Introductory Remarks: Romans 9-11
Calvinists claim that these three chapters, especially chapter 9, are pillars of their theology in which Paul teaches unconditional election or predestination. Calvinists claim they teach that God has unconditionally elected or predestined a limited number of particular individuals to be saved, and hence, all others cannot be saved. This has led non-Calvinist biblical scholar David L. Allen to write,
“If Romans 9 does not teach unconditional election, then the foundation of this Reformed doctrine is significantly undermined.”1
He is correct. If it can be shown that Romans 9-11 does not teach unconditional election, then Calvinists have erred in their interpretation of these chapters. James Daane also makes this telling observation about Romans 9-11 that is profoundly true but often overlooked.
“If Paul had meant to demonstrate the truth of individual election and reprobation, these chapters would hardly have been some of the most difficult in the New Testament.”2
If Paul were truly a “Calvinist,” why would he not have simply and clearly expounded somewhere in his writings about salvation or the gospel the TULIP doctrines? After all, for Calvinists, these are the full and final explanations of how and why a person becomes saved. Surely if Paul believed them, and being the preacher of the gospel to both the Jews and the Gentiles, he would have written more clearly and succinctly about them. As it is, we would have to conclude that Paul is really confused in Romans 9-11, and elsewhere, if he really held to the TULIP doctrines. The other option is for the Calvinist to maintain that Paul taught these doctrines tenet by tenet, but spread these teachings throughout Romans and his other epistles. But why do that? If these doctrines are so integrally related, not only to each other, but to salvation, why wouldn’t it serve the church, believers, and non-believers to have a clear explication of these “doctrines of grace”? The Calvinist doctrines are not all that complicated. Surely it would not have taken three whole chapters to expound the TULIP doctrines clearly enough to leave us with no doubt that Paul believed and taught them.
But Paul did not believe or teach these Calvinist doctrines. The reasons are obvious. Not only are these doctrines incoherent with what Paul wrote in Romans 1-8, but also a deterministic explanation of chapter 9 would stand in direct contradiction to what Paul wrote in Romans 10 and 11. Therefore, I will show through the writings in this section on Romans 9-11 that Calvinists are wrong to think that Paul is explaining their doctrine of unconditional election in Romans 9-11.
Calvinists have an exegesis of Romans 9. But non-Calvinists insist it is incorrect, not only because chapter 9 can be responsibly and coherently interpreted differently from the Calvinist interpretation, but also because the Calvinist interpretation is incorrect due to the incoherencies and contradictions it creates with chapters 10 and 11, let alone the previous eight chapters and the biblical worldview of indeterminacy obviously testified to in the canonical context as a whole. Certainly, the non-Calvinist, by virtue of their exegesis of chapter 9, presents Paul as meaning something completely different than the Calvinist exegesis of the text. But the non-Calvinists’ exegesis doesn’t convince the Calvinist. Therefore, the non-Calvinist has to show the Calvinist something of the historical and theological integration or coherence, not merely within chapter 9, but in the context of chapters 10 and 11 and the letter as a whole, to justify their interpretation. This is integral to the non-Calvinists’ hermeneutic and interpretive thought process. Therefore, since I have already offered overwhelming philosophical and exegetical evidence on this website that proves Calvinism is unbiblical and even heretical, I will provide the non-Calvinist interpretations of Romans 9-11 along with the other major texts involved in this controversy.
I have also shown that the coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction that the non-Calvinist offers to the Calvinist as justifying their exegesis and interpretation ultimately mean nothing to the Calvinist. Due to the suppression of reason and other rationalizations, Calvinists do not concern themselves with whether their exegesis exhibits coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction within the immediate and broader contexts. But for non-Calvinists, the incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions the Calvinist interpretations produce are telltale signs that Romans 9 has been incorrectly interpreted. Moreover, when the non-Calvinist offers a coherent, consistent, non-contradictory interpretation of Romans 9 in relation to chapters 10 and 11 and the letter as a whole – an interpretation that diligently incorporates the elements of the grammatical-historical method – then we can confidently say that it would be the better interpretation of Roman 9. And such non-Calvinist exegeses and interpretations have certainly been done. I refer you to my annotated bibliography.
So we find that Paul does not expound on the TULIP doctrines in Romans because he did not, and could not, have them in his mind when he wrote about salvation or God’s sovereign workings in the world. Therefore, I contend that when interpreted according to sound hermeneutical principles – coherence, consistency, non-contradiction – which are directly related to the principle of context, these chapters do not teach unconditional election. Do not be swayed by Calvinists who may point out the ‘coherence’ of their theological system (i.e., TULIP). As David Allen aptly states,
“The Calvinist framework may provide a surface systematic coherence, but it does so at the cost of raising profound questions about divine sincerity, moral accountability, and the nature of God’s love.”3
I have repeatedly highlighted the incoherence of Calvinism along with the theological problems Allen mentions here. Throughout the chapters on this site, I have also examined the many philosophical difficulties that plague Calvinism. From several passages already examined, I have shown that Calvinism is philosophically untenable and exegetically unbiblical (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:1-6; Eph. 1:11; Eph. 1:1-4; Matt. 18:18-20; Eph. 2:8-9; James 4:13-17; Rom. 9:6-29; and Rom. 9-11. For instance, the Bible clearly teaches that God causes many things to occur. That is God’s sovereign activity. But once it was shown that the Bible also teaches that God allows other things to occur, which logically presupposes human free will and is logically contradictory to the Calvinists’ universal divine causal determinism, Calvinism’s determinism is defeated. Hence, what remains to be done for those genuinely seeking the biblical truth as the determining factor whether to become a Calvinist or remain a Calvinist is to provide sound interpretations of the most important passages Calvinists claim teach their universal divine causal determinism. Once this is done, the Calvinist, if the Bible is truly his authority for faith and practice, should abandon Calvinism.
Also, once these interpretations are provided, the Calvinists’ claim that non-Calvinists mostly critique Calvinism on philosophical grounds, and not on the exegesis of the contested biblical passages, will be proved false. It is already false, for non-Calvinists have always presented exegetical treatments of these important passages. It is just that Calvinists generally don’t read them. Again, see my annotated bibliography. But these non-Calvinist interpretations are the more responsible treatments of these texts because, unlike the Calvinist interpretations, they exhibit coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction. Here we will examine Romans 9-11. And because context is such a critical hermeneutical principle, we will begin with some observations in this regard.
David L. Allen writes about the contextual errors made by the Reformed Calvinist interpreters of Romans 9-11. These are some of the hermeneutical principles I have elaborated on in my work on this site. If we are made aware of these at the beginning of Romans 9-11, this will help all of us to better understand Paul’s argument in these chapters.
“These chapters are not a systematic description of how each individual person is unconditionally elected by God for salvation. Rather, Paul speaks corporately. As has been noted, “Luther may have seen Romans as the answer to the question how can I be saved? But that is not Paul’s question. Paul’s question is, now that the end of time is at hand, how will God reconcile all people, Jews and Gentiles, collectively?”4
Allen continues with the first contextual error of the Calvinist, which is to ignore that Paul is dealing with the problem of Israel’s unbelief and that he is also explaining God’s sovereign plan to save not only the Jews but also the Gentiles. Allen writes,
“…Paul’s purpose in writing Romans 9-11 is not to defend the doctrines of single or double predestination, but to explain God’s sovereign plan to save both Jews and Gentiles. The problem of Israel’s unbelief is presented within the broader framework of God’s redemptive purposes for humanity. This is signaled at the beginning of each chapter (Rom 9:1-5; 9:30-10:4; 11:1-6) where Paul designates his identity and/or expresses his concerns for Israel before he enters into the argumentation. The Reformed interpretation of Romans 9-11, which reads it through the lens of individual election, overlooks this context.”
Allen continues by noting three more contextual failures of the Calvinist.
“A second contextual failure among Reformed interpreters is their tendency to focus exclusively on Romans 9, to the neglect of Romans 10 and 11. Paul’s argument does not conclude in chapter 9. The issue raised in Romans 9:6 ultimately finds its resolution in Rom 11:28-32. By isolating Romans 9 from the larger literary unit, Reformed interpreters miss Paul’s culminating theological answer.
A third interpretive error is the use of Romans 9-11 to address theological issues such as individual predestination, reprobation, and free will – concerns foreign to Paul’s intention. The resulting exegesis is governed by anachronistic theological frameworks that are imposed on the text rather than derived from it.
A fourth oversight is the failure to consider the OT background that informs Paul’s language and theological categories. For example, Paul’s concept of “hardening” in Romans 9 should be read against texts like Isa 28:16. As Stephen Williams noted:
Isaiah 28:16 underlines what is clear in the Old Testament: it is the hardened heart of disobedient Israelites which brings on the judgment of God. Certainly, that judgment may take the form of further hardening, and the further hardening, in turn, furthers God’s purposes. Furthermore, God may know beforehand what humans will do and plan what he will do. However, it is not only with reference to, but it is actually on account of, the willful disobedience, which is in its very nature a self-hardening, that God acts in judgment. The vagaries of human agency bring on God’s judicial action. To read into or to append to this an antecedent reprobated decree is either to read the text while forgetful of the Old Testament narrative background or to make a theological inference rather than exegete the text. Reformed theologians posit the antecedent and eternal decree, which is simply not indicated in the text.”5
So the Reformer’s deterministic eternal decree, predestination, or unconditional election is not on Paul’s mind here, nor does he teach it anywhere else in his epistles; rather, from our survey of the Old Testament, we saw what was involved in the patriarchal narratives with respect to their election, and also what it means for Israel to have been chosen by God to be the people of God. Nothing there indicated a premundane divine decision regarding an unconditional election to salvation of particular individuals to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, we now have the historical and religious context, along with the important hermeneutical principles from which to understand Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 and his other New Testament references to election. (e.g., see 1 Thess. 1:4 and 2 Thess. 2:13)
Back to Chapter 16 – The Doctrine of Election According to Scripture
Footnotes
- David L. Allen, Liberating Romans from Reformed Captivity: A Critical Examination of Calvinism’s Interpretation of Paul’s Letter (Dallas: Legacy Ink, 2025), 82. ↩︎
- James Daane, The Freedom of God: A Study in Election and Pulpit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 114. ↩︎
- David L. Allen, Liberating Romans, 74. ↩︎
- So Eisenbaum, Paul Was not a Christian, 253. ↩︎
- David L. Allen, Liberating Romans, 80-81. Also, the quote is from Williams, The Election of Grace, 75. ↩︎
The Truth of the Gospel 