Romans 9 is often taken as obvious scriptural evidence for a Calvinist (or Reformed) understanding of election and salvation. Named for the 16th century Reformer, that view interprets Romans 9 to teach that God has chosen and fixed the exact number of those who will be saved and those who will be condemned. The number of those elect for salvation is unchangeable. God will save them and no one else. Despite the popularity of this view in some corners of Christian theology, such a reading of Romans 9 is fraught with difficulty and problems. With this post, I want to draw your attention to a critique of Calvin that deserves a wider reading. The critique comes in an article by Charles Edward White (Spring Arbor University) titled "John Calvin's Five-Point Misunderstanding of Romans 9: An Intertextual Analysis" and can be read for free online in the Wesleyan Theological Journal 46.2 (2006): 28-50.
White notes that Calvin's interpretation is out of step with most interpreters of the early church and that his reading of Romans 9 is widely disputed by New Testament scholars today. As the subtitle indicates, White draws on the tools of intertextual analysis to consider Paul's use of Old Testament texts in Romans 9:6-24. If you're unfamiliar with intertextual interpretation, the basic idea is that when interpreting New Testament texts that allude to or quote the Old Testament, the Old Testament context must be taken into careful account when interpreting the New Testament passage in question. White demonstrates that Calvin fails to account for the Old Testament contexts of the various scriptural passages Paul refers to in the argument of Romans 9, which led the Reformer to misunderstand that chapter in a variety of ways. In short, Calvin got Romans 9 wrong.
White looks in detail at five problems in particular (let the reader understand). Each problem is put in the form of a question that Calvin answered incorrectly.
Are Ishmael and Esau damned (verses 6-13)?
Is God essentially arbitrary (verses 14-15)?
Did God completely control Pharaoh when he hardened his heart (verses 16-18)?
Can no one question God about salvation and damnation (verses 19-20)?
Did God create some people just to damn them (verses 21-24)?
With each question White highlights the exegetical errors Calvin commits that resulted in wrong answers to each of these questions. I strongly encourage you to click through and read the whole thing. The links in this post take you to a full PDF of Wesleyan Theological Journal volume 42.2. Just scroll down to page 28 to find White's essay.
One additional note: if you're interested in resources that reveal the manifold problems with Calvinist interpretations of the Bible, then you might want to look at Jason Staples' recent book, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, and Israelites. Staples doesn't set his argument in terms of the theological debate between Calvinists and Arminians. Nevertheless, his detailed exegesis throughout the book demonstrates conclusively that the Calvinist reading of Romans 9 is unsustainable. I don't expect committed Calvinists to be persuaded. However, if you're genuinely curious or undecided, Staples is essential reading.
Dr. Matt O’Reilly (Ph.D., Gloucestershire) is Lead Pastor of Christ Church in Birmingham, Alabama, Director of Research at Wesley Biblical Seminary, and a fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians. A two-time recipient of the John Stott Award for Pastoral Engagement, he is the author of Paul and the Resurrected Body: Social Identity and Ethical Practice, The Letters to the Thessalonians, and Bless the Nations: A Devotional for Short-Term Missions. Follow @mporeilly on X and @mattoreillyauthor on Instagram.
This page contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
Opmerkingen