In talking about Romans 9, the Arminian says, "Thus it is important to note that the text is not trying to describe unconditional election, but is in fact denying election by lineage. The Jews thought that they were elect by birth and justified by works. In other words, the entered the covenant by birth, and maintained it by works. Paul’s original thesis makes this clear. These examples are not examples of God choosing Isaac and Jacob, but examples of God not choosing Ishmael and Esau (as well as their descendants), even though they were sons of Abraham."
I am not sure what his logic is. If he is denying salvation by lineage then what else could Paul be talking about? The fact that Romans 9:1-13 is directly dealing with the Jewish line of lineage gives credence for Unconditional Election. I mean by this that in verse 7 only Isaac is mentioned in context. Before this Paul says it is not as though the Word of God has failed. The reason why is because not all are really Israel who are from Israel. Then he speaks of Isaac. We want to supply the Antithesis of Isaac as being Ishmael. Elsewhere Paul does compare the two, but here Paul's argument is only about the Jews. The question is why do not the Jews believe - For they had all things pertaining to Salvation. The answer is found in verse 11in order that God's purpose of election might continue. Again it is not the Children of the flesh who are heirs but the Children of promise.
Geerhardus Vos once said in his Biblical Theology that election "in regards to indidivuals, the divine saving grace is always a differentiating principle. There is a people of God, a chosen people, a people of election, as truly today as in the time of the patriarchs. Of this likewise Paul was intensely conscious. . . . On the one hand, as between Jew and Gentile, he upholds the principle of universalism, and proves it from the patriarchal history [Gal. 4.22]; on the other hand, as between Jew and Jew he insists upon discrimination; not all who are descended from Abraham are children of God and of the promise [Rom. 9.6]."
No comments:
Post a Comment