Christians of the Reformed realm see Romans 9 as a crystal-clear passage on the topic of Election. How can it be avoided? Of course, those who disagree with the doctrine of Election manage to do just that. "You see," they assure us, "the passage is about Election, sure, but it's about group election, not individual election. It's about God ordaining that there will be a Church, not that individuals will be saved."
I have difficulty with that. I have difficulty because the references to people in the passage are references to individuals, not a groups. I have difficulty because it seems like you have to really stretch to get "group" rather than "individual". But the biggest reason I have difficulty with that idea is the objections.
In the passage, Paul tackles the two standard objections to the Doctrine of Election. You can find them in verses 14 and 19. What I'm looking at here is not so much the argument, but the objections. Let's assume for a moment that the passage is indeed about group election, not individual election. Let's say that the idea of this passage is that God has ordained that there will be a Church, a body of believers. Who they are is not ordained here -- just that there is such a group. Now, what objections would be raised to that claim on Paul's part? Personally, I can't think of any. It doesn't make any claim on individuals. It doesn't push the envelope regarding personal freedom or free will. Frankly, it doesn't actually say a whole lot. There will be a Church. Okay.
Nonetheless, Paul faces expected objections. The first objection is, "That's not fair!" "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!" (Rom. 9:14). In what sense could anyone complain about the justice of God if God ordained that there will be a Church? If God determines that there will always be people who believe, how is that a reason to question His justice? Paul's response is "It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy ... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom. 9:16, 18). Paul would be saying, "God has ordained that someone will be saved" and someone would protest? I don't see why.
The second objection is more harsh. "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" (Rom. 9:19). I don't see the potential complaint. God has decided to show mercy to some. "Well," someone might object, "then how can God find fault with anyone?" Huh? If that is all that Paul is saying, what sense does the objection make?
If, on the other hand, Paul is making the claim, "God chooses individuals that will be saved" (verses 9-13), the objections make sense. Paul would be saying, "I know you might think that it's unfair of God, but I'm telling you that His choice isn't based on your choices or your actions (verse 16). It is based solely on His choice. And I'm guessing that you might conclude from that 'Well, if that's the way it is, how can it be fair that God would find fault?' I have an answer for that ..." And, of course, you can read Paul's response to that objection as well.
I know that many Christians disagree that God chooses some to be saved apart from their actions or choices. I know that it is popular to argue that this passage says no such thing. I know that many well-meaning Christians argue that this passage is a group-election passage. I'm just asking you to ask yourself, "If that's the case, do the objections that Paul addresses make sense?" They don't to me.
5 comments:
Hi Stan,
Interesting post. I read over it a bit quickly, but here is my synopsis of what I understand you to be saying...
There are basically two interpretations of Romans 9. One says that it is about God’s sovereign election as it applies to individuals and the other says it is about election as it applies to groups. Those taking the view that it applies to groups are interpreting what the passage says about election to mean simply that there will always be a Church. That isn’t saying much – nothing that is really objectionable. It certainly isn’t saying anything that would raise the objections Paul addresses: “Is there injustice on God’s part?” and “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?”
In response I would pose this question simply as food for thought... What if Paul is talking about the election of a “group” (a Church), and what if he is saying something more than “God has ordained that a Church will exist”? What if Paul is talking about how in times past God in His divine providence identified his Church with Israel and Israel with the Church, even though that might not seem “fair” to those outside of Israel (like Abraham and Isaac's other son, Esau); and now in that same divine providence He has stripped that identification from Israel, even though that might not seem “fair” to those who had received the covenant promises given to Israel? I mean, if the “group” interpretation means nothing more than “there will be a Church,” then your analysis seems to be spot on; but if the “group” interpretation finds something more specific and substantial in the passage, then the “not fair” objections may be completely appropriate to the “group” election interpretation.
I’m not saying that the “group” interpretation is right, but your critique might be oversimplifying it just a bit.
I suppose, Eric, if the epistle in question was written to Jews, it could make sense that they would possibly find it "unfair" that God would ordain a non-Jewish Church. I don't see that the epistle was written to Jews, but to "all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints". And while I can see the idea by looking at his reference to Jacob and Esau, the connection (Jews v. Gentiles) with Pharaoh doesn't seem to be there. So it would seem that he's talking to an audience larger than the Jews who might object.
But that was an approach I hadn't considered.
Also, that is going on the assumption that there is no longer a plan for the Jews. We know that Christianity is grafted into the Jewish family, not that they are completely removed from the tree, but that we are added to it.
Aren't the people arguing that God elects a group of people here in Romans 9 the same people that suggest God elects Christ in Ephesians 1? I don't understand how they can have it both ways. We know that God chose Christ to be the means of securing salvation, but as for their over-emphasis of the term, 'in Christ,' or 'in Him,' 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 says,
"But by His (God's) doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, ‘LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.’"
They try to have it both ways, but neither works. They, like I at one time, want things to be comfortable, and when it doesn't seem to be fair, they say that must not be what God means.
Yes, David, it's true that the Jews aren't removed, but the Gentiles are grafted in ... but the perception of the "chosen people" (who were originally the Jews) might have been offended if "group" was the idea. (Isn't it interesting the the Jews never seemed to be offended with God that He chose them and didn't choose others?)
Good point, Ryan. The other thing I can't figure out is how, in the mechanics of this thing, God can ordain "a group" without populating the group. "Well," God says to Himself, "I ordain there will be a Church. I'm not exactly sure who will be in it, but I definitely ordain it to be." Seems like an odd view of God's perception to me.
Post a Comment