Here is the article by M. Patton on his blog site called Parchment and Pen.
While I do agree that the Scriptures teach that God loves all people and desires all to come to repentance (and I don’t qualify the “all” of 1 Tim. 2:4 as some), I also believe that this love does not motivate Him to elect all people to salvation. Unconditional election is the issue. Olson said it himself. There are incompatibilities within the Calvinist and Arminian systems of theology that make it impossible to have a hybrid. There is no middle ground between unconditional election and conditional election that I know of. I believe that God has unconditionally elected certain individuals before the beginning of time for salvation, and passed over others that He loves. I don’t understand why He passes over anyone, I just believe that the Scripture clearly says that He does. Of all the passages that teach unconditional election, there is one that I simply cannot explain outside of a Calvinist worldview–Romans 9. Romans 9 is so clear concerning the issue of unconditional election that in order to deny it I believe that one only has three options: 1) Deny inerrancy and attribute this teaching to the remnants of Paul’s pharisaic theology that he integrated with his new faith but was wrong (ouch!). 2) Deny that Romans should be part of the canon (overkill, don’t ya think?). 3) Adopt a radical new hermeneutical strategy that sees the difficulty of this passage, but denies its clear reading in favor of an interpretation that fits with an already supposed theological system (we all do this sometimes). While I am often tempted to choose the latter, I have not as of this date in my life. I believe that the plain reading of this passage tells us that Paul believed in what is to most a radical doctrine that seems unfair. Here is the passage:
Romans 9:6-24 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 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 does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
We must understand some contextual background here. In Romans 9, Paul is defending the security of a believer that was put forth in Romans 8. Remember, he ended that chapter by saying that there was nothing that could separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. In the context, the love is the love that foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified the elect. Therefore, according to Paul, there is nothing that can separate the elect from God’s salvation.
That is an incredible statement that Paul knows must be defended. He had been in the position before teaching this same thing to others. I could see it now. In Ephesus, teaching on the security of the believer, Paul makes the same proposition: “Nothing can separate you from God’s electing love in Christ Jesus.” Someone in the audience raises their hand and says, “Paul, this is great and all, but I have a problem.” “What is that,” Paul responds. “Well you say that the elect are secure in God, right?” “That is right” Paul says. “Well, what about Israel? Weren’t they God’s elect? Weren’t they promised security as well? What happened to them? They don’t seem to be following God right now? If their election is the same as my election, my election does not seem to secure.”
It was a good objection and needed to be responded to. Paul does so in Romans 9-11. He begins 9 by saying, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” (Rom. 9:6). Why? Because he sets up a diatribe (a conversation with an imaginary person) in anticipation of the response that the Romans will have to the claims of security in Romans 8. He wants to show that the word of God has not failed with Israel and it will not fail with Christians. He ends this section by reinforcing the bold security claims of Romans 8, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). So the entire section is about security. It is in defense of God; it is in defense of His claim that we cannot be separated from His love.
Paul’s explanation for the apparent failure of God’s electing love with Israel is right to the point. He explains that God’s election of Israel, with regards to ultimate salvation as he has been explaining it, was not of the entire nation without exception. In fact, it was always only a select few, a remnant, that were the true elect of God. He illustrates this historically by referring to Jacob and Esau (Rom. 9:10-13). Even though they were both from Israel, only one was chosen. Therefore not all Israel is elect. He later illustrates this by referring to the elect within Israel at the time of Elijah (Rom. 11:2-4). The argument again is the same. Not all of Israel could be considered among the true elect. Finally, he illustrates this in a contemporary way by saying that he himself is an Israelite and he has placed his faith in God (Rom. 11:1, 5). This is enough to show that God’s security is based upon the true elect, a remnant within Israel. Therefore, God has not broken His word in the past with Israel, and will not do so in the present or future. The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
Once again, this brings up another objection that Paul has most certainly heard through the years of teaching. Imagine this Ephesian once again hesitantly raising his hand saying, “Okay Paul. Forgive me, but now I have another question. If this is true, that God elects some individuals and not others as was the case with Jacob and Esau, this seems very unfair. Why does God still find fault? Who resists His will?”
Now at this point we must stop and realize the significance of this question with regards to the Calvinism Arminianism debate. Remember, this is the question that we are all baffled by when we first read this. When Paul says, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom. 9:18), we are taken aback. We think to ourselves the same as Paul’s imaginary objector. How can God hold someone accountable for making this choice when it is only God’s election that can cause them to do otherwise? It is a good question. One that I often ask myself. But we must realize this: the question itself helps us to understand that we are following Paul correctly. If you don’t empathize with the objection, then you have misunderstood Paul. But if we do understand how such a question could arise out of Paul’s seemingly radical comments, it means that we are interpreting Paul the same way as the objector. Now, when the objector says, “How can God still find fault, for who resists Him will?” if the Arminian position of conditional election were correct (that God simply looks ahead into the future and has decided to elect all who trust in Christ), there is really no problem. Paul just needs to calm the objector down by explaining how he has misunderstood the argument. If the Arminian position were correct, this is how we would expect the diatribe to proceed:
Objector: ”If this is true, why does God still find fault in people. Who can resist His will.”
Paul: “Oh, you have misunderstood me. You think that I am saying that God’s will is the ultimate cause of our salvation, not ours. Let me clarify. God’s election is not based upon His sovereign unconditional decree, but upon your will to choose Him. Therefore, He finds fault in people who do not choose Him by their own freedom. Doen’t this make perfect sense?”
Objector: “Oh, yes, it does. I feel much better. But you need to teach more clearly in the future. I thought you were saying something radically different.”
But of course this is not the direction the conversation goes. In fact, it gets stronger and more shocking. Paul did not have a definite answer to the objectors question. He confirms that the question assumes the right presupposition (unconditional election) by His response. ”On the contrary, who are you to answer back to God oh man. Will the thing molded say to the molder why have you made me in such a way? . . . ” I could see the objector cowering in the fierceness of the response. He is simply doing the same thing that I would do and have done upon reading this passage. The response let’s us know that while we don’t have the answer we were looking for, the presupposition, unconditional election, is indeed what Paul is teaching. There is no other way to take it in my opinion.
What a fearful thing. What an awesome thing. What a confusing thing. What a terrible thing. In sum, I believe that Romans is inerrant. I believe that Romans should be included in the canon. I cannot approach this passage from any other hermeneutic than an authorial intent. It seems to be the case that the intent of Paul was to say that God unconditionally elects some people to salvation and not others.
