Romans 9
1Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls... Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated."
I'm an Arimianist that more and more sees the biblical doctrine of election, though short of embracing this full-fledged Calvinist interpretation of texts like these, as I don't see in them a harmony with "For God so loved the world" and "that all should come to repentance." If God wills it, then it is settled, according to Calvinists.
However, I've yet to hear a satisfactory response to
Romans 9. Pelagius argued (as well as Wesley) that God has the right to accept or reject anyone he chooses but that the apostle is not here indicating the bases on which God night make that choice. However before we continue on that train of thought (past works to future works and arguing that God's election is still based on faith -- a position I hold -- I find it hard to reconcile that with Paul's analogies here, because God, in Paul's examples, rejected and chose before these were even born!)
The entire target of Paul in
Romans 9 is not to establish Predestination or Calvinism, but to establish how God is still faithful to "spiritual" Israel, even as ethnic Israel has no claims to God's promises. He is elaborating past responses about God still being faithful to His promises, though he was accused of simply transferring GOd's promises to this new people, the Gentiles. Rather, Paul straightens out the salvation-history here and shows it's the same salvation story, and that God's people were NEVER by ethnicity, but by promise -- and by faith.
Back to the question -- who here can argue a solid Arminian viewpoint out of this passage?
Threaded Mode
