Grace for All: Paul, the Potter, and Perspective? (Romans 9)

This post is a part of a series that is examining each essay in the recently published book Grace for All. 


Dr. James D. Strauss, who passed in 2014, was Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Lincoln Christian Seminary (link). His essay, edited by John D. Wagner tackles the challenging argument that Paul presents in Romans 9.

This chapter starts off a section that is widely accepted as starting in chapter 9 and continuing through to the end of chapter 11.

By Ks.mini (Own work) via Wikimedia Commons

By Ks.mini via Wikimedia Commons

The section starts off with Paul’s concern for the Jewish people:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites … (Rom 9:3-4 NASB)

A concern that is marked throughout the section, as it is expressed again in chapter 10:

Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. (Rom 10:1)

and again in chapter 11:

… Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them … (Rom 11:13-14)

It is within this context that Paul writes about God’s sovereign right to have mercy on whom He will, and harden whom He will (Rom 9:18) and to form His creation as He desires.

Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? (Rom 9:21)

In Arminius’s examination of Roman’s 9 he notes that it is important to settle the main thesis or question that Paul is addressing. He proposes the challenge that Paul will seek to refute is as follows:

Does not the word God become of none effect, if those of the Jews, who seek righteousness, not of faith, but of the law, are rejected by God.

Is that the right thesis that Paul is refuting?

On what idea does Paul base his argument? Continue reading

Free Grace for All (Seussical)

What if Dr. Seuss entered the debate on Calvinism & Arminianism? It might go something like this…

Grace for all
Grace for all

That grace for all!
That grace for all!
I do not like
that grace at all!

do you like
free grace for all?

I do not like God
made so small.
I do not like
free grace for all.

Would you like grace here and there?

CalvinParadox

I would not like grace
here and there.
It tries to make God
much too fair.
I do not like
free grace for all.
I do not like God
made so small.

Choice does not put
God in stocks.
It cancels out
paradox.
Continue reading

Grace for All: The Problem is Proof Texting and the Solution is…

“Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts” is the next essay in Grace for All. It is written by Grant R. Osborne, professor of New Testament at TEDS (link). Osborne is also a prolific author, having written numerous commentaries and books, including the Hermeneutical Spiral (a Christianity Today 1993 Critics Choice Award winner).

For Osborne, theological problems are the result of “proof texting”.

The problem is that in the past, systematic theology has by and large taken passages out of context, grouped them together in a logical order, and in many cases made them say things not intended by the original authors.

If “proof texting” is the problem, then what is the solution?

The answer is to be found in the methods of biblical theology

Does that mean there is no place for systematic theology? Before we tackle that question let’s make sure we understand what it meant by the terms systematic and biblical theology.

What is systematic theology? Continue reading