11-THE FLAGSHIP OF CALVINISM
Chapter Ten The Flagship of Calvinism?
At this point in our study, I feel it is important to address an area in the Bible where Calvinism draws some of its strongest arguments. Romans chapter nine contains some very strong language that to some, would seem to support Calvinistic Soteriology. We will now study this portion of Scripture, using the Isaiah Principle to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Paul begins the chapter with a heavy heart. His bretheren, the Jews, have rejected their Messiah. His desire is for Isreal to be saved. He even says that if it were possible, he would be willing to be "accursed from Christ" himself for the sake of his kinsmen (v.3). In verse 6, Paul tells us that the national rejection of the Messiah by Israel does not mean that God’s promises have failed. He then goes on to cite several Old Testament examples of the development of God’s plan of salvation, culminating with the rejection of Israel leading to the salvation of the Gentiles. When studying Romans 9:1-33, we must be careful to stay in the context that Paul intended, but what is the context of Romans 9:1-33? Calvinists believe they see selective salvation by God for some and not others.They see in the following verses:
- God choosing Isaac over Ishmael (v.7-8) - God choosing Jacob over Esau (v. 11-13) - God having mercy and compassion on some and not others (v.15)
Calvinism teaches that all these exclusive choices are based on God’s will, focusing on the "on whom" instead of the "I will" in Romans 9:15. We will develop that point when we get to v.15, but for now, we need to determine the true context of this chapter.
Paul is showing us that Israel’s rejection of the Messiah is not an indication of the ineffectiveness of God or His promises (v.6). When we look deeper into this chapter, we will discover that God is teaching us two things: 1. His promises fail not 2. They are received by faith
I believe that if we study Romans 9:1-33 in the proper context, we will come to a vastly different conclusion than we would if we see it in a Calvinistic context. Let us now study the rest of Romans 9:1-33 and see if this is true.
Romans 9:7-15 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. As stated above, there are three statements in these verses which Calvinism uses to support their teaching of election.These are very compelling statements, but do they teach us what Calvinism claims? Let us look deeper into these verses to discover the true meanang and application.
God chose Isaac and not Ishmael to continue the the seed of Israel This first statement in verse 9 is easy to understand. God chose Isaac over Ishmael because Isaac was the son of the promise (through Sara) and Ishmael was the son of bondage (through Hagar). Paul alludes to this passage in the book of Galatians and applies it to all Christians.
Galatians 4:28-31 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
God chose Jacob over Esau before they were even born. This second statement is a little more complicated. Why did God choose Jacob over Esau before they were even born? Verse 11 tells us..."that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth".What is the purpose of God according to election? No matter which word you choose to use: called, chose, elected or predestinated, the purpose is this: For whom He did foreknow. We have already seen in the chapter on foreknowledge that God foreknows who will believe and they are the ones He chooses. God foreknows everything that will happen! Verse 11 also says that the children in Rebecca’s womb had not yet done any good or evil and that the basis of God’s choosing was not of works, but of Him that calleth. It does not say not of faith, but not of works. Believing is not works, faith is not works. We see faith and works contrasted many times in the New Testament:
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Which of the two brothers would demonstrate faith later in life?
Genesis 28:6-9 (Esau)
6 When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padanaram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan;
7 And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padanaram;
8 And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;
9 Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.
Genesis 28:20-22 (Jacob)
20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21 So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:
22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.
Esau had nothing but disregard for the things of God, but Jacob had faith in God, even though he failed many times. Notice that when Rebecca went to inquire to God about the struggle within her womb, God said nothing about choosing on over the other, but He prophesied about the future of her two boys.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
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.
Based on the principle of God acting on His foreknowledge, we can conclude that God foreknew what Jacob and Esau would do in the future, and based on that foreknowledge, He chose Jacob over Esau.This conclusion is not skewing the Scriptures, making them say what we want them to say. We are comparing "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little", according the the Isaiah Principle.
God loved Jacob and hated Esau This third statement is easily misunderstood. The actual quote is found in the book of Malachi, written 1300 years after the days of Jacob and Esau.
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.
5 And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel.
These words are against the desendants of Esau, the nation of Edom. The people of Edom were always adversaries of Israel (see Numbers 20:14-23; 1 Samuel 14:47). God called them "The bordeer of wckedness and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation." The prophecy of Romans 9:12 (Genesis 25:23), was fulfilled in the time of David...
2 Samuel 8:14 And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David’s servants. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.
... But the reason this happened was because of the actions of Esau and his desendants, NOT because it was decreed by God. We have seen in the chapter on the Decrees of God, that God has made no decree as to who will be saved and who will be lost. We have seen that election, or predestination, or calling, or any other term you wish to use is based on God’s foreknowledge.
I believe that Paul is teaching here that God’sWord, and His promises never fail. God has been preserving a remnant of Israel all through history. The preservation of this remnant is not based on God’s decree, as Calvinism teaches, but it is based on God’s foreknowledge of the faith that the remnant will display and the rejection that the others will show in the future. In verses 14-16, Calvinism teaches that God is selective with His mercy and compassion.
Romans 9:14-16 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
These verses are interpreted by Calvinism to mean that God shows mercy to whom He chooses.The word unrighteousness in verse 14 comes from the Greek word adikia, meaning injustice. Calvinism teaches that it is not unjust for God to choose who will be saved and who will not, because He has the right to do what He wants (v.15). But is this truly the teaching here? We must stay true to the context by looking deeper into the meaning of the verses. Verse 15 is a quote from Exodus 33:1-23. This verse also begins with the word "for" denoting that it is not only refering back to something previously stated, but also the context of the passage quoted must be taken as meaning the same. Let us go back to Exodus 33:1-23 to learn the contextual meaning of the passage.
Moses is concerned about bringing the people of Israel into the Promised Land. He wants to be sure that God will be with them.
12 And Moses said unto the LORD, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight.
13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.
God then reassures Moses that He will go with them.
Exodus 33:14 And he (God) said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. But Moses needs more assurance.
Exodus 33:15-16 15 And he (Moses) said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.
16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.
God again reassures Moses
Exodus 33:17 And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
Moses then asks God to show him His glory. This is the passage where God sets Moses in the cleft of a rock and covers him with His hand while He passes by, then removing His hand to allow Moses to see only His back. But notice what God says to Moses before He allows him to see His glory:
Exodus 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. This is the verse quoted in Romans 9:15, but the context of the passage quoted is not about God being exclusive with His mercy and compassion. The emphasis here is God’s assurance that His promises will never fail, not only to Moses, but to all of Israel. God was telling Moses that he need not worry about His faithfulness to His promises. If I promise to be faithful to Israel, then be sure that I will. The emphasis in Romans 9:15 is the same; I WILL have mercy - I WILL have compassion. The terms "on whom I will have mercy" and "on whom I will have compassion," are not meant to teach God’s selectiveness. God is saying that if He promises His mercy and compassion, He will give it. The only requirement on our part is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and not faith on our own good works (v. 16). This same theme is repeated several times in Romans 9:1-33, as well as other places in the Scriptures. Calvinism puts the emphasis on the "on whom" instead of on the "I will"
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Once again, Calvinism misapplies these verses, teaching that God used Pharoah for the purpose of showing His power, and that was the reason He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. We have already seen in the chapter on foreknowledge that God foreknew that Pharaoh would not free the Jews from their bondage, and for that reason, He further hardened his heart.
18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.
19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.
20 And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go. The promises of Romans 9:1-33 are a two-edged sword. For those who believe, there is mercy and compassion, but for those who reject, there is judgment.
Romans 9:19-23 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Romans 9:19-23 really seems to be Calvinistic in doctrine, but Paul is answering a hypothetical objection in verse 19 which seems to be asking: How can God find fault with anyone if He is the one who chooses who will be saved and who will not? This conclusion has not been the theme thus far in this chapter, as we have seen, but Paul is anticipating this false conclusion and is about to address it in verses 20-23. In verse 20, Paul reproves anyone who dares to question God’s ways. Then he uses an intriguing example to illustrate his point: the potter and the clay. I say it is an intriguing example because the allusion to the potter and the clay does not fit the supposed application here in Romans. In order to explain what I mean, let us go to the original passage of the potter and the clay in the book of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 18:1-11 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2 Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
Now we will need to consult the Hebrew grammar used here, particularly, the Stem. In Hebrew, the stem has a similar function as does the voice in Greek. It denotes whether the action of the verb is active or passive as it relates to the subject of the verb. Qal Stem Qal is the most frequently used verb pattern. It expresses the fundamental action of the verb as active by the subject, as in "He sat, He sent, He drove" Niphal Stem Niphal is the passive form of a verb QalNiphal He sawHe was seen He sentHe was sent He droveHe was drivenIn verse 4 of Jeremiah 18:1-23, we see that the vessel was marred in the hand of the potter. The stem of the verb marred is Niphal, denoting that the subject of the sentance, the potter, was passive in the action of the verb. The potter did not intentionally make a marred vessel, no potter would do that! He took the marred vessel off the wheel, removed the imperfections in the clay ( pebbles, bits of dirt,etc...) and formed it again, a vessel as seemed good for the potter to make it. It was the same vessel, but now the imperfections were removed and thus the vessel was acceptable. God, in applying this principle to Israel, was telling them that they had marred themselves with the corruption of the heathens, and that He must remove their imperfections through the coming judgments. It is difficult to use this application in Romans 9:1-33 because in that context, the potter seems to intentionally make some vessels of honor and some of dishonor. What should we conclude from these observations? I believe that Paul is reminding the hypothetical objector that no one has the right to question God . If he chose to, He could treat us all as lumps of clay and form us the way He wants, but on the contrary, God, in His love, works in a very different way. We will see this in the way Paul ties in verse 21 with verse 22. There is an important clause found in verse 22 that needs to be examined, that clause is What if.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Here, we need to consult the original language of the passage. This time it is Greek grammar. The clause What if is translated from two Greek particles, δέ and ei. In Greek grammar, a particle is a conjunction or clause used to show the relationship between two sentances or concepts. In Romans 9:22 we have two particles:
δέ - A particle used after a phrase or sentance which typically means but. It denotes a transition or change to another idea and serves to introduce something else, either opposed to what preceeded (adversative), or simply continuing to explain (continuative). ei - A conditional particle meaning if. It expresses a condition which is hypothetical and seperate, indication a subjective possibility. (see below for further meaning) What is the difference between an adversative transition and a continuative transition?
An adversative transition is a contrasting or opposing change in the theme or idea being presented, as in the following example:
If we trust Christ as our Savior, we will have eternal life in Heaven, but if we reject Christ, we will suffer forever in Hell.
Notice the two contrasting statements separated by but if (δέ ei)
A continuative transition is a continuation of the same idea, adding to the theme, as in the following example:
If we trust Christ as our Savior, we will have eternal life in Heaven, and if (δέ ei) we we continue to trust Him, he will guide us throughout our lives. Can you see the difference between the two? Usually when δέ ei is adversative, it is translated but if, and when it is continuative, it is translated and if. Moreover, when δέ ei are used together, they are almost always meant in the adversative mode. In fact, the duel particles δέ ei appear togrther at least 120 times in the New Testament, translated various ways (but if, and if, yet if, now if, etc...) In 107 of those cases, they introduce an adversative transition from what was stated previously. In only 13 cases we see δέ ei introducing a continuative transition. In other words, in these 13 cases: (Matthew 5:29 - Rom. 6:8 - 7:20 - 8:9-10 - 11:12 - 11:16 - 11:19 - 1Cor. 3:12 - 4:7 - 15:12 - 16:10), δέ ei is used in a continuative transition. However, if you analyze these cases, you will discover that they are all contained within a continuing adversative argument, giving contrasting statements throughout the passage and begun with an adversative δέ ei, or just δέ.
Here is an example of δέ ei being used in a continuative transition:
Romans 8:6-17 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but (δέ) to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But (δέ) ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if (δέ ei) Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if (δέ ei) the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if(δέ ei) ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if (δέ ei)children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. In verses 10 and 17, we see δέ ei used in a continuative transition, continuing on the same thought. But this whole passage is a contrast between living in the flesh and living in the Spirit. We see the contrast introduced by the word but (δέ) in verses 6 and 9, and continued with the words but if (δέ ei) in verse 13. The theme in this whole passage is a contrast. If you examine the other examples mentioned above, you will see that the same is true in all cases. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that δέ ei used together is meant to be an adversative or contrasting transition from what was previously stated. It is similar to introducing a different point of view by employing the terms: on the contrary, or however, or on the other hand.
We will now consider some examples of δέ ei used in an adversative context: In Matthew 12:1-50, Jesus is responding to a charge by the Pharisees that He broke the Sabbath by picking ears of corn while he and His disciples were walking through a corn field.
Matthew 12:3-8 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if (δέ ei ) ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Jesus tells the Pharisees that He is greater than the Temple, and even greater than the Law of the Sabbath! But if (δέ ei ) they understood that God was more interested in mercy than in keeping the law, they would never have accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. We see here δέ ei introducing an adversative transition from the keeping of the law to the greater importance of the mercy of God. In Luke 11:1-54, the Pharisees have accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub.
Luke 11:15-20 15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
16 And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
19 And if (δέ ei )I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
20 But if (δέ ei ) I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. In this passage, we see δέ ei used both in the continuative context (V.19) and the adversative context (v. 20). In verse 19, δέ ei is used to continue the theme of Jesus working by the power of Beelzebub, but in verse 20, we see δέ ei used to introduce the adversative theme of Jesus working by the finger of God. In John 10:1-42, the Pharisees are at it again. This time the charge is blasphemy because Jesus had just proclaimed that He is the Son of God, and equality with God (vs.25-30).
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if (δέ ei ) I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Again, we see δέ ei introducing two contrary statements (vs. 37-38).
Sometimes δέ by itself is translated nevertheless and denotes the same opposing transition, as in the following passages:
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless ( δέ )I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Php 1:23-24 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
24 Nevertheless (δέ) to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
Hebrews 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless (δέ ) afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
It should be clear now that when the duel particles δέ ei appear together, or δέ appears alone, the function is to introduce or present an opposing point of veiw from what was previously stated. If we apply this same function to Romans 9:22-23, we can see that Paul is presenting an adversative or opposing transition from what was stated in verse 21, which seems to describe God as a potter who deliberately makes some vessels unto honor (those elect) and some vessels unto dishonor (those not elect). However, verses 22-23 describe God as willing to endure those vessels of wrath (unbelievers) who have rejected Him and thus fitted themselves to destruction (see below), that He might make known the riches of His glory to those vessels of mercy (believers) which He has prepared unto glory. Moreover, there is another grammatical significance to the word if (ei). In Romans 9:22, the word if is a First Class conditional conjunction. Conjunctions of the first class do not denote a mere possibility of something to be true, they show the assumption that it is true. We have a wonderful example of this case in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2.
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if (ei) ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. The word if in verse 2 is a first class conditional conjunction. It does not denote a conditional possibility of the Corinthians being saved only if they keep in memory what Paul preached to them. The word carries the idea that Paul assumes that they will keep in memory what he preached unto them. Another way to understand Paul’s meaning would be to say: "By which also ye are saved, since ye keep in memory what I preached unto you...", or "By which also ye are saved, because ye keep in memory what I preached unto you..." The word if in Romans 9:22 is in the same first class category. It does not present the possibility of God doing what the verse says, it presents Gods actions as a fact which can be assumed as true. With all this in mind, let us revisit Romans 9:21-23 in a different, non-Calvinistic point of view.
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Firstly, we learned that the example of the potter and the clay does not fit the application of Jeremiah 18:1-23.
Secondly, we learned that Paul was reprimanding a hypothetical objection to God’s right do His will by using the allegory of the potter and the clay.
Thirdly, we learned that the particles δέ ei indicate that verse 22 gives us an adversative, opposing trasnsition from what we see in verse 21.
Notice the word willing in verse 22, which is translated from the Greek words thelō or ethelō . Either one of these two words, depending on the tense used, means: to determine, to desire, to wish, to want to do something (Strong). The word willing here does not mean to give in or allow. Verse 22 is telling us that God desires to pour out His wrath and judgment on sin the same way He did in the days of Noah. God hates sin, but His love for the sinner and His desire to redeem him is greater than His desire to judge sin. This is the reason that He endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Another grammatical significance in verse 22 is found in the phrase: vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. The verb fitted is translated from the Greek word katartizō, meaning: to complete thoroughly, repair, adjust, prepare.(Strong). The verb is in the Passive Voice. A verb in the passive voice indicates that the subject of the verb is not the doer of the action but is passive in the action of the verb. In other words, God, the subject of the verse, did not "fit" or prepare the vessels of wrath to destruction, these vessels have fitted themselves to destruction. How? By rejecting the Savior.
So what is Paul teaching in this passage? I think that he is showing us that God is NOT like the callous potter who makes some honorable vessels and some dishonorable vessels (v. 21). On the contrary (δέ ei), God, in His patient mercy, is enduring all the iniquities He see in the world every day in order to make known the riches of His glory to those who will come to him by faith and receive His redemption (vs.22-23). God truly hates sin. He desires to judge the sin of the world. But His love for the sinner causes Him to hold back His wrath and offer the world mercy and redemption. Thank God for such love!! From verse 24 to the end of the chapter, Paul teaches us that the rejection of the Lord Jesus by the Jews led to the salvation of the Gentiles. He also expands on this theme in chapter 10. In verses 24-29, Paul quotes from three Old Testament prophecies concerning the unbelief of the Jews and the salvation of the Gentiles:
Romans 9:24-29 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
Now notice what Paul says in verses 30-33:
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Paul makes several important statements here:
The Gentiles attained salvation by the righteousness of faith - v. 30 The Jews followed after the righteousness of the Law - v.31 The Jews were not saved because the sought it by works instead of faith - v. 32 The Jews failed to receive their Savior because he was a stumblingstone and a rock of offence to them. - vs. 32-33
What does paul mean by the terms "stumblingstone" and "rock of offence"? The word stumblingstone is translated form two Greek words: proskomma, meaning to trip, or figuratively to fall into apostasy. And lithos, meaning a stone. The term "rock of offence" is translated from two Greek words also. Petra, meaning a large rock, and skandalon, meaning a scandal, snare, or an occasion to fall.
The people of Israel claimed to be the seed of Abraham and therefore heirs to the Kingdom of God, but when their long-awaited Messiah arrived, He was a scandal to them because he did not set up His kingdom. They had apostasized from the true purpose of Messiah’s first advent. They had ignored passages like Isaiah 53:1-12 and Psalms 22:1-31 which tell of a suffering Savior who must die for the sins of the world. They rejected their Messiah and Savior. They stumbled because Jesus did not immediately set up His kingdom and relieve Israel from the oppression of Rome. The national rejection of Israel led to the evangelization of the Gentiles, who did not have the "Stumblingstone syndrome", and a multitude of them believed on Jesus and were saved. Now this is the significant point in the passage: verses 30-32 tell us that the Gentiles followed not after the righteousness of the Law, but were saved by the righteousness of faith; whereas the Jews followed after the righteousness of the Law. Why were the Jews not saved? It was because they they sought it not by faith, but by the works of the Law. The key word in this passage is FAITH, not election, not calling, not predestination. God "drew" the Gentiles to salvation by the Gospel of faith, and he predestinated before the foundation of the world those whom he foreknew would believe!! Romans 9:1-33 is not the Flagship of Calvinism," it is the "Flagship of Faith." Paul shows us the faithfulness of God in providing salvation to the Gentiles, even though His own peole had rejected Him. He shows us that faith is the key, not works and not election. The Spurious Tulip wants us to believe that God chooses who will be saved and all others have no chance to escape judgment. We must reject that teaching because it is adverse to the loving, longsuffering character of God. Try to imagine what it must be like for God to endure all the evil He sees every day in the world. He absolutely hates sin, and desires to eradicate it from before His eyes. But His love for us is far greater than his desire to judge sin. God suffers with the sin He sees in order to extend the opportunity for more people to come to Him by faith. This is the teaching of Romans 9:1-33, not election, not God’s decree as to who will be saved and who will not. We can depend on God’s lovingkindness (grace) to ALL people, not just a select few.