Romans 9:19

[Noah1201]

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

How do non-Calvinists understand this verse?

[jlay]

Yes, Romans 9 does naturally raise these questions.

There is no question that the bible teaches pre-destination and election. That is without doubt. The bible also teaches man's will, response, responsibility, and accountability. There is also no doubt about that. The conflict arrise when men try make these things fit into their systems of theology.

I have no doubt about the soveriegnty of God, and no doubt about the responsibility of man.
We need to ask some questions when reading Romans 9. What is Paul's context about? It is about "my people, my race"(v3) that being Israel. The question is, has God betrayed his promises to the nation of Israel. (v6) This has to do with Paul's explanation regarding these questions, not about a person's individual salvation.

God was not unjust when he soverignly chose Israel out of the other people's of the world, to be his nation of priests. God soverignly moves in his universe, and we must be humble enought to admit that we don't understand all His ways. He choses a great many things beyond our understanding, but this really isn't reason to reject all the bible has to say about personal responsibilty to make this chapter fit a theological view.

[Noah1201]

I'm aware of some of the various alternative interpretations of Romans 9 in general, but it is this verse that I'm particularly interested in. For example, I'm familliar with the interpretation that God hardens people's hearts in response to whether they freely choose to believe or not.

Yet, this verse just cannot be read from that perspective. What would be the point at all of asking "Why does he still blame us"--if it's our fault that we're being hardened? The answer to that question is self-evident: because we're being hardened, not arbitrarily, but in response to our disbelief.

[jlay]

Not sure I follow what you are asking, or how we could comment on the verse without considering the context in which it is written. It is important to note that this verse is NOT what Paul is saying. This is what Paul thinks some people will say in response to what he is saying. Big difference.

[Noah1201]

I did not say that context does not matter. As for what my question is--it's the same I asked in the opening post, I merely added reasons as to why I find the particular interpretation I mentioned unconvincing.

I agree with you that Romans 9 is about whether God's promise for Israel failed. Furthermore, I agree that God was not unjust that He chose Israel out of all nations to be a nation of priests. Finally, I agree that God did a great many things we do not understand. But I don't think any of this answers the Romans 9:19 issue.

[jlay]

But I don't think any of this answers the Romans 9:19 issue.

Noah, just what exactly is at issue?
All you said was, How do non-Calvinists understand this verse?
I've told you, as a non-Calvinists how I understand the verse. First in the context, and then I commented on the specific verse. Specifically, that this is not what Paul thinks or feels. This is how he thinks some reading this, will respond to what he is writing about Israel. He follows with a rebuke of anyone who would conclude such a thing. That's the most basic interpretation of this verse in and of itself. Why would that understanding have anything to do with Calvinists or non-Calvinists positions?

[Canuckster1127]

Here's a quote from Arminius on this passage.

Now follows another objection of the Jews, sprung from the latter part of the conclusion immediately preceding; in the refutation of which those who urge that “absolute decree” of God for simply saving some and damning others think that they have a great support for their cause. . . .
The objection is of this kind: “Why, then, doth He yet find fault?” The reason is added: “For who hath resisted His will?” (Verse 19). Which points, propounded in the form of interrogation, will be thus solved: “Therefore He cannot with good reason find fault, because no one can resist His will.” The objection will be completed by the addition of the antecedent from which that consequent is deduced: “God hardens whom He will: Therefore He cannot with good reason find fault with those who are hardened.”
The ratio of connection is this: “Because no one can resist His will.” Hence a connect of this sort exists: “If no one can resist God’s will, then He cannot rightfully find fault with those whom He hardens by that will.” . . . The first question will be solved if it be explained what that is on account of which God can with good reason be angry; that is, what is the proper cause of the Divine anger. But the proper cause of the Divine anger, and that for which God can rightfully be angry with any one, is sin. . . .
To the will of God is here attributed omnipotence able to subject all things universally to itself, and in fact so subjecting them whenever the will accompanies it, and it the will. But omnipotence does not always accompany God’s will in whatever way considered. For God wills that His law should be performed by all; which is not done.

But it does not thence follow that there are two wills in God, contrary to each other; the one willing that His law be performed by all; the other, that it be not performed: for so it would not be wonderful that the law is not performed by many, when this will armed with omnipotence hinders the other from being done.

James Arminus, “Analysis of Romans IX,” in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 3:503-504.

[Canuckster1127]

In other words, speaking in terms of the traditional variances between Calvinism and Arminianism, Calvinism says that God's omnipotence is always at work with His will and therefore anything that is in this world is by God's will. Arminianism says that God's will is not always tied to His omnipotence. In other words, God chooses in many instances, as the example of His Law, to express His Will that it be kept, but He doesn't couple that to His omnipotence allowing man to operate as a moral free agent, knowing that His will in that context will often not be done.

I think the root of much of the argument is semantics and is ultimately irreconcilable. I see it reconciled in the mystery of God that is beyond our comprehension. When we insist on pushing one or the other of these mutually exclusive positions it then becomes necessary to go through some extraordinary exegetical gymnastics to promote those passages that support the chosen aspect we've landed upon and then those passages that contradict have to be subordinated.

There's nothing wrong in my opinion with admitting that elements of both are true and that humanly speaking, based upon the level of revelation God has given us, there are some questions that are ultimately not answerable in the neat little systematic packages we want to push them into.