, uttering a voice, were to say, "I liquefy and dry up," liquefaction and drying up being opposite things, he would not speak falsely as regards the point in question; wax being melted and mud being dried by the same heat; so the same operation, which was performed through the instrumentality of Moses, proved the hardness of Pharaoh on the one hand, the result of his wickedness, and the yielding of the mixed Egyptian multitude who took their departure with the Hebrews. (Origen, First Things, bk. 3, chap. 1)

Thus the statement, "God hardened Pharaoh's heart," does not mean that Pharaoh didn't harden himself -- he certainly did. We've also seen that when God tells Pharaoh "for this reason I've raised you up," a more accurate meaning is given by "for this reason I've spared you," (i.e., "I could have destroyed you a long time ago because of your wickedness"). Free will is preserved.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Another theological barometer. Although many see this as one of the strongest verses in Romans 9 supporting Calvinism, it actually militates against the Calvinist view. No Jew would have a problem if God were to arbitrarily harden Pharaoh and violate the whole world's free will for the sake of their nation Israel (e.g., Acts 21:28). The problem, then, is that the Jew understands Paul's subtle implication that God has chosen to harden the illegitimate branches -- them -- as He did Pharaoh. Paul had just made the point that God does not owe anybody (i.e., Israel) salvation for natural descent or keeping the Law and He has the right to save a believing Gentile rather than an overconfident Jew. God has set the boundaries where He desired, and they are most unpleasant boundaries for the mere ethnic Jew.

In fact, the Jew is quite upset that Paul has just compared them to Pharaoh. This verse seems to be an emotionally charged objection from the Jew, (1) upset that God determines the rules in who gets mercy (believing Gentiles) and who gets hardened (unbelieving Israel) and (2) either complaining that faith should not be necessary or that he had no idea faith was required. In other words, the Jew isn't upset that God has arbitrarily predestined them to go to hell (God hasn't). Rather, the Jew is upset that God has seemingly changed the rules and decided to require faith, without consulting them about it. "How dare God do that!"

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
Unlearned men have ignored context and thereby assumed Paul to support Calvinism (2 Pet. 3:15-16), which he does not.

13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men. 14 Therefore behold I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will hide the understanding of the prudent. 15 Woe to them that deepen their counsel, and not by the Lord. Woe to them that take secret counsel, and whose works are in darkness, and they say, Who has seen us? and who shall know us, or what we do? 16 Shall ye not be counted as clay of the potter? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Thou didst not form me? or the work to the maker, Thou hast not made me wisely? (Isa. 45:13-16, LXX)

Just like Paul's model Jew in Romans 9, the Jew quoted in Isaiah blames God for making him poorly (v. 16). Yet the point here is not that the predestined reprobate is correct, but that he is irreverently complaining to God when he needs to repent and take responsibility! From Isaiah we learn that (1) God hates their hypocritical worship, and (2) they are talking back to God, foolishly complaining that they are poorly made when they really need to surrender as clay in the hands of a potter, asking to be remolded. If they ever had a legitimate complaint with their Manufacturer (v. 16), God couldn't have expected pleasing worship from them (v. 13). Later in this passage, it is clearly implied that God will, in fact, remold them.

If Calvinism were true, the clay would have no hope of being changed. Take, for example, Jeremiah 18:6:

O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith Jehovah. Behold, as the clay in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.

At first glance, this might appear like unconditional eternal election. But quite the opposite, as God continues in verses 7-10:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)

'If you repent.' The point of the metaphor is not that the potter arbitrarily predestines his works of clay, but that the potter is powerful and sovereign to remold the clay. Many Calvinists say that God's sovereignty requires predestination, but actually it is more sovereign for the potter to allow his clay free will and to be able to remold it. In fact, we challenge the Calvinist to find a potter-clay passage in the OT in which the clay does not have a choice in its future. In every passage in which people are described as clay in the hands of a potter (Isa. 29, 45, 64, Jer. 18), we find the clay offered a new hope. So instead of affirming predestination, Paul is using this potter-clay illustration to tell the Israelites to quit murmuring (9:19-20) and submit to the potter -- come to faith in Christ (9:30-11:24). Paul's heckler does not feel like faith in Christ should be necessary. But as John Wesley writes, this foolish complaint amounts to nothing more than "why hast thou made me capable of honour and immortality, only by believing?"

21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Verse 21 is very similar to what Paul has said up to this point about the Jews' impiety to deny God's right to show mercy to believing Gentiles. The vessels unto dishonor are unsaved -- but not hopelessly so (10:1, 11:7-24). Rather, we know that a vessel of dishonor can become a vessel of honor, as Paul goes on to say in 2 Timothy 2:20-21. To say that vessels and clays are unchangeable and nonrenewable entities is to force a meaning on them which is contrary to that given in the Old Testament and in 2 Timothy.

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
We acknowledge that the phrases "vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction," and "afore prepared unto glory," could support the Calvinist view -- but they are not required to. This passage affirms not only that the Jews are now "vessels unto dishonour," but also that God has reason for keeping them around and dealing with them. For one thing, His patience or longsuffering should have led them to repentance a long time ago (2:4), but they wouldn't have it.

But there is something profound in verse 23. God tells us that He has 'kept the Jews around' longer, even though they deserved His wrath a long time ago, in order to "make known the riches of His glory." So far this sounds a lot like what God told Pharaoh in Exodus 9:16. Indeed, this is a marvelous parallel! Just as God could have destroyed Pharaoh a long time ago because of his sin but chose to prolong him, He also decided to endure patiently with the rebellious Jews. God hardened Pharaoh (who also hardened himself), and used Pharaoh to show His power and lead the Jews out of captivity (Rom. 9:17). In the same way, God hardened the Israelites of Jesus' day to make possible the crucifixion and for the Gospel to be taken to the Gentiles, bringing salvation to all.

Not only is this a feasible alternative to the Calvinist view, but it also seems to the writer to give verses 22-23 greater meaning. Paul said that what God did in verse 22 was required for the blessings of verses 23-26. We can marvel along with Paul, "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!" (11:33) But the Calvinist view of verse 22 lacks any basis for the blessings of others (v. 23) and the salvation of Gentiles (vs. 24-26). Why would God's hardening of the Jews provide salvation for Gentiles, unless we see the former group as crucifying our Lord Jesus?

How Romans 9-11 Militates Against Calvinism
1) There is a glaring problem in the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. After his stern words in vs. 6-29, Paul poses a review question, 'What shall we say then? Why have Gentiles received salvation but not Israelites?' (v. 30-32) The Calvinist expects Paul to attribute this phenomenon to predestination, and he raises his voice, 'Paul, the answer to your question is that God predestined the Jews to hell and arbitrarily picked the Gentiles to receive the kingdom!' But far from attributing their failure to predestination, Paul ascribes it to pursuing righteousness by works of the Law instead of faith. This divergence between Paul and the Calvinist is notable, like two ships in a fleet arriving at different ports.

2) Indeed, in the following chapter (10), Paul discusses the wrong course taken by the Jews and the necessity of faith -- yet without ever mentioning predestination! How could Paul, in these 21 verses, fail to mention predestination if that were part of Israel's problem?

3) If these Israelites were predestined for hell, why does Paul still labor and pray for their salvation (10:1)? If God doesn't care to save them, why should Paul? Is Paul more merciful than God? If Calvinism is true, Paul needs to stop insulting God with foolish prayers.

4) If God has predestined these reprobate Israelites to hell, why does He complain that they are stubborn and faithless (10:21), since God made them that way? Shouldn't God be pleased with them for submitting to His will for their annihilation? We must conclude that God is either dishonest, sadistic, or stupid.

5) In 11:7-10, Paul again uses language that could seem Calvinistic. Why, then, does Paul describe the "hardened" and "blinded" Jews as being down but not out and hold out hope that they will yet be saved (11:11-14)? Paul's words here militate against Calvinism.

6) If the Calvinistic view of chapter 9 is correct -- that men have no choice as to their salvation -- why does Paul assert that the lost are not without hope of salvation, nor the saved without danger of future damnation (11:17-24)?

7) Earlier in 9:2-3, why does Paul foolishly pray for the salvation of those whom God does not wish to save?

8) The Calvinist view of OT references in verses 12, 13, 15, 17, and 20-21 is contrary to the sense in which they were originally used. Why should a correct understanding of Romans 9 require an out-of-context understanding of these OT passages?

9) If Calvinism were true, no Jew would complain in verse 14 about arbitrary reprobation of Ishmael and Esau. The Jew in his self-regard would see this action justified because it benefited Israel. Then we ask, what is the cause of this objection?

10) Again in verse 19, no Jew would blame God for predestinating the whole world to damnation for Israel's sake. If Paul is putting forth Calvinism, then what is the Jew so upset about?

11) The Calvinist view forces a meaning upon "clay" and "vessels" which is entirely foreign and contrary to scripture. Should we be expected to believe that Paul here describes unalterable entities, despite OT passages (Isa. 29, 45, 64, Jer. 18) and Paul's own words (2 Tim. 2:20-21) to the contrary?

12) Paul tells us that God's "enduring with patience" of one group in verse 22 is actually instrumental to the salvation of another group (vs. 23-36). Under Calvinism, how does predestining one group to hell provide salvation for Gentiles? God need not damn one soul to send another to heaven! But John Calvin disagreed, writing that 'extending the saving mercy of God to all, without difference, lessens the glory of that mercy.' Apparently we should fear lest the grace of God be 'diluted' if heaven overbooks, as if grace were not an infinite quality, but rather a limited asset of God! A blasphemous notion! We know that God's store of grace is unlimited and His desire is to "show mercy to all." (11:32)

Summary
Even those whom God has "hardened" could still be saved (11:7-14, 23-26) and those who have once been saved could ultimately be lost (11:17-22). The latter truth is noteworthy because many Calvinists view predestination as a means to an end: eternal security. Of the five kindred Calvinist doctrines, four are mere stepping stones to the fifth: the prized doctrine of eternal security. But an honest study of Romans 9-11 forbids both of these doctrines. Romans 9 does not destroy free will. Instead, Romans 9 reveals major discrepancies between Paul's thinking and the Calvinistic view. This is significant because Romans 9 is generally considered the 'secret weapon' or greatest proof text of Calvinism. But if this passage refutes Calvinism, how much more will "the free will passages" refute Calvinism? We agree with the Calvinist that Romans 9 affirms the sovereignty of God, but we also see the free moral agency of man asserted categorically -- not only in other scriptures, but also in Romans 9-11. Both truths are biblical, and both truths are compatible. God's sovereignty does not preclude free will, nor does it write off anyone from salvation. God desires that none would perish, but that all would be saved. Therefore, as scripture says, "let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22:17)

Calvinism and Predestination | Eternal Security | False Doctrine

The 9th Roman Calvinist: A Critical Re-examination

Note: Much of the content of this article comes not from myself, but from a very insightful commentary on Romans 9 written by Keith Schooley. I heartily recommend reading his exposition of Romans 9, as well as other responses to Calvinism on Keith's website.

Recommended Reading on Romans 9: