What does God’s sovereignty mean in Roman’s 9? And is your view God’s view?
Christians can get so caught up in defending what they believe to be “the biblical view” that they forget to stop and ask, “is this really God’s view I’m defending?” If you have to re-interpret Jesus teaching to make it congruent with your theology then it might be time to re-examine your theology.
John Calvin is a case in point. Christ said three times that our being forgiven is conditioned upon our forgiving others. He taught us to pray forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others. He said, “unless you forgive your heavenly Father will not forgive you.” Calvin flat out said the opposite of what Jesus said: “The forgiveness, which we ask that God would give us, does not depend on the forgiveness which we grant to others.”
Calvin’s was so sure that his theology equated to “the gospel” that he changed the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to conform to his view. He didn’t re-examine his theology in light of Christ’s teaching to see if perhaps he was wrong. Instead he changed Jesus words to match his belief system. -How the Lord’s Prayer Contradicts the Reformation
Another case in point: Romans 9. Romans 9 is the lynchpin of the reformed view of predestination. However there are several reasons to re-examine that view.
God explained what he meant when he said he “hated Esau”.
God didn’t mention Esau’s eternal destiny. But he did mention the destiny of the nations that came from Esau.
The context of Romans 9 is about nations, not individuals.
Paul’s use of “election” is specifically about the irrevocable election of Israel.
When Paul does talk about election of individuals to eternal life, he says something very different than when he is talking about the election of nations.
The book of Romans speaks of two immutable groups. But Paul is quick to note that in Romans 9 that individual’s membership in these groups changes.
The Lord himself said that a wicked man who turns back to God is no longer numbered amongst the wicked and the righteous man who rejects God is no longer numbered amongst the righteous.
Paul denies that “hardening” refers to election to eternal life
The “potter and the clay” reference if from the Old Testament and isn’t about eternal life
Both Jesus and Paul taught that we must participate to enter eternal. life.
My Calvinist friends have expressed dismay at how I could possibly leave Calvinism.. “She must not really understand reformed theology or she wouldn’t have jumped ship”, they say. Actually, I do understand reformed theology. But, like Calvin, I came face to face with evidence that required me to make a choice: re-examine my theology or reframe God’s words to match my theology. Calvin chose the latter I chose the former.
“But the gospel is at stake!”, the reformed reader exclaims, “we can’t compromise on the verses that clearly teach the biblical doctrine of justification. That’s what was won at the reformation! We can’t accept an interpretation that reduces the sovereignty of God in salvation.”
That’s exactly right. God’s plan of salvation is at stake. If we are misunderstanding it, wouldn’t we want to know? So, dear Calvinist, I propose this. Let’s honor God’s sovereignty by allowing him to define his own terms in Romans 9 and examine how well the reformed view fits with what he said.
1. God explained what he meant when he said he “hated Esau”
God explained what “hating” Esau means. He said he was referring to what he did to a country not to a person. God said, “I have loved you, says Yahweh. But you ask, "How have you shown your love?" Was not Esau Jacob's brother? declares Yahweh; even so, I loved Jacobbut I hated Esau. I turned his mountains into a desert and his heritage into dwellings in the wastelands.” Malachi 1
Romans 9 is quoting the book of Exodus where God allowed the country of the Edomites (the descendants of Esau) to be turned into a wasteland.:
“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 human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy”. That chapter is about the way that God preserved and protected the Israelites, while allowing the country of the Edomites (the descendants of Esau) to be turned into a wasteland (Malachi 1:2-5).
2. God didn’t say anything about Esau’s eternal destiny. But he did say something about his plan for the nation that came from Esau
Despite Esau being born first, with Jacob (lit: "he who grabs the heel") coming out right after, God declares "The older will serve the younger" in Genesis 25:21-23, it says:
Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger."
This is why Paul immediately adds, "As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'," quoting not Genesis, but rather Malachi 1. God goes on to say,
2 "I have loved you [Jacob]," says the LORD. But you [Jacob] say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob 3but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,' and 'the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.'" 5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!”
God explained that he was speaking of nations when he was speaking of his sovereign choice. The Calvinist says, yes, but he was talking about individuals. Indeed he was. But he never said he made a choice regarding those individuals’ eternal salvation or damnation. He did say his sovereign choice was about nations.
3. The context of the entire discussion is focused on god’s sovereign choice in nations, not individuals
(The name "Edom" is the nation of Esau's lineage.) Thus, there is yet another distinction among Abraham's lineage, first Isaac over Ismael, and now Jacob (renamed "Israel") being chosen over Esau. Of the nations that would emerge, one would be blessed, while the other would be cursed (by living in sin and not having any promises granted to that lineage). But even here Paul isn't speaking about predestination to hell or even salvation, rather remaining on the realm of temporal blessings. -Does Romans 9 condemn Unconditional Election as Heresy?
2 Chapters later, Paul makes it clear that he wasn’t referring to eternal life.
4. in Romans 11, St. Paul’s use of “election” is specifically about the irrevocable election of nation Israel-not about election of individual people to eternal life
Romans 9-11 answer the question-”did God go back on his promises to Israel?” Paul’s answer is that the nation is beloved because of their election but that regarding salvation, they are enemies.
Paul writes, As regards the gospel, they (the Jews) are enemies for your sake.
But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
St. Paul distinguishes between the Gospel and election. He doesn’t say that election is to salvation. He says that election is based on their forefathers.
5. When Paul addresses eternal life for individuals he says something entirely different than when he talks about the election of nations.
In contrast to Calvinism’s claims, St. Paul explicitly denies that God shows any favoritism, as regards salvation. In Romans 2:4-11 he writes:
“Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”
And despite Paul’s point that “God shows no partiality” (which is literally the central argument of the Epistle, since Paul’s answering the idea that God arbitrarily divided the world into two immutable groups: Jews and Gentiles). Calvinists use this Epistle to justify the idea that God shows partiality and divided the world into two immutable groups: the elect and reprobate. -How Should Catholics Understand Romans 9?
Paul speaks of two immutable groups, Jews and Gentile. Calvinists impose the idea that the two groups are the elect and reprobates. If Paul were a Calvinist, he would say that God does show partiality, and does divide the world into two arbitrary and unchanging groups for purposes of salvation, but that the two groups are elect/reprobate, rather than Jew/Greek. Did God Die for You?
But that’s not what Paul says.
Paul writes in the simplest of terms, in Galatians 5:19-21 and 6:7-9, that if Christians allow themselves to be dominated by their “flesh,” or lower nature, they will not make it to heaven. While on the flip side, Christians will only reap the reward of eternal life if they continue to “sow to the Spirit” or perform good works:
Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God . . . Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption (eternal death); but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.-We Can Work it Out
When Paul interprets himself instead of being interpreted by a theological system developed 1500 years later, the meaning of 2 immutable groups becomes clearer.
6. The book of Romans speaks of two immutable groups. But Paul is quick to note that in Romans 9 that individual’s membership in these groups changes (see Romans 9:25-26)
In Romans 11, Paul explains that individual people can join and be cut off from the two groups because of their unbelief and he warns them to stand fast in the faith because if they do not continue in God’s kindness they too will be cut off.
Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So, do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
God has the power to graft them in again. But he chose to have men participate in that grafting. He grafts them in based on whether they continue in unbelief. He didn’t say, “do not fear, God will ensure your final perseverance because you have saving faith.” He said to fear because you will remain in God’s kindness provided you continue in his kindness.
God also said membership in each group can change.
7. The lord himself said that a wicked man who turns back to God is no longer numbered amongst the wicked and the righteous man who rejects God is no longer numbered amongst the righteous
In Ezekiel 18, God explains at great length that individual people can enter and leave either group of the wicked and the righteous:
“But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live.
Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.
“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord God; so turn, and live.”
That’s unambiguous. There are the righteous and the wicked, yes; but the wicked can be saved (and God declares that He desires that they be saved!), and the righteous can be condemned. The wicked man who turns back to God is no longer numbered amongst the wicked; the righteous man who rejects God is no longer numbered amongst the righteous. -Does God Desire the Salvation of the Damned?
8. Paul denies the idea that “hardening” is referring to eternal destruction in Romans 11.:12
In Romans 11:7, Paul says that “Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” Then he says of those who have been hardened, “So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means!” (Rom. 11:12)
If the election Paul is speaking of is to eternal life in Romans 9, then the answer to his rhetorical question in Rom. 11:12 ”so have they stumbled so as to fall?” would have to be “yes”. But Paul’s answer is a resounding no.
On the other hand, when Paul is speaking of election in other senses such as blessings and curses, or particularly, of being part of the visible chosen people – Romans 9 and 11 make a lot of sense. -Joe Heschmeyer
9. The potter and the clay is a reference to The Lord speaking in the Old Testament and it is not about eternal life
Paul’s "Potter" and "Clay" analogy, is not about "unconditionally" damning one clay pot over another.
. But these assignments by no means fix the eternal lot of a man Paul is alluding to OT references to God being the Potter, with Israel specifically:
Isaiah 29 13 The Lord is speaking to Jerusalem, not to individual people.
“But doesn’t a statement like “hath not the potter power over the clay” from Romans 9 seem awfully Calvinist? Not when we consider it is actually a reference back to Jeremiah 18:6: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? Says the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.”
If you were to take this verse out of context you might get a Calvinist interpretation of Jeremiah. However, the next four verses are enlightening, to say the least:
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it. (Jer 18:7-10)
Far from denying free will, Jeremiah glaringly affirms it. The same can be said of Paul. Throughout Romans and elsewhere, Paul clearly teaches all men must freely cooperate with God’s grace to be saved. Predestined for Freedom
Fr William most points out that it is altogether arbitrary to say that the “clay” in v. 21 stands for the human race, corrupted by original sin, because in the whole of chapter 9 there is not even a remote allusion to original sin.
These passages have nothing to do with the Potter building an individual pot just to destroy it, but rather Israel acting ungratefully and mocking God, as if God was creature and Israel was the Creator! Does Romans 9 condemn Unconditional Election as Heresy?
Now consider what God says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion," which comes from one of the most intimate passages in the Bible, when God reveals his Glory to Moses (Ex. 33:12-23). The alert reader will recognize this comes at the conclusion of one of Israel's most infamous sins, the golden calf (Ex. 32)! In this passage God says Moses has found favor in His sight precisely because Moses stepped in and interceded for the Israelite nation who sinned with the calf and were going to be wiped out and rejected by God. So contrary to a surface level reading, God shows mercy on folks at the intercession of others, who find favor in God's sight, and is thus not "unconditionally" saving or damning.
10. both Jesus and Paul taught that believers must participate to “Remain in Christ”
Contrary to to the reformed view of eternal security, Paul emphasizes continuing in Christ, in his grace or “kindness”. He says in Romans 11:22. “Note then the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Moreover, in Romans 6:16, Paul tells us that after baptism, obedience to Christ leads us to justification while sin will lead us to death (see also Romans 6:23): “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness”
Jesus Christ tells the apostles at the Last Supper how to remain in his love. He adds that if we keep his commandments we will remain in his love. But he who does not remain in his love is "cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned" (John 15:6)
Jesus never said, because you are unconditionally elected to eternal life you will remain in my love. Jesus said, If we keep his commandments we will remain in his love. However Calvinist’s say that Jesus didn’t really mean what he said. Because, like Calvin, when they encounter verses that contradict their theology, rather than re-examine their theology, they explain away the verses that contradict their theology. But those explanations use fallacies of reasoning like these:
Reverse the causality. If a passage says that you must do X in order to be saved, claim that it really means that if you’re saved, you’ll just naturally do X. Thus, X is important for showing that you’re saved, but it doesn’t actually do anything, and certainly isn’t necessary for salvation (even if the Bible says otherwise: Mark 16:16).
No True Scotsman. If Scripture says that someone believed and then lost their salvation (like Simon the Magician in Acts 8, or the heretics mentioned in 2 Peter 2), say that they must not have ever actually believed (even if the Bible says the opposite: Acts 8:13, 2 Peter 2:1, 20-22).
Spiritualize the passage into oblivion. If the Bible says that Baptism is necessary for salvation, argue that this is just a “spiritual” Baptism that means nothing more than believing. And if you need to get around the need to be “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5) spiritualize this, too, to get rid of the need for water. Reduce everything to a symbol, or a metaphor for faith. -How the Lord’s Prayer Contradicts the Reformation
I believe that many Calvinists do this with good motives. They have a deep commitment to defend the sovereignty of God. They want all the glory to go to God and not man. They are convinced that their view of justification is “the gospel once delivered to the saints” so they believe they are defending the gospel.
But, dear Calvinist friends, here’s the thing-if you are defending a view of God’s sovereignty that isn’t God’s view, that brings no glory to God.
Accepting God’s view of his sovereignty gives him the honor that is due.
.I once believed that the reformed view is “the biblical view” so when I encountered a verse or passage that contradicted the reformed view at face value, I turned to sources that I believed understood “the gospel”rightly. And they always had an answer. But those answers had holes, which raised some critical questions. If the reformed recovered the gospel once delivered to the saints, how do we reconcile that the early church unanimously believed something very different than the reformers? Why do reformed sources use altered and distorted evidence to argue their point? Why did they cherry pick quotes that sounded reformed but in context were actually quite Catholic? Why did they have to explain away so many verses with fallacious reasoning?
The answer was a game changer for me because It provided a critical missing piece in the debate about justification
The reformers rejected something that God had written into the fabric of salvation history for all time. Participation.
God has always required man’s participation in his plan in salvation history. For example, Israelites had to eat the lamb for the passover sacrifice to be applied to them. That didn’t diminish his sovereignty, his glory or the efficacy of the sacrifice. The sacrifice was efficacious but individuals had to participate in it to make it efficacious to them personally. Even in heaven, the people are praising, “ Holy, holy, holy is the Lamb who was slain”.
That got me thinking…In God’s design, a husband and wife (who don’t have the ability to create new life without God) still have to participate for a new life to be created. Man’s participation doesn’t diminish God’s sovereignty. So why would man’s participation diminish God’s sovereignty in salvation?
Catholics and Calvinists agree on this: that unless moved first by God’s grace we cannot save ourselves. And, we agree that we are saved by Christ alone.
The heart of our disagreement is in the conception of the what the good news is.
According to Reformed teaching, the good news of the gospel is about Christ having obeyed God in my place.
Calvinists believe that only the elect can be saved and that man cannot do anything to participate in his salvation because that gives man too much power. Justification in the reformed view its that a sinner is imputed with Christ’s righteousness and God declares that the sinner is now just. So justification is a legal status that is based on a legal fiction. A just man is declared guilty and a guilty man is declared righteous.
The good news in CAtholic Teaching isn’t about Having your status changed before god. Its about having your soul changed before god
The good news is that in Christ, God removes our hearts of stone and gives us hearts of flesh. That – the thing prophesied by Ezekiel in chapter 36 of his book – is what it means to be saved. This is the opposite of what the Reformed tradition claims. According to Catholic teaching, being justified doesn’t mean merely having your status changed before God – it means having your soul changed before God. The righteousness of Christ doesn’t cover you for the purpose of creating a new legal status for you; the righteousness of Christ pierces your heart to its black depths for the purpose of creating a new life for you”. David’s Clean-Heart Gospel Passion
So the Calvinist sees God’s sovereignty in Romans 9 as God acting completely without man’s participation in securing eternal life for the believer.
Catholics see God’s sovereignty in Romans 9 as what God said it is-election of nations to positions within his plan. Catholics accept what Jesus and Paul said about entering eternal life so there is no need to impose an idea that is foreign to the text.
But the important question isn’t “what do we see in scripture?”. The important question is, “what is God’s view?”
The bottom line: If a theological system requires explaining away problem verses with fallacies. re-interpreting Jesus teaching, Paul’s stated meaning, and God’s own words to make them congruent with the theology, then its time to re-examine the theological system-even if the system self-identifies as “the biblical view”. Because the true biblical view won’t contradict Jesus. It won’t contradict God. And it won’t use Paul contra Paul.
Pax Christi.
Solo Deo Gloria. Solo gratia. Solus Christus.
For More Reading:
David’s Clean-Heart Gospel Passion
How Should Catholics Understand Romans 9?
How the Lord’s Prayer Contradicts the Reformation
Three Major Arguments Against the Assurance of Salvation
Does Romans 9 Condemn Unconditional Election as Heresy?
BIble Teaching: God’s Glory Shared With his Creatures