"Who are YOU, the one answering back to God?"

[Guest]

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9

Calvinists insist that when Paul responds to the hypothetical comment, he agrees with the second part of the statement (that no-one has resisted God's will) but he is chastising the remonstrant for complaining about the dreadful reality which he has correctly taken from Paul's words, i.e. that God has unconditionally elected some individuals to salvation and reprobated the rest.

An alternative understanding is that Paul disagrees with both parts of remonstrant's comment. Thus, he is not affirming that no-one has or can resist God's will. He is saying, "what do you mean no-one has resisted God's will, you are the one who is resisting God's will, by making such a statement."

1) The latter intepretation seems to be backed-up by the actual nuance in Paul's words. Apparently, "Greek grammar has a way of putting an emphasis on a pronoun in the text. Such an emphasis is generally not shown in Bible versions as it can be awkward to do so. But the ALT shows the emphasis of the pronoun by underlining such pronouns. Showing the emphasized pronoun is important as it is being used for, well, emphasis. Either the speaker is emphasizing his role in the action or there is an emphasis on the person being spoken to or being spoken about." http://www.dtl.org/alt/background/unique.htm

With this in mind, it's insightful to read the passage in the Analytical Literal Version:

"You will say then to me, "Why does He still find fault? For who has [ever] stood up against [or, resisted] His purpose?" But rather, O human, who are you, the one answering back to God? The thing formed will not say to the one having formed [it], "Why did you make me like this?" will it?" Romans 9 ALT

The pronoun "you" is underlined, meaning that it is emphaisised in the original. This lends weight to the idea that Paul is identifying the hypothetical remonstrant as one such resister and thus refuting the notion that no-one has resisted God's will.

2) But I have a question. If all of this is true, then why did Paul anticipate this question being asked in the first place? Was he expecting that people might draw the wrong conclusions from his words (as he does elswhere in the epistle). If so, would this false conclusion be the very same one which Calvinists insist on drawing from this passage?

Anyone's comments would be greatly appreciated

Ely

[Guest]

When we consider the following passage to which Paul may have been referrng in the Romans 9, we see that the whole parable is based on the way the potter can rework the clay to make it different from what he intended. So God can reshape a nation if it repents! In the Romans 9 passage, Paul seems to be saying that God can rework Israel and so fulfill His promise since "It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants." Rom 9:8

1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD:
2 "Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words."
3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel.
4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me:
6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it.
9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.
11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.’ Jeremiah 18:1-11

[Guest]

Ely-

Although I think you already have a good handle on Romans 9, I would encourage you to read the MacPherson's commentary at:

http://www.biblestudying.net/studies.html#foundation

You can find it under "Calvinism and Free Will (Arminianism)"

I will quote a portion of one of their articles:

"Notice that both Romans 9:20 and Isaiah 45:9 start out very similarly. Paul speaks as though the person offering this hypothetical objection is contradicting God. Isaiah has a man striving with his Maker. Likewise, the verb "repliest against" from Romans 9:20 and the verb "striveth" from Isaiah 45:9 have very similar meanings, "vocally contending." There can be no doubt that Paul's phrase "who art thou that replies against God" is actually Paul quoting Isaiah and referring back to Isaiah 45:9 to establish his "Nay but," which is Paul's rejection of the latest objection offered in verse 19 against Paul's conclusions so far.

Calvinists don't seem to realize that verse 20 is actually a quote of Isaiah, which Paul is using to refute verse 19. Instead, Calvinists assume Paul is breaking from his previous pattern of argument and instead now AGREEING with the PREMISE of verse 19. Calvinists then look at verse 20 as Paul's attempt to refute, not the PREMISE of verse 19, but the IMPLICATION. Calvinists believe Paul accepts the PREMISE of verse 19 (that God condemns men for doing things He wills men to do.) And they believe that Paul's statement in verse 20 is meant only to reject the IMPLICATION that there is something wrong with that process. Instead, what is clearly happening is that Paul is rejecting the PREMISE of verse 19 (that God condemns men for doing things He wills men to do) and the IMPLICATION of wrongdoing that comes from it.

By demonstrating that Paul has a pattern of argument in which he offers a premise, then offers a possible objection to that premise, and then refutes that objection, we have shown that the Calvinist interpretation of verses 19-20 is wrong. Paul is not accepting the PREMISE of verse 19 only to reject its IMPLICATIONS. Paul is rejecting the PREMISE of verse 19 and immediately moving to a quote of Isaiah to uphold his rejection."

http://www.biblestudying.net/romans9-8.html

In answer to your question of why Paul would anticipate the objector responding in an unbiblical fashion, I think v. 18 is one of those verses that is hard to inculcate. God's choice to show mercy or harden (I don't believe that hardening happens without God first showing mercy) may seem inherently capricious. But it is not. God has His purposes and we must trust that they are fair and good. Paul's example of the hardening of Gentile Pharoah illustrates that mercy comes before hardening (Pharoah hardened his own heart first) even though it is God's prerogative when to enact His judicial hardening of an individual.

Brian

[Guest]

Thanks Brian. I'll check out that study a bit later

Ely

[Guest]

It wasn't until I listened to Steve Gregg's lectures on Romans 9 that I had ever [even] heard it being interpreted how Steve and the links postpre provided do.

Steve's Romans 9 lectures are totally excellent! Give them a listen if you haven't. As usual, Steve presents different viewpoints, then his. On this chapter I think Steve has Paul down-to-a-T! (Romans 7 may be another topic, lol).

Anyway, I did a LOT of googling trying to find ANYone who held to this particular interpretation of Ro. 9:19, 20. I looked under "John Wesley", "Arminians", "Arminius", etc., and couldn't find a single Arminian-thinker who saw Romans 9:19, 20 in this way! (This sort of surpised me).

At the same time; I went to an (Arminian) Assemblies of God Bible college and completed all of their Theology courses...and never heard anything close to this interpretation. Nothing like it was ever mentioned; just the standard Arminian interpretation as contrasted with the Calvinistic.

I don't know but have an idea that N.T. Wright may hold a similar position as Steve Gregg and the website guys postpre provided.

In any event, if this interpretation of Romans 9 and verses 19 & 20 in particular are correct -- and I believe it is and is irrefutable! -- Calvinism doesn't have a leg to stand on....
In Christ: Merry Christmas,
Rick