The First Objective: God's Faithfulness

If the Gospel Is True, Then God Has Been Unfaithful To Israel (9:6-13)

Paul answers the Jewish accusation that the gospel would result in God being unfaithful to His promise to Israel by demonstrating that His word had not failed in anyway.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son’ (Romans 9:6-9)

“Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the nations will be blessed in you.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer… Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’—in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith…and if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:7-9, 13-14, 29).

Isaac was not personally elected unconditionally before the foundation of the world, but he was saved from his sins by faith (Hebrews 11:20). Paul’s point in Romans 9:9 is not about Isaac’s personal salvation, but God’s decision that he constitute a part in the lineage which brought the Messiah into the world, “For this is the word of promise, ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son” (Romans 9:9, cf. Genesis 18:14). Again it must be emphasized that the phrase “word of promise” identifies the provision of the Messiah for the whole world through the Jewish people: i.e. “Sarah shall have a son.”

It cannot be over-emphasized that God’s word had not failed, because physical Israel had fulfilled the purpose for which God had chosen them as a nation. The choice of God in accordance with His divine purpose, to bless all nations through the seed of Abraham, would stand through the lineage of Jacob, not Esau.

“And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated’” (Romans 9:10-13)

The belief or unbelief of Israel would not alter the purpose of God to offer mercy to all nations through Christ. Paul wrote, “For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?” (Romans 3:3). God’s choice to use ethnic Israel to fulfill His purpose was not dependent upon their goodness, evil, or works, but God’s faithfulness (9:16; 11:28).

Those who argue that this passage refers to God’s unconditional election of particular individuals to salvation do so in spite of the context not because of it. Paul’s statement that “the older will serve the younger” is a quotation from Genesis 25:23, “And the LORD said to her: ‘Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger.’” Historically, Esau never personally served Jacob, yet the Edomites, as Esau’s descendents, did serve Israel, the descendents of Jacob (Genesis 33:4, 5; 2 Samuel 8:13, 14).

Scripture demonstrates that God’s love of Jacob and hatred of Esau did not refer to their personal salvation, but to God bestowing His blessing upon the nation of Israel. Long after the decease of both Jacob and Esau the scripture records the following:

‘I have loved you,’ says the LORD. ‘Yet you say, 'In what way have you loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ says the LORD. ‘Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated, and laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness’ (Malachi 1:2, 3)

So why do we read of Isaac being chosen over Ishmael and Jacob being chosen over Esau? It was important for Israel to understand that even their place in the provision of the Messiah was by God’s sovereign choice. The ones NOT chosen (Ishmael & Esau) are NOT thereby condemned to hell; they are simply excluded from having a part in the working out of God’s redemptive plan. Jehovah had the sovereign right to choose how he would work out His redemptive purposes and through whom He does so.

If the election of Romans 9:11 is that of personal salvation then there are grave consequences regarding the nature of God, for the election of this verse was not based on any good or evil that Jacob or Esau did. The logical conclusion for the proponent of Calvinism is that all those who are damned to hell are not condemned ultimately because of their “evil,” but due to the fact that God did not have any redemptive love for them.

Stephen Garrett, a Calvinistic Baptist, in expressing his view of Romans chapter 9 said,

...Brother, when you talk about God loving somebody and God hating somebody, are you not talking about eternal salvation? He hated Esau before He was born and He says it was not based on any evil that he did [1]

Gene Cook, Jr., a well known defender of Calvinistic theology said in discussion of this context,

‘Non elect infants who die in their infancy will spend eternity in hell’ – I would answer true to that question, you have to be elect in order to be saved. If this question is false, then we should perform abortion, because abortion is the greatest evangelistic act that has ever taken place since the time that Jesus walked the face of the earth, because everyone of those children are going straight to heaven according to Mr. Brown’s theology [2]
So when he (Bruce Reeves) stands over here and says, ‘His’ (Gene Cook, Jr.) ‘God is a monster, his God is not fair, his God sends little babies to hell ... there is nothing they can do about it,’ he (Bruce Reeves) is really arguing against the God of the Bible... [3]
You just got up and heard Mr. Reeves make the argument that my version of God is a God who puts one baby on the saved list and another baby not on the saved list and I’m going to show you from Romans chapter nine that that’s what the Scripture says [4]

It is here that it becomes painfully obvious that Calvinistic theology must ignore the immediate context of this section of scripture, as well as the remote context of scripture in order to uphold its position. Those who are willing to abuse this text to teach unconditional individualistic election take unwarranted liberties with scripture for one reason and one reason alone: to affirm their own theology. The view that would assert that “God is the first cause of all evil,”[5] “the devil does what God commands him to do, no more and no less”[6] and the total inherent inability of men to seek Christ by faith does not come to the book of Romans in an unbiased fashion. Calvinists have in many ways put all of their eggs in the basket of Romans nine and it is my conviction that this very text may be the key to removing the underpinnings of Calvinism: that is a false view of sovereignty!

The application of Romans 9 to unconditional individualistic election violates the very point that Paul was trying to make to the Jews, and that is, that God intended Israel to be the conduit for the provision of salvation for all who would believe. Those who will say that “God provided salvation for all men,” but foreordained from eternity that they would not and could not respond are guilty of illogical double-talk in order to avoid the necessary conclusion of their teaching. [7]

Works Cited

[1] Garrett-Donahue Debate on Election
[2] David P. Brown & Gene Cook, Jr. Debate, Feb 16, 2000)
[3] Reeves-Cook Debate, Gene Cook’s Fourth Negative, June 24, 2005.
[4] Reeves-Cook Debate, Cook’s Fourth Negative, June 24, 2005.
[5] “Both evil and good come from God…So what happens when you emphasize the will of man, then evil becomes only associated, there is no sense in which God decrees evil, there is no sense in which God wills evil and so evil is only from the heart of man and from the heart of Satan, ... but we recognize as reformed Christians that those are secondary causes, that the first cause of evil is God, Himself ... Man does not resist evil when he is fulfilling the decrees of God” (Is God schizophrenic? "The Two Wills of God” Gene Cook - 8/12/05)
[6] “The devil is God’s devil. He does what God allows him to do, he does what God commands him to do, no more and no less.”(Reeves-Cook Debate, Quote played from a sermon by Gene Cook, Reeves third affirmative June 24, 2005).
[7] Stephen Garrett has written on his blog, www.baptistgadfly.com: “I am confirmed in my ‘five point’ Calvinism, although I have come to see how God has a general love for all men, and has provided salvation for every man."