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

Grace for All: John Wesley challenges Reformers on Reprobation

Just as Pinson examined the theology of Arminius Grace for All, Vic Reasoner explores the theology of John Wesley. Reasoner is the president of Southern Methodist College (link) and an author, having written a Wesleyan commentary on Romans (link).

415xXkjORGLReasoner starts off surveying the various scholars who have studied and interpreted John Wesley over the last 50+ years, highlighting Thomas Oden recently published 4 volume set that is considered “the first systematic exposition” of Wesley’s theology (amazon).

Reasoner, exploring numerous aspects of Wesleyan theology, starts off the affirming God’s sovereignty.

Wesleyan-Arminians affirm God’s sovereignty, but believe that God has the prerogative of not always exercising total sovereignty. Thus we have true libertarian freedom. Yet God never surrenders the consequences of our free choices to us. … God is so sovereign he can allow human rebellion, yet that rebellion does not thwart his ultimate purpose.

Continue reading

Grace for All: Elect in Christ or into Christ, that is the Question

“Jacobus Arminius: Reformed and Always Reforming” is the next essay in Grace for All. It is written by J. Matthew Pinson, the President of Welch College and the author of the book Arminian and Baptist (reviewed here). The focus is on presenting Jacob Arminius as a Reformed theologian who held to the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism.415xXkjORGL

In order to defend Arminus as a Reformed theologian, Pinson examines Arminius’ writings showing where his views either fit or strayed from Reformed confessions.

the primary doctrinal difference between Arminius and his strict Calvinist interlocuters [was] how one comes to be in a state of grace or not, that is the doctrine of predestination.

Since the primary area of disagreement is predestination, and that has been the focus of the last two essays in Grace for All, we will briefly look at that aspect of Arminius’ theology.

The problem, as Arminus describes it in Declaration of Sentiments (link), was that Calvinist views on “predestination are considered, by some of those who advocate them, to be the foundation of Christianity”, yet this doctrine “comprises within it neither the whole nor any part of the Gospel”. Continue reading