(Note: This is an article summarizing some of the issues under debate. It is not meant to be a comprehensive study)
Arminians and other opponents of the Reformed Church very commonly interpret Romans 9 (particularly, Paul's argument about Jacob and Esau in verses 10-13) as speaking of corporate election to historical privileges, rather than individual election to eternal salvation. Piper and Schreiner give a number of counter-arguments to this interpretation which show its inconsistency.
John Piper's Four Counter-Arguments
[1]. The Significance of 9:1-5: In order to understand what Paul is saying in verses 6-13, we need to keep in mind that they function as a response to the problem that Paul raised in verses 1-5, namely that so many ethnic Israelites are "cut off from Christ". This language of being "cut off" is commonly used for a person who is unconverted our outside the covenant of grace (the substance of which contains regenerate people, while the outward administration encompasses both true and false believers; see WCF 7.6). See passages such as Numbers 15:30-31; Galatians 1:8 (?); Romans 11:19-24. Why would Paul be moved to "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" (9:2) simply because Israel failed to inherit its historical privileges/blessings? Rather, Paul's concern is over the wrath of God being poured out upon Israel.
Furthermore, the privileges which Paul says belong to the Israelites (adoption, glory, the giving of the law, the covenants, the service of God, the promises, the patriarchs, and the Messiah) have to do with eternal salvation:
The giving of the law had reference to the salvation of Israel (Exodus 19:6; 29:45; 32:13; 33:19).
Th service of God had reference to the salvation of Israel. Paul here uses the term λατρεία, which is commonly used in the LXX to refer to the priestly service of offering the sacrifice, or at least encompassing it (1 Chronicles 28:13; cf. Heb. 9:6), which no doubt was for the purpose of the atonement of Israel's sins as a nation (Exodus 29:35-37; Leviticus 4:20, 26; 5:10), as well as the sins of the High Priest himself.
The fathers - Romans 11:28 is a key text for understanding why the "fathers" or "patriarchs" (as some translations havae it) are listed as being among Israel's blessings: "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."
The glory - When Paul uses the term δόξα without any modification or qualification (as he does here in 9:4b), it often refers to future, eschatological glory (Rom 2:10; 8:18; 9:23; Colossians 3:4; 2 Cor. 4:17).
We could also add to this Romans 10:1, where Paul says that his desire for Israel is "that they might be saved." Romans 9:33 expresses a similar idea.
[2]. The Significance of Rom. 9:6b - In 9:6b, Paul says οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ - "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Piper argues that οὐ modifies the second part of the clause (οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ), rather than the phrase πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ. He argues this based on the similarity in syntax with how οὐ is placed in Rom. 7:15 (The Justification of God: , pgs. 65-66)
Paul's main goal in verses 6-13 is to defend the principle he has put forth in 6b, namely that God has made distinctions witihin Israel. Saying that God elected the nation of Israel (Isaac/Jaob), rather than Edom (Esau), does not serve Paul's purpose of explaining the election of God within Israel. It does not serve Paul's argument in showing that the word of God hasn't failed in spite of widespread Jewish unbelief.
Abasciano responds by insisting that the idea of distinctions within Israel, or of "choosing a remnant" is corporate in its language. Schreiner responds by saying "The same flaw applies to Abasciano’s discussion of the remnant. The remnant consists in those who have a circumcised heart in Israel (see Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4). They are the true people of God that reside in the corporate entity called Israel. Furthermore, I am puzzled why God needs to choose a remnant on Abasciano’s terms. After all, corporate election is only secured when individuals believe. Why do we need a remnant within the corporate group when, according to Abasciano, individuals benefit from corporate election by believing? On his terms we have two groups where corporate election is validated by faith (Israel as a corporate group and the remnant), which seems like an unnecessary multiplication of entities.
It should also be noted that the election of Israelites from within physical Israel cannot refer to merely historical privileges, since all physical Israelites possessed those. Therefore, Paul is talking about the issue of eternal salvation.
[3]. The vocabulary and structure of Romans 9:6b-8 -
6b - For all the ones from Israel, these are not Israel
(-) 7a neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are all children
(+) 7b but in Isaac shall your seed be called (Gen. 21:12)
(-) 8a That is, the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God
(+) 8b but the children of promise are counted as seed.
The "that is" clause at the beginning of verse 8a shows that Paul is beginning to clarify his argument in verses 6b-7. 8b corresponds to 7b, while 8a corresponds to 6b and 7a. In these verses, Paul makes a parallel between (physical) "Israel" and "children of the flesh", while also making a parallelism between (spiritual) "Israel" and the "children of God". This shows that Paul is still dealing with the issue of salvific distinctions within Israel. Moreover, Paul constantly uses the phrase "children of God" in reference to true believers (Rom. 8:16-17, 21; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 2:15), which shows once again the Paul is dealing with the issues of salvation and eternal destinies.
Abasciano himself recognizes the chiasmic parallel relationship between 6b and 7a (Brian J. Abasciano, Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: Intertextual and Theological Exegesis [PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen: 2004], pg. 318).
This particular portion of Paul's argument concludes in his statement that "the children of the promise are reckoned as seed." Galatians 3:26 says "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.", and in verse 29 it says "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." This shows that there is an identity between "children/sons of God" and "seed of Abraham", and confirms that Paul has more in mind here than just historical or theocratic national privileges.
One should also compare Romans 9:6-8 with Romans 2:25-29, which have a similar line of thought. In Romans 2, Paul teaches that not every person who is physically circumcised is inwardly circumcised in the heart. Similarly, Paul says in Romans 9 that not every person in physical Israel is a part of the true, spiritual Israel.
The Schreiner-Abasciano Debate on Romans 9
Abasciano's Understanding of "Corporate" Election: "I want to make it clear that when I speak of Romans 9 as containing corporate rather than individual election, I am speaking of the primary orientation of election, which of necessity must include individuals in its purview to some extent.7 But this in no way implies a traditional concept of individual election and actually undercuts much of Schreiner’s argumentation.....The important question that Schreiner fails to address is: How do the corporate and individual aspects of election relate to each other? Which is primary? If corporate election is primary, then it is the group that is the focus of election, and individuals are elect only in connection with the group. If individual election is primary, then individuals are separately the focus of election, and the group is elect only as a collection of elect individuals. Thus, either the corporate focus of election determines the identity and benefits of the individual based on participation in the group, or the individual focus of election determines the identity and benefits of the group based on the individuals who have been grouped together according to their similar individual characteristics/status...To speak of election as corporate rather than individual means that the primary focus of election is the community and that the individual is elect only secondarily as a member of the community" (Brian J. Abasciano, "Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner, JETS 49/2 [2006], pgs. 352-353, 358)
Brian Abasciano's view of corporate election (where individuals are taken into account, but the corporate aspect is the primary focus or "bent" of the decree of election) reminds me of the Dutch Remonstrant view which was (rightly) rejected by the Synod of Dort:
"That the will of God to save those who would believe and would persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith, is the whole and entire decree of election unto salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decree has been revealed in God's Word. "(Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, Rejection 1)
Schreiner's Rebuttal: "Corporate election, in Abasciano’s scheme, works as follows. God chooses that there would be the Church of Jesus Christ. Then individuals choose to be part of this corporate group, that is, the Church. But let us imagine for a moment that no one chooses to believe, which is logically possible. If this were to be the case, the corporate group would have no one in it. The Church would be an empty set. God has chosen a thing, but there is no substance to what he has chosen. In fact, if no one believes it would not even exist. Indeed, until individuals believe on Abasciano’s scheme, there is no one in the corporate group at all. If the corporate group is filled up on the basis of individuals believing, then it follows that the corporate group God has chosen is a nullity until people believe. All corporate election means, then, is that God chose that when people believed they would be part of the Church. God only chose that the entity called the Church would exist, but the fundamental issue, according to Abasciano, is the faith decision of individuals." (Thomas Schreiner)
No comments:
Post a Comment