Romans 9 and the Calvinist Doctrine of Reprobation

“I sought out the permission from the Journal of Baptist Theology & Ministry to reproduce this article because I believe it is one of the best and most concise refutations of the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9-11. Please read this with the objectivity to learn from brother Eric’s wise words.”   -Leighton

Romans 9 and the Calvinist Doctrine of Reprobation

by Eric Hankins, PhD

Eric Hankins is pastor of First Baptist Fairhope in Fairhope,

Calvinist theologian Wayne Grudem defines reprobation as “the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice.”[1] The doctrine of reprobation, which is essential to Calvinism as the necessary corollary to the doctrine of unconditional election,[2] asserts that there is a certain group of persons who have never been and will never be the objects of God’s redeeming love regardless of whether or not they hear the gospel. God has determined not to give this certain group of individuals the grace and faith necessary for salvation. He does not base this determination to withhold grace and faith on anything having to do with the reprobate persons themselves. He withholds grace and faith from them simply because it brings him the most glory. The jolting but unavoidable reality is that Calvinism teaches that the one and only reason that the lost are not saved is that “God does not want them saved.”[3] Indeed, Grudem’s definition is quite clear on this point: reprobation is God’s “sovereign decision . . . before creation . . . not to save them.”[4] Critically engaging this particular doctrine of Calvinism is important because reprobation lies at the very core of Calvinist soteriology and because it suffers from acute exegetical, philosophical, and theological problems. If the dubious doctrine of reprobation falls, Calvinism will need a significant revision.

In calling reprobation into question, I will focus on the very particular task of demonstrating that Romans 9 does not demand such a doctrine. This may seem rather inconsequential at first glance, but it is actually quite significant because of the role Romans 9 plays in Calvinist constructions of the doctrine. Calvinists themselves acknowledge that reprobation is enormously problematic and that the problem is compounded by a lack of biblical support.[5] Grudem notes, “ . . . the doctrine of reprobation is the most difficult of all the teachings of Scripture for us to think about and accept because it deals with such horrible and eternal consequences for human beings made in the image of God.”[6] The repugnance of reprobation is why Calvinists like Grudem come up with philosophically incoherent fixes like “single predestination,” God’s “asymmetrical relationship” to election and reprobation, God’s “two wills,” “two loves,” and so on.[7] Grudem concedes that it seems disingenuous to speak of God’s sorrow over the reprobate if he decrees it. His answer is that “God can decree something that causes him sorrow yet ultimately will bring him glory.”[8] But God’s decreeing something sorrowful is not the problem with reprobation. It is God’s decreeing something evil. Jerry Walls’s observation at this point is apt:

[T]heological compatibilists [like Grudem] often make claims and engage in rhetoric that naturally lead people to conclude that God loves them and desires their salvation in ways that are surely misleading to all but those trained in the subtleties of Reformed rhetoric. . . . Such language loses all meaning, not to mention all rhetorical force, when we remember that on compatibilist premises God could determine the impenitent to freely repent, but has chosen instead to determine things in such a way that they freely persist in their sins.[9]

God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral. Damning certain people by withholding something freely given to others is not glorious. It is indeed a horrible decree.[10]

Therefore, if there are no biblically explicit reasons to affirm reprobation, it should be gladly and quickly rejected. The burden is on Calvinist theologians to assemble significant and unassailable biblical support for reprobation because it runs against the grain of what the Bible clearly teaches about God’s character and purposes,[11] and because it is philosophically impossible both to affirm reprobation and deny that God causes evil.[12] Calvinists must do more than point to biblical texts like Romans 9 that might suggest reprobation; they need unimpeachable proof of it. Therefore, it is not necessary to demonstrate that Romans 9 cannot affirm reprobation. All that is required is to demonstrate that Romans 9 can be understood legitimately another way.

Moreover, demonstrating that Romans 9 does not demand reprobation is significant because the main reason Calvinists give for affirming reprobation is that Scripture does demand it, that there is no other way to read such texts. Grudem says of reprobation, “It is something that we would not want to believe, and would not believe, unless Scripture taught it . . . . Moreover, if we are convinced that these verses [Rom 9:17–22, specifically] teach reprobation, then we are obligated both to believe it and accept it as fair and just of God, even though it causes us to tremble in horror as we think of it.”[13] But what if one is not convinced on exegetical grounds that these verses teach reprobation? Romans 9 most certainly can be read faithfully and seriously in a completely different way—indeed, in a manner much more faithful to Paul’s intentions and to the plain sense of the text and context. Strong cases can be made that other Calvinist proof-texts for reprobation can be understood differently as well. Grudem relies heavily on Romans 9 (and Romans 11), but mentions Jude 4 and 1 Peter 2:8 as well, both verses highlighting the fact that the unfaithful were destined for condemnation long ago.[14] However, there is every reason to understand these verses as simply pointing out the fact that God has always planned to condemn those who oppose the gospel. Again, if reprobation readings are not demanded by the texts, and reprobation is, frankly, a theological and philosophical cul-de-sac, then it should be abandoned.

So, to restate the purpose of this essay: the problematic doctrine of reprobation is not a necessary theological implication of Romans 9. If Romans 9 disappears as an iron-clad justification for reprobation, then the doctrine and Calvinism with it are in serious trouble.

Romans 9 and the Centrality of Jewish Unbelief

The essential exegetical warrant for the claim that Rom 9 does not support the doctrine of reprobation is this: Romans 9–11 is focused on the salvation-historical role of unbelieving Jews in the present, not the ontological status of all unbelieving people for all time. While Jewish rejection of the gospel certainly has implications for everyone else (i.e. Rom 9:22–26 and 11:17–25), Paul’s fundamental argument in Romans 9–11 addresses the problem that Jewish unbelief is creating for the credibility of the gospel he is preaching and the manner in which he goes about preaching it. What Paul says of these unbelieving Jews cannot simply be transferred to all unbelievers. In fact, the point that Paul is driving home in Romans 9–11 is that God does not treat Jews the same way that he treats the rest of humanity. The things Paul says in Romans 9–11 concerning the unchosen, hated, not recipients of mercy, hardened, vessels of wrath, not saved, like Sodom and Gomorrah, pursuing salvation by works, unbelieving, stumbling, zealous without knowledge, disobedient, obstinate, failing to obtain what they are seeking, in a stupor, blind, bent, trespassing, broken off, not spared, enemies of the gospel are things he is saying about unbelieving Jews, not everybody else. If Calvinists want to try to infer that these adjectives apply eternally to all those individuals who will never believe in Jesus because God has foreordained it, that is certainly their prerogative, but it is not a demand of the text and such a theological assertion fits very poorly within the context of Romans and with the rest of the biblical witness.

This exegetical approach to Romans 9 begins with the conclusions of John Taylor, who writes:

Christian scholarship has focused on Romans 9 as source material for the free will/determinism debate, going back at least as far as Origen’s dispute with the Gnostics. With Augustine the ground of the debate moved, and after him a determinist reading of Romans 9 became dominant, continuing in Protestant churches through the writings of Luther and Calvin. Both this reading, with its emphasis on individual election as the thrust of the chapter, and the opposing reading, with its emphasis on free will and corporate election, stem largely from an atomistic and philosophical approach to the passage which has paid too little attention to the relevance of Rom 9–11 to the Roman believers to whom Paul writes, and to the flow of the argument in Romans. This is not to suggest that the concerns of the tradition are illegitimate, or that such questions should not be asked of the text. But it is necessary to question whether Romans 9 can bear the weight of the theology which has been thrust upon it, and to investigate what theological emphases would emerge from a more contextual and unified reading.

Based on an approach to Romans which sees the interpretation of the phenomenon of Jewish unbelief in Jesus by comparison to the growth of the church among the Gentiles as the key factorbehind the writing of the letter (italics mine), an initial investigation leads to a number of conclusions.[15]

Taylor’s conclusions are: (1) unbelieving Jews are the focus of Romans 9; (2) the fate of these Jews is salvation by faith, a fact that restores credibility to Paul’s claim that his gospel is powerful enough to save both Gentiles and Jews; (3) God is free to save these Jews by faith, and, therefore, is not unjust to reject them if their hope remains in “works of the Law;” and (4) the Jewish hope for salvation is based completely on God’s mercy. The significance of these conclusions for this discussion of reprobation is that Rom 9 is not dealing with philosophical issues related to the metaphysics of divine action and human freedom.[16] Rather, it is the first part of Paul’s answer to the central problem driving the entire letter: the problem that Jewish unbelief is creating for the credibility of his gospel and his missiology.[17]

The centrality of the problem of Jewish unbelief in Paul’s letter is implicit in his proposition in Rom 1:16–17: the gospel is the power to save Jews and Gentiles in fulfillment of God’s covenant faithfulness, yet there is a potential for shame. The problem is explicitly set forth in Rom 3:5, Is God unrighteous in inflicting wrath upon Jews rather than saving them? The problem is fully addressed in the letter’s climax, Romans 9–11: Jews are rejecting the gospel and are, therefore, rejected by God. If God’s righteousness is revealed in the power of the gospel to save Jews and Gentiles, then what of his righteousness if Jews are rejected?[18] The whole promise of God in Messiah Jesus through his chosen people was to create a worldwide Jew and Gentile family, through whom he would rescue all of creation. On one hand, these promises are being fulfilled amazingly: Gentiles are coming to faith in droves. What is happening in the church in Rome is known all over the world (1:8). On the other hand, surprisingly, mysteriously, grievously, the Jews, by and large, are refusing to come. And this raises the question of God’s righteousness. Has he been unable to keep his promises stretching all the way back to Abraham?[19]

Let’s trace this concept quickly through the letter: The power of the gospel is on display in the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles (1:16–17). God has the right to judge and save both Jewish and Gentile sinners by his standards, and his standard is faith in the gospel (2:12–16). Gentiles who think their efforts will save them are in trouble (2:1–5). Gentiles who have something happen to their hearts will be viewed as righteous (2:14–16). Jews who think their efforts will save them are in trouble (2:17–24). Jews who have something happen to their hearts will be viewed as righteous (2:28–29). It is in the discussion of true Jewishness that Paul raises the issue of fairness, an issue he does not raise in the discussion of Gentiles. Is it fair for God to condemn Jews because of their failure to keep the Law God gave them. Is it fair of God to use their failure to point others to the way of faith (3:5–8)?[20] Paul’s answer, at this point in the letter, to the question of God’s righteousness with respect to Jewish unbelief is simply to affirm it because he is the judge of the world. Then he quickly returns to the central point of Romans 1–3: everyone is under the judgment of sin, therefore the promise to Abraham is unfulfilled. The Law has not solved the problem (3:9–20). So, apart from the Law, God has revealed his righteous commitment to keep his promise to Abraham: the salvation of a Jew and Gentile family through faith in Jesus (3:21–31). This is Abraham’s faith and true members of Abraham’s family share this faith (Rom 4). They are beloved children who now share in the whole story of Israel’s redemption: rescued from Adam’s death-dealing rebellion by the Second Adam (Rom 5), brought out from slavery to sin through the death of Christ (Rom 6), having the Law fulfilled in them through Christ (Rom 7), and brought fully through suffering to the end of the story by the Spirit (Rom 8).[21]

But the problem of God’s righteousness in the face of Jewish unbelief left hanging in Rom 3:5–8 is made all the more acute by what has happened from 3:9 to the end of Romans 8. If God has accomplished his great work in Christ of adopting many sons through whom he will rescue all of creation, what has gone wrong with the Jews? They aren’t coming. Isn’t this an embarrassment? Isn’t this a failure on God’s part? Isn’t this unjust treatment of his covenant people, which calls God’s righteousness into question? Or is this simply evidence that God has given up on them in favor of the Gentiles? Should the church in Rome even bother with Jews anymore? Should Paul continue to go to the synagogue first as he takes his gospel west toward Spain? And so, in Romans 9–11, Paul takes up the task of explaining how Jewish rejection of the gospel is not a source of shame for him or a cause to question God’s righteousness. The essence of Paul’s defense of the gospel in the face of Jewish rejection is this:

God actually purposed Jewish rejection all along. Just as God’s rejection of the Jewish Messiah served to save the world, so his on-going rejection of Jews serves a salvific purpose as well.[22] The present function of Jewish rejection of the gospel is to show the world how God does not save, piling up and bearing a bit longer the wrath deserved by the whole world and driving the good news of how he does save out into the world (Rom 9). The source of Jewish rejection is what it has always been, confidence in their privileges instead of trust in the promises, and the solution to their rejection is what it has always been, faith in God’s promised Messiah (Rom 10). And the story of unbelieving Jews is not over. Their fate is not consignment to perdition based on God’s inscrutable choice; instead, it is glorious salvation as part of God’s ultimate plan to have a Jew and Gentile family of faith, if they believe (Rom 11).

So, where did the Romans 9 reprobation readings of the last 1500 years come from? From this one fact: Paul’s overwhelming concern about Jewish rejection of the gospel has not been shared by those interpreting the text in subsequent generations. The unbelief of Jews as a primary falsifier of the gospel has not been a feature of Christian soteriological reflection in many centuries. When the central concern of Romans has been lost by those reading it, is it any wonder that confusion ensues? Is it any wonder that Paul’s interests have been replaced with those of Western metaphysics of divine action and human freedom? It turns out, however, that Romans 9–11 is not about the ontological function of reprobation in service of God’s justice, but the salvation-historical function of present Jewish unbelief in service of a great Jew and Gentile redemption.

Paul’s discourse on God’s dealings with unbelieving Jews not only excludes reprobation readings in Romans 9 because he is not addressing God’s soteriological disposition to all people, it also excludes reprobation because what is said of unbelieving Jews is temporary, not permanent.[23] Again, Grudem’s definition of reprobation states that God settled his decision about unbelievers “before creation.” Paul, however, is talking about a temporary state of affairs for currently unbelieving Jews. Within the long list of descriptors Paul uses to describe these temporarily unbelieving Jews, three in particular are most often cited in Calvinist constructions of reprobation: hated, hardened, and vessels of wrath. These states of affairs, however, are temporary, not permanent. In Romans 9–11, God does not “hate” all unbelievers forever, just unbelieving Jews who are like Esau and who, only if they remain like him, will not be counted as sons. In Rom 11:28, these same “hated” unbelieving Jews are also “beloved” for the sake of their forefathers, who have been promised a massive Jew and Gentile family. God is not hardening all unbelievers, just unbelieving Jews. In 11:25, God’s hardening of these unbelieving Jews is “partial,” and he will not harden them forever, only until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. The vessels of wrath in 9:22 are not all unbelievers but unbelieving Jews in distinction to vessels of mercy who are both Jews and Gentiles. In 11:31, these disobedient Jews, because of mercy shown to the Gentiles, will also be shown mercy. If, in Rom 11:11–32, the unbelieving Jews of Romans 9 are stumbling so as not to fall; if their failure will become full inclusion; if their rejection will become acceptance; if the leftover lump will be made holy, if broken branches will be grafted back in, then Romans 9 cannot support a doctrine of reprobation.[24]

Finally, a reprobation reading of Romans 9 is ruled out by the fact that Paul clearly intends to demonstrate that the temporary resistance of Jews to the gospel has a redemptive function that brings salvation to all, including those very same unbelieving Jews. An ample intertextuality between Rom 5:6–21 and 11:11–32 makes the case for an analogical relationship in Paul’s mind between the vicariousness of Messiah Jesus for the world and the vicariousness of unbelieving Jews for the world.[25] Rather than an expression of God’s unconditioned choice of some individuals and not others, God’s treatment of unbelieving Jews has a unique salvation-historical purpose. He is treating them in ways he is not treating everybody else because of their unique role within the promises to Abraham to save the world. Paul is telling the story of how the vocation of Israel (just like the vocation of the Messiah) has always included (and continues to include) rejection and suffering for the salvation of the world as well as acceptance and vindication. God is setting aside Gentile “disobedience” through Jewish “disobedience” thereby making a way for Gentile “obedience” (11:30–31) in a manner that is analogical to the way that Adam’s “disobedience” was set aside by the “obedience” of Messiah Jesus (5:19).[26] Through the Messiah, God is graciously allowing his faithfulness to be reckoned to sinners while the condemnation of sinners falls on the Messiah. With unbelieving Jews, God’s judgment against their unbelief is substituting for his rightly falling judgment against all, so that room is made for mercy toward the Gentiles. In Calvinist constructions of reprobation, there is no thought of a redemptive purpose in the casting away of the lost. As Grudem notes, reprobation is a display of God’s “justice,” not his mercy. But for Paul, mercy is the point of God’s treatment of unbelieving Jews (11:30–31).

The redemptive aspect of Jewish unbelief is further substantiated by Paul’s employment of the “jealousy motif” in Rom 10:19 and 11:11 and v.14. In 10:19, Paul quotes from the Song of Moses (Deut 32), a passage that deals with the salvation-historical necessity of judgment and salvation. In Rom 10:19, Israel’s “jealousy” is negative, but the eventual redemption promised by Moses allows Paul to shift the motif in a positive direction in Romans 11. Paul explains in v.11 that Jewish rejection has resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles, which, in turn, will provoke his fellow Jews to jealousy, resulting in the salvation of some of them in fulfillment of Moses’s prediction. Here, Paul can positively juxtapose “provoke to jealousy” and “save.”

As in the Song of Moses, Paul believes that when Israel sees that God’s favor has passed them over and been given to the Gentiles, they will be provoked to jealousy, in the sense of seeking to emulate. They will then be saved, in the same way as the Gentiles, by turning to the Lord.[27]

In the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation, there is no possibility for jealousy over the salvation of others to be a gateway to redemption. If Paul’s focus is on Jews (not everyone), the current time period (not all eternity), and ultimate redemption (not settled rejection), then Rom 9 does not support the doctrine of reprobation.

Specific Exegetical Examples of the Failure of Romans 9 to Support Reprobation

Three verses in particular figure heavily into Calvinist constructions of reprobation: Romans 9:13, 18, and 22. Paul’s meaning becomes quite clear in each when the overall context is kept in mind, and it is clear that a doctrine of reprobation is far from a necessary conclusion.

Romans 9:13, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated

Here, Paul is not making a general point about how God deals with everybody, that all people can be put into two groups, those he has rejected from eternity and those He has accepted. Paul is making a specific point about how God has always dealt with and continues to deal with unbelieving Jews. Paul’s conclusion of the whole argument about unbelieving Jews is that God will ultimately save them by faith. So, whatever “Esau I hated means,” it cannot mean God reprobates certain people because Paul’s point is not that God has reprobated unbelieving Jews. Like the unbelieving Jews, Esau has the right ethnicity and he has not “done anything good or evil,” but he is rejected as a son because ethnicity and effort have never been the basis of salvation.[28] God purposes this as a demonstration of how he does not save. Paul is not citing the verse “Esau I hated” as proof that God sets his hatred on some individuals for no other reason than his own glory. Paul cites the verse as a demonstration that God was never obligated to have beloved sons on the basis ethnicity or effort but by believing his promises. He decided long before Jacob and Esau were born to welcome children on the basis of a call that demands a response. Unbelieving Jews find themselves in precisely the same position as Esau (genetically related to Abraham, not “having done bad”) because they reject God’s call in the gospel, believing that law-keeping will justify them.

Romans 9:18, So, he has mercy on whomever he wills and he hardens whomever he wills

Again, Paul is not making a general point about how God deals with everyone. He is making a specific point about how God deals with unbelieving Jews. Just as God hardened Pharaoh so that Israel would be saved and his name would be proclaimed everywhere, God is hardening ethnicity-trusting, Torah-trusting Jews in this moment to make the glory of his Messiah-trusting salvation among Jews and Gentiles evident to the whole world. God has mercy on Gentiles even though they do not have the right genetics or the Torah, and God hardens Jews who do. Paul will make the point in Rom 11:25 that this hardening of unbelieving Jews will last only until all the “fullness” of the Gentiles is achieved, then these unbelieving Jews will be saved, if they believe.[29] So, reprobation is ruled out of Rom 9:18 because the hardening Paul speaks of is specific to the Jews, not all unbelievers, it is temporary, not permanent, and it is for the maximizing of salvation for all, not the display of God’s justice.

Romans 9:22, Vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction

Once again, Paul is not making a general, philosophical, timeless point about how God deals with everyone. He is making a specific, salvation-historical, time-sensitive point about how God is dealing with unbelieving Jews. Paul draws the imagery of vessels from Jer 18:1–12. Jeremiah goes down to the potter’s house where he observes a potter crumpling an unwilling clay pot he has not yet fired and starting over. God’s point to Jeremiah is that he has the right to change what he will make of a nation based on its response to him. Paul’s point is that God has the right to change the destiny of Jews if they refuse to believe the gospel. Even though they have been shaped for blessing as God’s people, because they reject his gospel, they are now being shaped for wrath. This may not look fair from a human point of view. These Jews have the right pedigree, and they have the Torah, so it might be assumed they should be saved. But God has the right to make his plan for salvation the way he wants, and he wants to save through faith in the Messiah. Because salvation through faith in Messiah Jesus is “God’s purpose in election,” Gentiles, vessels formerly shaped for wrath are now being surprisingly re-shaped into vessels of mercy, while Jews, vessels shaped historically for mercy are now being shaped for wrath. In God’s plan, Jewish rejection of the gospel makes clear to the world that God is powerful enough to save the way he chooses and that he will not give special treatment even to his own ethnic people if they do not trust in Messiah Jesus. This makes even more clear and glorious his salvation of Jews and Gentiles by grace. Yet, the illustration in Jeremiah rests on the fact that the pots have not yet been fired in the oven. If the unbelieving Jews will repent, the Potter has the right to remake them for mercy rather than destruction. This is exactly Paul’s conclusion in Rom 11:30–31: “For just as you [Gentiles] once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their [Jews’] disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.” It cannot be the case that the unbelieving Jewish “vessels of wrath” of 9:22 refer to a class of individuals permanently reprobated if this same group, disobedient in the present, have a destiny in which they will be shown mercy.

Romans 9 and Calvinist Exegesis

What does this approach to Romans 9 mean for Calvinist theological exegesis related to reprobation? Let’s look again at Grudem. He cites Rom 9:17–22 (the “hardening” and “vessels of wrath” verses) as evidence of God’s decision to save only some, giving no explanation, as though reprobation is so plain that no further analysis is needed. Grudem himself, however, acknowledges in the same section on reprobation that Rom 9:1–4 speaks of Paul’s “great sorrow when he thought about unbelieving Jews who had rejected Christ.”[30] Context demands that the problem of Jewish unbelief must still be in Paul’s mind thirteen verses later. Like Pharaoh, unbelieving Jews are being hardened so that God’s name might be made great in all the earth, namely, through the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles. Is hardness the final word on these unbelieving Jews? Hardly. Rom 11:25 speaks of the partial hardening of Jews until the Gentiles have come in, at which time salvation will come to all. Grudem goes on to quote Rom 11:7 “the elect obtained it but the rest were hardened” in support of the Calvinist idea that “God failed to choose all for salvation.”[31] But what does Paul go on to say about the “hardness” of the “rest”? Again, just a few verses later, Paul speaks of a partial hardening removed once the Gentiles come in.

Indeed, in quoting Rom 11:7, Grudem hints at what I imagine is the main Calvinist exegetical objection to my reading of Romans 9–11: that Paul is speaking of elect and reprobate Jews—elect Jews obtained salvation but non-elect Jews are rejected forever. Paul’s resolution, however, in Romans 9–11 to the problem of Jewish unbelief is not merely that God is preserving a remnant of Jews who believe. That is certainly part of Paul’s answer, given in Rom 11:1–6. God has indeed kept a remnant of believing Jews, Paul’s own faith serving as an example.[32] But what about the rest of the Jews, the “non-remnant?” In 11:7, Paul does say that these unbelieving Jews are presently hardened. However, in v. 11, Paul asks (and this is critical) concerning these hardened, unbelieving, non-remnant Jews who have been the focus of the entire passage, “Did they stumble in order that they might fall?” The clear import of the question is, “Are these presently unbelieving, non-remnant, stumbling-over-the-gospel Jews destined to fall permanently?” Paul answers his own question in the strongest terms: “mē genoito! Absolutely not!”[33] God is using their missteps to bring Gentiles to faith in order to make these unbelieving Jews jealous in order to include them in the “fullness” of Israel. In v. 14, Paul says his ministry is about saving some of these jealous, stumbling but not falling, unbelieving Jews. If “the rest” are permanently hardened, why is Paul bothering to preach to them? That is exactly the thinking that Paul is arguing against here.[34] In v. 15, still referring to this single category of presently unbelieving, non-remnant Jews, Paul speaks of both their rejection and their acceptance. In v. 16, not only is the remnant of Jews “holy,” so is the rest of the lump of unbelieving Jews. The “remnant” root is holy and so are the branches.

In vv. 17–24, Paul observes that indeed these branches, these unbelieving, non-remnant Jews, the rest, have been broken off. Why are they broken off? Verse 20 tells us: “they are broken off because of unbelief.” Is this being broken off permanent? Verse 23: “Even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.” Paul draws his argument to a conclusion in vv. 25–31. The hardening of these unbelieving Jews is partial. The hardening will be removed, and all Israel, the rest, will be saved. They are not reprobate but “beloved” (v. 28). No longer vessels of wrath, they are objects of mercy (vv. 31–31).[35]

Paul’s point in Romans 9–11 is not that there are elect and reprobate Jews. These categories must be read into the text. Paul’s long point beginning in Romans 9 is that presently unbelieving Jews, like Ishmael, are not saved by ethnicity; like Esau, not saved by works; like Pharaoh, hardened for world-wide proclamation; like exilic Israel, reshaped for wrath, no longer “My people” because of their faithlessness and, thereby, putting the glory of the grace extended to believing Jews and Gentiles on display. In Rom 10:1, Paul still desires the salvation of these unbelieving Jews who are pursuing righteousness by works. Salvation is by faith, and this good news must still be preached to them. In Rom 11:1, Paul asks, “Has God rejected his people?” Again, mē genoito! is the answer. He is preserving a remnant of Jews by grace through faith. He is hardening the rest presently so that the Gentiles can come in, making the rest of the Jews jealous, so that at the right time God can bring them to salvation—if they believe.

How then can Grudem find reprobation in Rom 9:17–22 and in 11:7 when the subjects of those verses remain the objects of God’s saving intentions? As Taylor warns above, Grudem’s exegesis suffers from an inappropriately atomistic and deterministic reading that causes him to make one mistake after another. In an attempt to make the case that God is not being disingenuous for feeling sorrowful over the condemnation of people he refuses to save, Grudem points to Paul’s sorrow over unbelieving Jews, as though Rom 9:1–4 is focused on Jews who will never believe.[36] But Romans 9–11 tells the story of the present, not permanent, unbelief of Jews. Of this same group, Paul says in 10:1, “My heart’s desire and my prayer for them is for their salvation.” Paul’s grief in 9:1–4 is not that they cannot believe but that they have not yet believed and stand, therefore, under God’s coming wrath. Only by completely ignoring the context can Grudem understand Paul as desiring and praying for the salvation of people he believes God does not desire to save.

In conclusion, it ought to be clear that the key texts from Romans 9 used to support the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation can be understood actually to be making the opposite theological case: God has not given up on a certain category of people. Since these texts do not demand the exegetically, theologically, and philosophically incoherent idea of reprobation, what verses are left to support this problematic doctrine? If we simply let Paul say what he wants to say in Romans 9–11, we have an incredible doctrinal truth: Even when, by our standards, it looks as though certain people will never come to faith, God never gives up on his plan through his people to pursue them. That is a sovereign God worthy of worship.

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 685. Italics mine. Cf. W. S. Reid, “Reprobation,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984): “This term . . .  refers to the fact that God has eternally condemned the nonelect to eternal punishment.” Similarly, Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 319, avers that reprobation refers “to negative predestination or God’s choice of some to suffer eternal damnation or lostness.”

[2]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 684: “When we understand election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, then there is necessarily another aspect of that choice, namely, God’s sovereign decision to pass over others and not to save them.” Italics mine. See also Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932; Woodstock, Ontario: Devoted, 2017), 47, available at (accessed January 17, 2018): “The doctrine of absolute Predestination of course logically holds that some are foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to life.” James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2001), 2:483–85, demonstrates that Augustine, Calvin, and those following in their theological tradition would affirm that reprobation is a necessary implication of election.

[3] Ken Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), 58, calls this “the deep, dark, ‘dirty-little-secret’ of Calvinism.”

[4] For the sake of simplicity and ease of engagement, I will be interacting in the body of the paper exclusively with Grudem’s view of reprobation. His systematic theology text has sold over a half-million copies and is a trusted staple of conservative evangelical seminary education. His construction of the doctrine conforms to the standard “infralapsarian” approach of the Reformed tradition. See also Michael Horton, The Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 316–17.

[5] Boettner, 47: [In his section on reprobation] “The chief difficulty with the doctrine of Election of course rises in regard to the unsaved; and the Scriptures have given us no extended explanation of their state.”

[6] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 685.

[7] Roger Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 102–35, and Keathley, 138–63, demonstrate, in their respective chapters on unconditional election, the self-contradictory and, therefore, self-defeating nature of these assertions.

[8] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 686.

[9] Jerry Walls, “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian, Should Ever Be A Compatibilist,” Philosophia Christi 13 (2011): 98–99.

[10] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God in The R. C. Sproul Collection, vol. 1, available at (accessed January 20, 2018). Sproul’s honesty at this point would be refreshing if his conclusions weren’t so disturbing: “The nasty problem for the Calvinist [is] . . . . If God can and does choose to insure the salvation of some, why then does he not insure the salvation of all? . . . The only answer I can give to this question is that I don’t know. . . . One thing I do know. If it pleases God to save some and not all, there is nothing wrong with that.” On the contrary, it is the very definition of wrong.

[11] The handful of texts that might suggest reprobation is set against those texts that clearly teach God’s love for and desire to save all (John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:2–4, 2 Pet 3:9, 1 John 2:2, etc.).

[12] William Lane Craig, “Response to Paul Kjoss Helseth’s ‘God Causes All Things,’” in Four Views on Divine Providence, ed. Dennis W. Jowers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 58–62. Craig argues that, against the determinism on which reprobation is based, five objections can be raised: (1) “[It] cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture,” (2) “cannot be rationally affirmed,” (3) “makes God the author of sin and denies human responsibility,” (4) “nullifies human agency,” and (5) “makes reality into a farce.”

[13] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 685. See also Reid, “Reprobation,” who states that, while Calvin, in his Institutes, regarded the doctrine as dreadful, he viewed it as the clear teaching of Scripture, citing mainly Romans 9 as his evidence from the New Testament.

[14] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 685.

[15] John Taylor, “The Freedom of God and the Hope of Israel: Theological Exegesis of Romans 9,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 56 (Fall 2013): 25–41.

[16] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, ed. Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 548: “Once we recognize the importance of this Jewish motif in Romans, we can give Rom. 9–11 its appropriate place in the letter. . . . Paul is not simply using Israel to illustrate a theological point, such as predestination or the righteousness of God. He is talking about Israel herself . . . .”

[17] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 548: “Paul frames chaps. 9–11 with allusions to the key tension he is seeking to resolve: the Jews, recipients of so many privileges (9:4–5), are not experiencing the salvation offered in Christ (implied in 9:1–3).”

[18] Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 911, WUNT 63 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 51.

[19] Taylor, “The Freedom of God and the Hope of Israel,” 36.

[20] The questions of 3:5–8 (“Does Jewish faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? Is God unrighteous to inflict wrath on unfaithful Jews”) are both answered with mē genoito! These questions are raised again in Rom 9:14 (“Is there any injustice in God?”), 11:1 (“Has God rejected his people?”), and 11:11 (“Have they stumbled in order to fall?”). The answer is the same: mē genoito!

[21] N. T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” available at (accessed January 17, 2018): 5–20.

[22] N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013), 1208.

[23] Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1236–37.

[24] A. Chadwick Thornhill, The Chosen People: Election, Paul and Second Temple Judaism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 248.

[25] “Much more” (5:9, 10, 15, 17; cf. 11:12, 24; no other occurrences in Romans); “transgressions” (4:25, 5:15, 16, 17, 18, 20; cf. 11:11, 12); “reconciliation” (5:11; cf. 11:15; no other occurrences in Romans); “enemies” (5:10; cf. 11:28; one other occurrence); “being saved” (5:9, 10; cf. 11:14, 26; only one other occurrence outside chs. 9–11); “life from the dead” (5:10, 21; 11:15); abundance/fullness (5:20 cf. 11:12).

[26] N. T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2002), 681.

[27] Sigurd Grindheim, The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel, WUNT 202 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 163.

[28] Thornhill, The Chosen People, 237.

[29] Grindheim, The Crux of Election, 162.

[30] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 686.

[31] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 685.

[32] It is worth noting here that pre-conversion Paul serves as a perfect example of the soteriological function of the “hardened,” unbelieving Jew. The Saul we meet in Acts 7:58 is an “enemy of the gospel,” opposing it with all his might. Yet, he only serves to drive it out of Jerusalem and toward the Gentiles. This is the consistent plot of Jewish rejection in Acts.

[33] Thornhill, The Chosen People, 248.

[34] Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1236.

[35] Glen Shellrude, “The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: A Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6–29,” Evangelical Quarterly 81 (2009): 315.

[36] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 686.

30 thoughts on “Romans 9 and the Calvinist Doctrine of Reprobation

  1. Thank you, Leighton. I was privileged to read a draft of this a week or so ago, and I was profoundly impacted. Would to God that Calvinists would be also. This is not merely a humanly reasoned position, I believe it represents a sound hermeneutic and as well as exegesis that is far superior to anyone who would hold to reprobation ala Calvin. For me, Eric’s paper settles the election matter for me.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Great article Leighton, and helpful.

    Of course I believe – There are no predestined individually reprobate, whether pointed out or passed over eternally and immutably, because there are no predestined individually elect.

    God says clearly that it is from those not His people or His beloved that individuals become joined to Christ through faith and added to His elect. (Rom 9:25)

    Before they have the Spirit of God, He clearly says they are not His. (Rom 8:9).

    The false premise of being individually eternally immutably elect may make a believer feel more special… but it is at the expense of logically and unbiblically making God into a monster masochist!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I would agree, Brian, that it makes little difference whether one proposes that the ‘elect’ are Jews, Gentiles or any arbitrarily selected number of individuals. This retains the main error of Calvinism, which distorts not only the gospel message, but the very character of God. There is one and only one ‘just’ and hope-granting theory of election to salvation from sin and death, and it just so happens to accord with scripture:

      God has determined that ‘whosoever will believe’ will be saved. Read the words of Jesus in John 3 to get the full picture.

      What you will find is that there is no distinction on the basis of race, gender, birthplace or shoe size. Salvation was never intended for Israel alone, for Aryans or for any other limited group of people. True grace is truly attainable by all men. We may ponder all of the imponderables involved, and speculate as to how they might apply, but we must never fall into the error of asserting that God has not freely offered everlasting life to all who will trust him for it.

      What a fitting, and beautiful reality that the only condition to being made ‘acceptable’ in God’s sight is to believe that he desires to make you acceptable, and has graciously provided the means whereby you can have a second chance. This grace is not limited to any type or number of persons, or to one’s personal ability, strength and discipline, but is available and sufficient to whosoever will believe in it, including the humblest, weakest sinner. Jesus ate and drank with ‘sinners’ because it is they who he came to save. The self-righteous will never acknowledge that they fall into that category. Yet, humble confession of sin and the need of a Redeemer, which leads to being ‘born again’ into a new creature, is the only requirement for salvation, and the true hope for all men.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Otherwise, I agree with the premise that the passages that Calvinism interprets in such a way as to proclaim an arbitrarily predetermined, limited atonement for a select few can have other possible interpretations. This fact, which seems obvious, (but is essentially denied by most Calvinists), should be enough to encourage any God-fearing man or woman to seek out other possibilities for understanding difficult to understand passages. Sadly, Calvinism uses fear, scorn, name-calling and all sorts of questionable tactics to manipulate those whom they have steamrolled into submission to their ‘authority’ to decide what is the ‘true’ meaning of scripture.


  3. Excellent Article!!

    The fact that Calvinists *ALWAYS* speak out of two sides of the mouth – should serve as an undeniable red-flag, that something foundational (under the surface) of the doctrine is terribly wrong.

    Unless one wants to argue that speaking out of two sides of one’s mouth comes from the Holy Spirit!

    Somehow I don’t think so! :-]


  4. Dr. Hankins writes, “The jolting but unavoidable reality is that Calvinism teaches that the one and only reason that the lost are not saved is that “God does not want them saved.”

    As pointed out in reference 3, Dr. K. Keathley calls this “the deep, dark, ‘dirty-little secret’ of Calvinism.”

    No amount of sugar-coating this doctrine makes it acceptable to most. Thank you Dr. Hankins for shining the flood-light of the Word on this horrible teaching.


    Ron F. Hale

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Dr. Hankins writes, “The jolting but unavoidable reality is that Calvinism teaches that the one and only reason that the lost are not saved is that “God does not want them saved.”

      Not exactly. Calvinism teaches that the lost are not saved because they do not want to be saved and God, who could save them, will not save them. Because God, and only God, has the power, and final decision, to save anyone He wants, the only reason a person is finally lost – given their desires, even hatred for God – is because God does not save him. Doesn’t everyone believe that??


      1. He does not save them, according to determinism, because He immutably doesn’t want to save them, immutably doesn’t want to provide sufficient grace to enable the even to seek freely His mercy, immutably wants to create them to be eventually tormented forever for His pleasure. That’s not the God of Scripture or my Savior.

        It’s so sad there are many who want to trust the theories of others as dogma and reject the authority sand clear teaching of Scripture that contradicts that teaching… which dishonors the character of God!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. brianwganer writes, “He does not save them, according to determinism, because He immutably doesn’t want to save them, immutably doesn’t want to provide sufficient grace to enable the even to seek freely His mercy, immutably wants to create them to be eventually tormented forever for His pleasure.”

        He does not save them, according to determinism, because He doesn’t want to save them, doesn’t want to provide sufficient grace to enable them even to seek freely His mercy, and created them to be eventually tormented forever for His pleasure. God’s decisions are necessarily immutable regardless when one thinks God makes them.


      3. From Rhutchin:
        ‘Dr. Hankins writes, “The jolting but unavoidable reality is that Calvinism teaches that the one and only reason that the lost are not saved is that “God does not want them saved.”

        Not exactly. Calvinism teaches that the lost are not saved because they do not want to be saved and God, who could save them, will not save them. Because God, and only God, has the power, and final decision, to save anyone He wants, the only reason a person is finally lost – given their desires, even hatred for God – is because God does not save him. Doesn’t everyone believe that??’

        Distortion at its finest. No, sir, everyone does not believe what you believe. Hankins states without obfuscation what Calvinism teaches, Rhutchin tries to hide it under sophistry, which appears to be his sole agenda.

        Calvinism teaches that NO ONE ‘wants to be saved’, not even the ‘elect’; that all are desperately wicked and without hope, and that, exactly as Hankins wrote, ‘the one and only reason that the lost are not saved is that “God does not want them saved.”’

        It can’t be a ‘sin problem’ because Jesus took care of that: ‘Behold, the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.’

        If it is a ‘desire’ problem, that is solely due to God changing the desires of ‘some’ and not changing the desires of others. So, if any man perishes, all being in the exact same condition, it must be because ‘God does not want them saved’, which is exactly the same as ‘because God did not save them’. What ‘exactly’ is it that Rhutchin seeks to deny? Nothing really, he just wants to apply the ol’ Calvinist sophistry to hide the blatant truth from those who have been brainwashed into the cult without fully understanding what it teaches.

        Calvinism tries to hide this reality with talk of ‘desire’ and ‘hatred for God’ and ‘Total Depravity’ – as if their own theology does not assert this is exactly the same for all men. There is no difference in their book – ALL are desperately wicked and bound for hell. The ONLY distinction, under Calvinism, is that God randomly chooses to bestow mercy on Calvinism’s distortion of the ‘elect’ who have no less sin and no more ‘desire’ for God than those he chooses not to bestow mercy upon. They will try like the dickens to hide the ugly truth, to make the abhorrent more palatable, but the secret is – once again – getting out to a new generation of believers who have been kept deliberately ignorant of the true history of Calvinism.

        When do they explain the tyrannical totalitarianism of Calvin in Geneva, who punished, banished and murdered men and women for merely disagreeing with his teaching, or for the unforgivable crimes of singing, dancing at weddings or wearing their hair too high? Shed a little light on why a ‘man of God’ who explains God’s real ‘love’ to ‘the church’ can have a man burnt on green wood with the flames of his own book painfully dancing upon his face? (That sort of ‘dancing’ was apparently acceptable.) When do they explain why torture devices that even the CIA can’t get away with were employed by Calvin in mostly futile attempts to force people to confess to sins they did not commit, or to avow to doctrine they would rather die hideously than accept? That’s what brave men and women thought of Calvin’s theology even under frightful threats. Little wonder Calvinists try desperately to mask it with a kinder, gentler face.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Dr. Hankins writes,
        “The jolting but unavoidable reality is that Calvinism teaches that the one and only reason that the lost are not saved is that “God does not want them saved.”

        Not exactly. Calvinism teaches that the lost are not saved because they do not want to be saved.

        Notice how the Calvinist doesn’t say Dr. Hankin’s statement is “NOT TRUE” – he says “not exactly”
        If Dr. Hankin’s statement were NOT TRUE, surely the Calvinist would say so.

        What is “not exactly” about Dr. Hankin’s statement – is that its not presented with Calvinist doublespeak.
        Calvinists are mentored in masquerading half-truths as the whole truth.

        In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines every neurological impulse.
        So it follows – those souls the THEOS determines will not be saved, he also determines what their wants accordingly.
        But the Calvinist doesn’t want to tell you the whole-truth.

        As Norman Geisler notes in “Chosen but Free”
        “Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
        “This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)

        As Laurence M. Vance in “The Other Side of Calvinism states:
        “The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)

        As Micah Coate states in “The Cultish side of Calvnism”
        “Calvinists arguments are burried in theological and grammatical doublespeak”

        Liked by 3 people

      5. Hutch: This is an utter dishonesty:

        “Calvinism teaches that the lost are not saved because they do not want to be saved and God, who could save them, will not save them.”

        Calvinism teaches that the reprobates are such before the foundation of the world — eons before they were born — and eons before they were able to have any sort of desire.

        Calvin’s God, and yours, commands the reprobate to repent. How deeply disingenuous is that? Calvin’s god is a cosmic trickster.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. Norm,
        Welcome to the world of the cosmic trickster.

        Telling Cain he must dominate over sin but not calling him before time, or empowering him to do so.

        But wasn’t that one of Calvin’s points? This in-you-face “must-repent-but-can’t idea only serves to “better glorify his justice and grace.”


  5. Romans 9 falls from the Calvinist.

    And if they have not the 9th of Romans, then alas…… they are left with only 49 verses. Chippin’ away……one at a time.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This is the clearest presentation I have seen demonstrating how Romans 9 is not, as Calvinism depicts, an odd departure from the rest of Romans, as well as the rest of scripture. It is only when it is misread, following the lead of Augustine and Calvin, that the entire consistent flow of scripture appears to be upended, and salvation by faith is made to be a mere, disingenuous slight of hand that masks God’s secretive, limited, irresistible selection of a chosen few.

    With this start, it is fairly simple to then see how Total Depravity was equally fabricated by twisting scripture into an illogical and, once again, self-contradicting concept that is always negated by the narratives. The objective reader will admit that the narratives of every person in scripture, from Adam on, reveal individuals who have the ability to choose to obey or disobey God, to give in to or resist the temptations of sin, to follow God or reject him. Without question, God calls all of these people to turn from wickedness, yet only some respond positively. The honest reader will acknowledge that the obvious alternative to Calvinism’s assertions is that men have the freedom of choice, and that far from enforcing his predetermined will upon resistless weaklings, God is revealed as holding his arms out to his rebellious children all day long, in an earnest desire to enfold them in his loving embrace. But only if they are willing. There are no invisible ropes, pulling them and no date-rape drugs rendering them unable to resist.

    God took care of ‘the sin problem’ by nailing the law to the tree, removing its power to condemn; for where there is no law, there is no sin and no power to condemn. Henceforth, no man need flee from God due to fear of punishment, but all can come trustingly, believing in his genuinely offered pardon and grace. But no one will be compelled to come, not by force, nor by secretive, magical, irresistible means. Those who refuse to believe in God’s grace choose to remain under the law, and eventually face its promised condemnation, even if they entirely deny the existence of God. But ‘whosoever will’ may respond to God’s glorious offer of pardon for sin, and will receive the living water that has graciously, freely been made available to all.

    Truly, a whole new understanding of Romans 9 should be glorious good news to those who have been persuaded that they must accept the ‘horrible decrees’ posited by Calvin, despite the horror with which they cannot help but view them, as Calvin and Grudem both admit. Surely it would be wonderful ‘news’ to Calvin and Grudem that they were wrong, their conclusions faulty, and God does indeed love and desire to save all men? And surely it would be equally welcome news to all of those who accepted the authority of these men to discover that this authority was illegitimate, and the teaching faulty? What joy it is to discover the genuine good news of the gospel after inhabiting the dismal corridors of Calvinism!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Donna, we don’t really have a way of doing this. The post is reproducing an article from the Journal of Baptist Theology & Ministry. The link is at the top of the post. If you subscribe to the blog you will get all future posts in your email.


  7. Ron4Him

    You and Dr Hankins are so right! Per Calvinism, God does not want them saved! Simple as that.

    Now, you may see Calvinists come up with some non-answer-answer, perhaps saying, “Calvinism teaches that the lost are not saved because they do not want to be saved…” But that would make that Calvinist guilty of their own worst accusation: a “man-centered Gospel.”

    That would make a Calvinists be saying that man is X because man wants X (or because man does not want Y)….but this is “man-centered,” and should be a no-no for them (but they say Arminian things all the time and they often allow themselves to say conflicting truths).

    You may notice them saying something like ….”No, it is it not that God does not want to save them, but rather because God does not save them.” Huh? Apparently for them, God always gets what He wants, so this makes no sense, as usual.

    So yes….despite rhetorical tail-chasing, they affirm that the beauty of Calvinism—where God always gets what He wants— is that God does NOT want the 98.85% saved but will glory in their eternal punishment.

    Liked by 3 people


    Behold, a god who was obsessed with determining all things – decided to sow some seed.
    And he determined to take the vast majority of the seed and separate it into three parts.

    Now the first part he determined to sow by the way side to have the fowls of the air devour it.
    And the second part he determined to sow on stony ground, to have it whither and die.
    And the third part he determined to sow among thorns to have it choke and yield no fruit.

    Now by this time there was only a few seeds left.
    These seed he determined to sow on good ground so that they would live.

    Then he stood for a while scratching his head in puzzlement – trying to figure out the logic of what he had just done.

    Realizing he needed to save face – he manufactured an argument that went like this:

    I blame the first seed – for sowing themselves where the fowls of the air would devour them.
    I blame the second seed – for sowing themselves where they would wither and die.
    I blame the third seed – for sowing themselves where they would choke and yield no fruit.

    But I praise myself – because I was able to make a few seeds live.
    What a magnificent god I am! :-]



      This rendition betrays an ignorance of Calvinism and of that which Christ meant in this parable.. here are suggestions for making it portray Calvinism and render the parable as Christ told it.

      Behold, a sovereign god who rules all things absolutely – decided to sow some seed.
      And he determined to sow the seed across the land regardless of the soil into which the seed was thrown.

      Some of the seed he determined to sow fell the way side where the fowls of the air devoured it.
      Some of the seed he determined to sow fell on stony ground, where it it withered and died.
      Some of the seed he determined to sow fell among thorns where it choked and yielded no fruit.

      The remaining seed he determined to sow on good ground that He had prepared to receive the seed and grow to produce agreat crop.

      This is the meaning of the parable

      The first seed – fell on those hardened by sin and Satan takes the seed away..
      The second seed – fell on those who seek salvation on their own terms and they soon tire of playing games with God.
      The third seed – fell on those who love the world and they seek the pleasures of life that always push God to the side.

      But I glorify myself – because I determined to save a remnant; some seed fell on My elect whose hearts I had prepared for the seed.
      The seed is my word. What a magnificent God I am! The remnant said, Amen and praised the God who had mercy on them!


      1. Someone left out all the other determinations in their rendition of the Calvinist Parable of the Sower! It’s funny how they see such synergism in the sinful things they don’t want to openly ascribe to God’s decree before creation, unless they are called on it, and yet they can’t bring themselves to see any synergism planned in saving things that they do want to openly ascribe to God’s decree before creation.


      2. Brian:
        We have seen this a hundred times! Synergism works for Calvinists in that man and God work together on man’s ability to not hear (his demise)….but never on his ability to hear.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Hutch:
        It is exceedingly difficult to take this comment from you seriously: “This rendition betrays an ignorance of Calvinism…” when you have intentionally misrepresented Calvinism as shown above.
        If our brother posts in ignorance (and I believe he does not), then I can tolerate that. But I cannot tolerate intentional misrepresentation.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Norm:

        I have been trying to shed light on Calvinism for years. Every time I seem to explain correctly the determinism, double-predestination, or “therefore God has ordained sin” part …. they play the “you misrepresent Calvinism” card! ((And throw in a “ya lousy universalist” for good measure.))

        Very few out there will just own it! Most of them quote a confession or catechism that says something like “God ordained all that happeneth even the fall of the finest of dust particles…..yet He ordaineth not sin.”

        A equals A, but A does not equal A.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Here are some excerpts from a long sermon someone sent me today called “He that winneth souls is wise.” Tell me if the author is a traditionalist, Arminian, or Calvinist…..

    Doesn’t sound like the author thinks that sinners are so reprobate that they cannot hear!!!

    He who actually, really, and truly turns men from the error of their ways to God…. is a wise man; and that is true of him whatever his style of soul-winning may be.

    “He that winneth souls is wise,” and this can be seen very clearly. He must be a wise man in even ordinary respects who can by grace achieve so divine a marvel. Great soul-winners never have been fools…..

    “He that winneth souls is wise,” because he has selected a wise object…… He has selected a wise object, for what can be wiser than to glorify God, and what, next to that, can be wiser than in the highest sense to bless our fellow men; to snatch a soul from the gulf that yawns, to lift it up to the heaven that glorifies; to deliver an immortal from the thraldom of Satan, and to bring him into the liberty of Christ? What more excellent than this? I say that such an aim would commend itself to all right minds, and that angels themselves may envy us poor sons of men that we are permitted to make this our life-object, to win souls for Jesus Christ.

    To accomplish such a work a man must be wise, for to win a soul requires infinite wisdom.

    Mark ye well, my brethren, that he who is successful in soul-winning, will prove to have been a wise man in the judgment of those who see the end as well as the beginning.

    Even if I were utterly selfish, and had no care for anything but my own happiness, I would choose, if I might, under God, to be a soul-winner, for never did I know perfect, overflowing, unutterable happiness of the purest and most ennobling order, till I first heard of one who had sought and found a Savior through my means.

    ….Beyond all controversy it is a joy worth worlds to win souls, and thank God, it is a joy that does not cease with this mortal life. It must be no small bliss to hear as one wings his flight up to the eternal throne, the wings of others fluttering at one’s side towards the same glory, and turning round and questioning them, to hear them say, “We are entering with you through the gates of pearl; you brought us to the Savior.”

    I have said enough brethren, I trust, to make some of you desire to occupy the position of soul-winners…

    I. First let us consider the metaphor used in the text—“He that winneth souls is wise.”

    How do we win souls then? Why, the word “win” has a better meaning far. It is used in warfare. Warriors win cities and provinces. Now, to win a soul is a much more difficult thing than to win a city. …. The soul-winner has to sit down before a soul as a great captain before a walled town; to draw his lines of circumvallation, to cast up his intrenchments and fix his batteries. He must not advance too fast —he may overdo the fighting; he must not move too slowly, for he may seem not to be in earnest, and may do mischief. Then he must know which gate to attack—how to plant his guns at Ear-gate, and how to discharge them; how, sometimes, to keep the batteries going day and night with red-hot shot, if perhaps he may make a breach in the walls; at other times to lay by and cease, and then on a sudden to open all the batteries with terrific violence, if peradventure he may take the soul by surprise or cast in a truth when it was not expected, to burst like a shell in the soul and do damage to the dominions of sin.

    The Christian soldier must know how to advance by little and little— to sap that prejudice, to undermine that old enmity, to blow into the air that lust, and at the last, to storm the citadel. It is his to throw the scaling ladder up and to have his ears gladdened as he hears a clicking on the wall of the heart, telling that the scaling ladder has grasped and has gained firm hold; and then, with his sabre between his teeth, to climb up and spring on the man and slay his unbelief in the name of God, and capture the city, and run up the blood-red flag of the cross of Christ and say, “The heart is won, won for Christ at last.” This needs a warrior well trained—a master in his art…… This is winning a soul.

    Ten thousand arts are used to prevent the soul-winner from being conqueror in the encounter, but if God has sent him he will never renounce his hold of the soul he seeks till he has given a throw to the power of sin, and won another soul for Christ.

    Besides that, there is another meaning to the word “win” upon which I cannot expatiate here. ….

    The weapon of love is sometimes a look, or a soft word whispered and eagerly listened to; sometimes it is a tear; but this I know, that we have, most of us in our turn, cast around another heart a chain which that other would not care to break, and which has linked us twain in a blessed captivity which has cheered our life. Yes, and that is very nearly the way in which we have to save souls. That illustration is nearer the mark than any of the others. Love is the true way of soul-winning, for when I spoke of storming the walls, and when I spoke of wrestling, those were but metaphors, but this is near the fact. We win by love. We win hearts for Jesus by love, by sympathy with their sorrow, by anxiety lest they should perish, by pleading with God for them with all our hearts that they should not be left to die unsaved, by pleading with them for God that, for their own sake, they would seek mercy and find grace.

    I believe that much of the secret of soul-winning lies in having bowels of compassion, in having spirits that can be touched with the feeling of human infirmities. Soul-saving requires a heart that beats hard against the ribs. It requires a soul full of the milk of human kindness; this is the sine qua non of success. This is the chief natural qualification for a soul-winner….

    I have not looked at the Hebrew of the text, but I find—and you will find who have margins to your Bibles—that it is, “He that taketh souls is wise,” which word refers to fishing, or to bird-catching. …..We must have our lures for souls adapted to attract, to fascinate, to grasp. We must go forth with our bird-lime, our decoys, our nets, our baits, so that we may but catch the souls of men. Their enemy is a fowler possessed of the basest and most astounding cunning; we must outwit him with the guile of honesty, the craft of grace.

    II. And now brethren and sisters, you who are engaged in the Lord’s work from week to week, and who seek to win men’s souls to Christ, I am, in the second place, to illustrate this by telling you of some of the ways by which souls are won.

    Especially in this London of ours, where so many will not go up to the house of God—persuade your neighbors to come forth to the place of worship; look after them; make them feel that it is a wrong thing to stop at home on the Sunday from morning till night. …I do say entice them, persuade them. Let them have your tickets for the Tabernacle for instance sometimes, or stand in the aisles yourself, and let them have your seat.

    Further, let me commend to you dear friends, the art of button-holing acquaintances and relatives.

    …. We must not excuse ourselves, but force ourselves to the irksome task till it becomes easy. This is one of the most honorable modes of soul-winning, and if it requires more than ordinary zeal and courage, so much the more reason for our resolving to master it. Beloved, we must win souls, we cannot live and see men damned; we must have them brought to Jesus. Oh! then, be up and doing, and let none around you die unwarned, unwept, uncared for.

    One thing more, the soul-winner must be a master of the art of prayer.

    Beloved, there is one question I will ask and I have done, and that is, are your own souls won? …..The way to be saved is simply to trust in what the Son of man did when he became man, and suffered the punishment for all those who trust him. …. His people are those who trust him. If you trust him, he was punished for your sins and you cannot be punished for them….. If you trust Jesus who now liveth at the right hand of God, you are this moment pardoned, and you shall for ever be saved. O that you would trust him now! Perhaps it may be now or never with you. May it be now, even now, and then, trusting in Jesus, dear friends, you will have no need to hesitate when the question is asked, “Are you saved?” for you can answer, “Ay, that I am, for it is written, ‘He that believeth in him is not condemned.’ Trust him then, trust him now, and then God help you to be a soul-winner, and you shall be wise, and God shall be glorified.

    It is much longer but similar in the trimmed off parts. The focus is that we must “win souls” and that what we do will make a difference in how many are won. Spoken like a true Baptist! But not at all like a true Calvinist. All the emphasis for the whole sermon is on our own effort to reach people for Christ.

    In the pulpit an Arminian, but at his desk behind his theology books a Calvinist.

    Determinism is not a way of live.

    Proven again and again by the messages of Charles Spurgeon.


    1. Foh quotes the sermon, “…if God has sent him he will never renounce his hold of the soul he seeks till he has given a throw to the power of sin, and won another soul for Christ….the soul-winner must be a master of the art of prayer.”

      Good Calvinist sermon that recognizes that it is God that sent him so he relies on God, through prayer, knowing that, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.”


      1. And there we have it!!!

        it is called a “good Calvinist sermon!!” Preach like an Arminian, but declare yourself a Calvinist (cover all your bases).

        Spurgeon declares a man is wise in his efforts….

        “to snatch a soul from the gulf that yawns, to lift it up to the heaven that glorifies; to deliver an immortal from the thraldom of Satan, and to bring him into the liberty of Christ?”

        The entire sermon (and many like) is “man-centered” as the means and “man-centered” as the goal. Very Arminiam sermon. Commendable in that regard!

        Always focused on man’s efforts to, “…never renounce his hold of the soul he seeks till he has given a throw to the power of sin, and won another soul for Christ.”

        Of course he is sent by God! We are all sent to proclaim the Gospel! But Spurgeon (here and elsewhere) gives lots of tips on how to best win someone to Christ, never referring to the concept that the person be chosen or not. Just work harder and they will come!

        Hey….. wait….. if they come they would then be chosen! Perfect!

        Spurgeon, the Prince of Arminians!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s