They seem to think that Esau and Jacob refer to groups of persons, and same with Pharaoh, and so on.

Any arguments contra that?

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis

They do.
Reprobate and Elect.

At least I've always understood it that way.

__________________
Jakob (But you can call me Jake if you like)
Pastor in Training
Reformed Baptist
Missouri

An analogy can only be used to identify the truth if the thing used is also true. You cannot use an analogy to support the opposite of what the original means.

So even if someone where to say that Romans 9 is an extended analogy (i.e., that the individuals named, with the parents as well) are analogous, to the reprobate and the elect, there is no doubt the originals (the individuals in this case) would have the same characteristics as the group to which it points. So it is when Paul says:

If Paul had in mind only the groups (which he certainly uses the individuals as an example of) then he certainly also stated it is true of the individuals that stand in place of the groups. There is no doubt of the meaning here ... and while I understand how someone could want this to say something other than it was true of these two individuals, the fact that this talks of Jacob and Esau in terms of both their mother, Rebekah, and father, Isaac, by name would be clear evidence that the individuals are envisioned. The issue is not if they stand in for groups, it is that Paul uses them as an example for the groups of people in the world.

The real clincher in this is his next two rhetorical questions/answers:

Here, the question only arises when someone asks if it is just that God would choose one and not the other. The answer is not that God saw who would do anything or who would repent or who would have faith. The answer is it does not depend on "the man who wills" (those that would want to repent, their will has nothing to do with it) "or the man who runs" (those that would do something ... even have faith) "but on God who has mercy".

The next reference is so powerful. If one reads the account in Exodus of what comes right before this quoted verse, you will find the action of God in choosing. It is clear that the account show "and Pharaoh hardened his heart" several times, but then it changes to "and God hardened Pharaoh's heart". Pharaoh was raised up for the purpose of God demonstrating his power. So when Paul says "So then he has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" it is not without a specific example that God has shown not only in this passage, but in fact of history. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction.

If that were not enough, Paul anticipates the objection that would follow from fallen human thought that man is capable of repentance by himself.
Why does the question arise? It comes from the fact that Paul just said that it is God that chooses who will have mercy, and who will be hardened. If those who are hardened are hardened because God determined it, then a fallen creature would ask:

"So why is it their fault? You cannot blame them for having a hard heart if God is the one who hardened it in the first place! That's not fair!"

That might sound like a reasonable argument between two creatures. (It certainly wouldn't be fair for a king to order someone's hand to be tied to a rope that would hold 1000 lbs over a baby, then tell them if they don't hold the 1000 lbs. the man with the hand tied is responsible for killing the baby.) It is not sound when speaking of the creator/creature relationship. Paul's "answer" if you call it an answer, is to address the fallacy of even asking the question. The answer addresses the fact that man is a creature, and God is the creator. It is perfectly just and fair for the creator (God) of an object (man) to make that object whatever the creator chooses. Man is just an "uppity" object and with hubris challenges its creator. That is just wrong. A clay pigeon that is made to be destroyed cannot justly say to its creator "why did you make me a clay pigeon?" Neither can reprobate men justly say to God "why did you make me to demonstrate your justice?"

The problem is that men think too highly of themselves, and not highly enough of God. We don't have a problem with saying that a clay pigeon ought to be able to be made for the purpose of destruction. We see ourselves as being so much more than a clay pigeon. There is more metaphysical distance between God and us than there is between us and clay pigeons. We and clay pigeons are both the same from the standpoint of God ... clay pigeons and people are part of his creation. Mankind sees no problem with making clay into toilets. But we value ourselves as if we were equal with God.

Our worth, and all of our worth, comes from what value God places on and in us. That we are made in God's image is our most certain value, but a self-portrait is still the property of the painter, and it is his choice what to do with it. If God makes billions of self-portraits, and chooses to destroy all of them, it is his choice and his property to do with as he sees fit. If from those billions he chooses to save one, the rest have no claim to demand they also be saved. They are still the property of the painter.

The issue of Arminianism would go away if people had a true view of their relationship to God. We show hubris when we think of ourselves as something other than what God has made. "It is he that has made us, and not we ourselves."

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

Yes a careful exegesis of the text indicates that they do in fact represent people groups. And even Pharaoh as an individual was responsible for much of the destruction of Egypt in the days of Moses.

At the same we must recognize that though Paul begins Romans 9 by speaking about a corporate entity (his countrymen after the flesh) he also divides all men into two camps, elect and reprobate. Indeed his point is that even within Israel itself, i.e. one nation, there were elect and reprobate, just as God loved Jacob and hated Esau though both came from the line of Abraham. For not all Israel is of Israel (vs. 6).

Furthermore we see that in vss. 15,16 & 18 9 (the crucial texts for sovereign grace) it is on the singular person, not plural, ( 'whomever' 'him' and 'whom') that God has mercy and likewise it is the singular person whom God hardens. Groups of persons aside, each group is made of individuals and thus they either receive mercy or justice which based upon God's sovereign decision or decree.

We also must note that the exclusive 'group' identity the Arminian sees in Romans 9 puts him in a theological bind. He is forced to admit that God chose not to have favor upon some and chose to favor another. If not all are 'predestined' to have the gospel preach to them, it is clear, even in a limited way, that God did not decree to save all men (i.e. everyone without exception). Therefore he has restricted the atonement and God's love to certain people. So unless he wants to claim that God's decision here is based on works or merit of one group over another (which blatantly undermines the meaning of Romans 9:15-18) he is already well on his way to the Calvinist's understanding of 'particular grace': he just doesn't know it yet.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!"
John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

Hello Steven,

I think the best argument "contra that" is it fails to answer the objection Paul is dealing with. The issue is not why some nations are chosen and others not; rather, Paul is arguing why so many Jews of God's "chosen people" have rejected Christ. The charge is that God's word regarding salvation has failed. Paul's answer is that an individual is not a true Jew just because he is physically born Jewish. The idea that God is speaking of nations in Paul's illustration of Jacob and Esau just does not fit the context at all.

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona

steven-nemes,

Yes, it is not a very good argument. In the first place, one has to deal with Romans 9:1-5. In that context, Paul is weeping over his kinsmen "according to the flesh" [v.3]. If this is really supposed to be about nations, then why is it that Paul specifically speaks of his kinsmen according to the flesh, and says that he is weeping because of their rejection of the gospel?

Next, you have to deal with the problem Paul is addressing. In verses 4-5, Paul addresses the fact that these Jews are supposed to have the sonship, promises, service, etc. Now, one might postulate that, since these Jews have rejected the gospel, the word of God has failed. However, Paul emphatically denies this in verse 6. He instead says that not all of Israel is truly Israel.

That is the context into which the following discussion goes. To then argue that Jacob and Esau are simply being referred to as nations rather than individuals misses Paul's point. His point is not that nations are what are being predestined. Instead, by using those quotations about nations in this context, he is saying that, just as God can raise up nations for his purposes, he can also raise up individuals for his own purposes. God has the authority to do this from the nation right on down to the individual.

Now, about Pharoah, to say that this is referring to the nation of Egypt misses the whole context, not only of verses 1-6, but also of the quotation in verse 17. It comes from Exodus 9:13ff:

Notice how the very verse that was quoted here is spoken to a person who has a people! How can that be the nation of Egypt? Very clearly, from this text, the one who is told this is the person Pharoah, and not his people.

God Bless,
Adam

__________________
Adam
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Deerfield, Illinois
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Student

I don't really see how Jacob and Esau being nations really helps the Arminian position at all. Instead of God just rejecting individuals He's now rejecting a whole group of people. Be that as it may. Israel and Esau though their seed became nations, Jacob and Esau were still individuals. God chose one and rejected the other.

__________________
Steven J. Carr (Sven)
http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/
Eagan, MN
PCA
"Weak is the effort of my heart / And cold my warmest thought / But when I see thee as thou art / I'll praise thee as I ought."--John Newton
Trophy Wife/Arm Candy: Crystal Ann Children: Steven Jr. and Hannah Grace

I'm sorry... you're going to have to back up there...

You mean to tell me that Arminians actually do exegesis?

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

You beat me by 3 minutes on that one, Ben. To move along the thread, just pretend it says "Arminian Eisegesis of Romans 9," then all is well.

__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen

Whew! Thanks... the cerebral dissonance is settling.... I'm ok now.

They usually read Esau merely as the head of Edom, and Jacob as Israel. This way, they feel comfortable saying that the passage is not about individual election, but rather about corporate, conditional election. But of course the idea of the corporate election of a people of physical descendants from a patriarch is the very error Paul is addressing here. Indeed, verses 1-8 are the premise that refutes the false doctrine that only the children of the flesh are children of God. He then uses the example of Jacob and Esau, real, historical men known to the readers, to show that only the children of the promise, by virtue of God's discriminating and sovereign election, are the true seed of Abraham.

Then, the objection at verse 19 "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" really makes no sense in the context of the corporate election contingent on obedience. If election is conditional, then God would find fault only in those who have not elected themselves, as a consequence of their disobedience, and there would be no need to object anything, and particularly to mention His irresistable will.

The problem with this kind of eisegesis is that it really takes a lot of patience to address all the errors involved, because it usually comes from a dispensational conception of God's redemptive plan for His Israel.

__________________
Andrea
Presbyterian, attending Baptist church
Perugia, Italy
Owner: federiformata.it

"Quos et vocavit nos non solum ex Iudæis sed etiam ex gentibus" (Rom. 9.24)