Paul in Romans 9 was not referring to personal salvation but rather it was Election to Vocation, Not Salvation
In yesterday’s post, I summarized the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9 and offered the first argument against it. In this post I offer the second and third of six arguments that reveal that there is something else going on in Romans 9. Argument #2: Has God Broken Covenant? The...
reknew.org
Let us look at Romans nine and test your understanding. Starting at 9:10.
Verse 10
“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;”
Not only in the case of Isaac was the election
limited to him "as the son of promise", but also in a
still more remarkable instance was this truth indicated in the case of the two sons of Isaac. They were conceived by Rebecca of the same husband, yet God chose the one and rejected the other. An original difference between Isaac and Ishmael might be alleged, since the one was born of the lawful wife of Abraham, the free woman, and the other was the son of the bond woman; but in the case now brought forward there existed
no original difference. Both were sons of the same father and mother, and both were born at the same time. The great distinction, then, made between the two brothers
could only be traced to the sovereign will of God, who thus visibly notified, long before the event, the difference of the Divine purpose, according to
election of grace towards the people of Israel.
Verse 11
(For the children being not yet born, neither have done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth)
In the case of Isaac and Ishmael, it might still be said, that as the latter, as soon as he came to years, gave evidence of a wicked disposition, this was a sufficient reason for preferring Isaac. But here, in a parenthesis the Apostle shows that the preference was given to Jacob
independently of all ground of merit, because it was made
before the children were capable of doing either good or evil. This was done
for the very purpose of taking away all pretense for merit
as a ground of preference. Had the preference been given to Jacob when he had grown up to maturity, there would have been no more real ground for ascribing it to anything good in him;
yet that use would have been made of it by the perverse ingenuity of man. But God made the preference before the children were born.
“That the purpose of God according to election might stand” ~ This was the very end and intention of the early indication of the will of God to Rebecca, the mother of the two children. ( what was said in Genesis 25 to Rebekah is here interpreted for us by Paul...Genesis 25:23 (KJV 1900) — 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. Please take note Tom and all others!) It was hereby clearly established that, in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, God had respect to nothing but His own purpose. Than this what can more strongly declare His own eternal purpose to be the ground of all His favor to man?
“Not of works but of Him that calleth” ~ Expressions indicating God’s sovereignty in this matter
are heaped upon one another, because it is a thing
so offensive to the human mind. Yet, after all the Apostle’s precaution, the perverseness of men still finds ground of boasting on account of works. Though the children had done neither good nor evil, yet God, it is supposed, might foresee that Jacob would be a godly man, and Esau wicked. But had not God made a difference between Jacob and Esau, Jacob would have been no better than his brother. Were not men blinded by opposition to this part of the will of God, would they not perceive that a preference on account of foreseen good works is
a preference on account of works, and
therefore expressly contrary to the assertion of the Apostle —
Not of works, but of Him that calleth? The whole ground of preference is in Him that calleth, or chooseth,
not in him that is called.
Paul, says a man of God in the past "had hitherto merely observed, in a few words, the difference between the carnal sons of Abraham; namely, though all by circumcision were made partakers of the covenant,
yet the grace of God was not equally efficacious in all, and
the sons of the promise enjoy the blessings of the Most High. He now plainly refers the whole cause to the gratuitous election of God,
which in no respects depends on men, so that nothing can be traced in the salvation of believers higher than the goodness of God; nothing in the destruction of the reprobate can be discovered higher than the just severity of the Sovereign of the world. The first proposition of the Apostle is the following: — As the blessing of the covenant separates the nation of the Israelites from all other people, so the election of God separates
the men of that nation, while He predestinates some to salvation, others to eternal damnation. The second proposition is, that there is no other foundation of election
than the mere goodness and mercy of God, which embrace whom He chooses, without paying the least regard to works, even after the fall of Adam. Third, the Lord in His gratuitous election is free and unrestrained by the necessity of bestowing the same grace equally on all; He passes by such as He wills, and chooses for His own according to His will. Paul briefly comprehends all these propositions in one clause, and will afterwards consider other points. The following words,
when they were not yet born, neither had done any good or evil, show that God, in making the difference between them,
could have paid no regard to their works, which did not yet exist. Aremians, who state that God may elect from among mankind by a respect to their works, since He foresees from their future conduct who may be worthy or deserving of grace,
attack a principle of theology which no Christian ought to be ignorant of; namely, that God can regard nothing in the corrupt nature of man, such as that of Jacob and Esau was, by which He may be induced to do them kindness. When, therefore, Paul says that neither of the children had done any good or evil, we must add also the opinion which he had already formed in his mind, of their both being children of Adam, sinners by nature, not possessed of a single particle of righteousness. Besides, although the vicious and depraved nature, which is diffused through the whole human race, be of itself sufficient to cause damnation before it has shown its unholiness by any act or deed, and Esau therefore deserved to be rejected, because he was by nature a child of wrath, yet to prevent the least difficulty, as if the state of the elder was worse with respect to the perpetration of any offense or vice than that of the younger, it was necessary for the Apostle to exclude the consideration both of transgressions and of virtues. I confess, indeed, that it is true that the near cause of reprobation is our being all cursed in Adam; but Paul withdraws us in the meantime from this consideration,
that we may learn to rest in the naked and simple good pleasure of God, until he shall have established this doctrine, that the infinite Sovereign has a sufficiently just cause for election and reprobation, in His own will. He here urges, in almost every word, the gratuitous election of God; for had he considered works to have any place in our election, he would have stated the remuneration due to their performance. But he opposes to works the purpose of God, which consists in the good pleasure of His will. And to remove all doubts and controversy concerning the subject, he adds,
according to election, and closes in a striking manner,~
not of works, but of Him that calleth. The opinion, therefore, that God elects or reprobates every one according as He foresees good or evil in us,
is false, and contrary to the word of eternal truth."
Verse 12
“It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.”
Later...RB
