The original article: https://hillbillylogicblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/why-romans-9-doesnt-teach-individual-election/
A couple initial thoughts:
1. You jump all over the place for translations (several of which aren’t really appropriate for exegetical arguments from the text). This has the appearance of “lemme choose a translation that words it ambiguously enough for me to get the point that I want out of it.” Who are you –Rick Warren?
2. You are doing an overview, which is fine, but it is precisely some of the line by line argumentation that is precisely part of the argument for the Reformed view and against your Corporate (almost Neo-Barthian) view.
3. Anyone who is not a Dispensationalist will fundamentally disagree with you that Romans 9-11 is a parenthetical section. In fact, we would say that it builds directly and expressly on the comments in prior chapters, specifically Romans 8, on God’s predestination of persons found in Christ being foreknown, called, justified, and glorified and not separated from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus. This INDIVIDUAL soteriology of Romans 8 is the seedbed from which Romans 9-11 comes to blossom – it was rather telling that your “summary” in the set-up section stopped at Rom. 8:1 and cut off the entire section dealing with predestination and calling/election directly leading to Romans 9. So on top of that, your Dispensational presupposition of a disconnected parenthetical section will instantly sink your article for most readers before it even gets started because it simply is not how the overwhelming majority of the church and exegetical commentaries treat this section. To a large part, even most Progressive Dispensationalists have even moved well past this kind of butchering of the text.
4. You mention that this section is how God sovereignly deals with his people, but not individuals, per se. This is just to beg the question of how we should read it. I’m not even sure what it means for god to elect a people without electing individuals. Not only do I think such a concept is completely antithetical to the expressed teaching of Christians in passages like Eph 1 and Rev 3, but also is just conceptually unconvincing – like saying that every 2 years the US elects a President but not an individual per se, or that we elect Congress but not individual congressmen. I just don’t think that concept itself makes very much sense (even if we unwisely ignore God’s personal dealings of foreknowing, calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification of his church as a whole but via individuals).
5. Methodologically, treating the “avoided” verses in isolation and skipping them and the role they play in the argumentation that Paul is actually employing is extremely problematic. I’m not sure we should ever treat verses out of order and without their context (or sections to the exclusion of verses within that section) is ever a prudent hermeneutical decision. Let me now switch to engaging some of your comments.
You push hard on the “Who” section that this is dealing entirely with “groups” of people. Ironically you point to v. 7-8 as evidence of this, missing that 7-8 show the exact opposite. Paul’s point is that even in the covenant “group” of God’s people Israel, there were PERSONS who were recipients of the promises because of faith, and there were PERSONS who were not and that they CANNOT make the claim that they were God’s people because they belonged to the Israel as a group. It is entirely this personal responsibility that Paul is getting at. Israel was the people of God en toto sure, but PERSONS who were ethnically identified with that group WERENT actually part of the group.
You continue this trend of ignoring individual markers – the promises given in real history to the real woman Sarah about having a real child in a real year and a real name Isaac. The real Rebekah in real time having two real sons by one real man – and that God’s plan of election might continue (notice he had been electing people since BEFORE the birth of these two actual men), God chose them before they (the two real men) did anything right or wrong (actual actions). Now, there may be broader group applications for this, but it only applies insofar as the principle holds to the individuals. So did Jacob and Esau come to be stand ins for nations? Sure. But it is just terrible exegesis to say that just because their names are used (ignoring ALL personalizing historical details given) that it MUST be talking about nations. Paul is showing us that a principle that holds for the individuals ALSO holds on a broader scale. But if there is no principle for the individuals, then there is no principle to draw on for the whole. That is, you NEED the Reformed understanding of the personal principle of election to even get to where Paul is applying it to nations (which I’ll show we probably shouldn’t make too much hay of anyway if we want to hold to the NT teaching that the gospel is for all nations/peoples). To this, you “two nations” section simply makes a mountain out of a molehill and attempts to push out and ignore the principle of personal election as the basis for Paul’s broader Jew/Gentile argument.
Further, you ignore verses like 14-16 that read, “ 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” Here Paul is EXPRESSLY individualizing. The question about fairness only makes sense if it is about the individuals, especially given the nature of the conflicts between Edom and Israel. Any Jew reading back on the history of Israel and Edom will have no problem with God choosing Israel of Edom – Edom acted wickedly toward Israel on MANY occasions. Incidentally, this would also be a prime place had Paul been a Molinist, for him to say that God chose Jacob over Esau before they had done good or evil BECAUSE he knew Esau would sin and Edom would oppose Israel… but he doesn’t say that at all. Instead, notice what Paul DOES say as his argument. Rather than it being based on God’s foreknowledge of their freewill decisions, it is that GOD’S plan of election would continue (v11) and that it is NOT based on human will or exertion (clearly individual concepts) but on God who determines on whom to show mercy (v16). It is in THIS context of individual principles that Paul then moves into the question of Pharaoh. And yet, you continue this problematic reading when you treat Pharaoh as MERELY a representative of Egypt as a nation. Once again, Pharaoh may represent Egypt but it is only AS an individual that he does so. God acts with principles to Pharaoh (the man) that can then be extrapolated and applied to the nation. Not to mention that once again, this would NOT be an example that the Jews would have found objectionable “unjust” or “unfair” if Paul were expecting his readers to understand these as primarily referring to nations generally and not nations of individual people specifically. Paul tells us, “ 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.,” (v18). So building on the notion that this is primarily or firstly applicable as an individual principle, and that this is not built on what people do but before they are born so that GOD’s choice in election may continue, and that it is not by human will or exertion, and that God is not unjust in unilaterally deciding who to have mercy on, Paul builds on this and says that not only is it’s entirely God’s prerogative to choose whom to have mercy on, but also whom to harden with the individual man Pharaoh as his example. Now, if this was about EGYPT and not just Pharaoh as an individual, or if either was based on their actions and not simply on God’s unilateral sovereign electing decree, NO Jew would look back and think, “well that’s not fair for God to not show mercy on wicked Pharaoh or evil Egypt…” And yet this is PRECISELY the objection that Paul anticipates from his largely Jewish audience.
And here we come to your favorite verse to skip – v19. This follows immediately on the heels of v18 and this is why no non-Reformed views really do justice to this verse. Because they want Paul to be teaching Libertarian Freedom, and as such distort what he is saying (such as that he is talking about corporate and national groups), it renders the objection that follows to be utterly meaningless. For if it IS based on their actions (or God’s foreknowledge of those actions – which is nowhere stated in the text) then there is NOTHING that is “unfair” about that to which a 1 st century Jew would protest. The objection of “well that’s not fair” in v19 would literally make zero sense. And yet if Paul is teaching the individual principles of election and reprobation, the objection makes sense – in fact it is the objection almost universally stated by advocates of Libertarian Freedom. Paul is getting the SAME objection to his theology that the Reformed do!
In your attempt to handle this verse, you make some problematic statements. You said, “Paul is clearly showing that the election and rejection is about nations, but more accurately, ‘peoples’ groups.” Here there is one major problem – if God hardens and rejects a NATION/PEOPLE then is the gospel for them? I don’t see how it can be. In fact, this would undermine Paul’s entire point – God has NOT harden and rejected the whole nation/people of Israel but has kept for himself a remnant. Paul seems to be saying IF God really did harden/reject a nation, then EVERYONE in that nation would be without hope of the gospel! But since the gospel is for all nation (with the inclusion of the gentiles) then by that same principle NO nation can be hardened/rejected as a whole! This would radically undermine the clear and abundant New Testament teaching that the gospel is for ALL nations and ALL people – no NATION/PEOPLE are rejected. In fact, this would REQUIRE you to engage in personal principles coming and going! You would need hardening/rejection to only be on the reprobates of the nation and not the nation en toto (which would undermine your entire interpretation) but then if you wanted to still hold firm, you would need a personalized escape route that even though God has rejected a nation, that the PERSONAL principle of salvation by faith would be an out for individuals. So you need a personal principle exception on both ends of your corporate view which makes it entirely obsolete and a legal fiction anyway. So not only is it not supported by the text, but is reflexively self-destructive if we hold the view up to its own standard.
I’ll stop here and not move any further since I think this has been ample evidence that the Traditionalist/Molinist reading of Romans 9 along Neo-Barthian corporate election views is so antithetical to the text that it should be rejected and an imposition rather than an exegetical conclusion.
You can find Tyler’s podcast here:
http://freedthinkerpodcast.blogspot.com/
The Council 