We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

How do you respond to Romans 9:18?

“[God] has mercy on whomsoever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses.”

This is one of the most frequently cited texts in support of Calvinism. If the text implied that whether or not people were believers was a result of whether God had mercy on them or hardened them, they would have a point. But if read in context, the passage rather suggests that God has mercy and hardens people in response to what they do.

Hence Paul summarizes his argument in chapter 9 by noting that Gentiles received the righteousness of God because they had faith while unbelieving Jews were hardened “[b]ecause they did not strive for [righteousness]…on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works” (30–32, emphasis added). “They were broken off because of their unbelief…” (11:20, emphasis added, cf. 10:3). This is why they as a nation have now been hardened (Rom. 11:7, 25) while the Gentiles who seek God by faith have been “grafted in” (11:23).

To Jews who assumed that their standing before God was based on their works and/or their nationality, this seems arbitrary (9:14, 19). But Paul insists that God has the right to have mercy on people simply because of their faith if he so chooses. “[H]e has mercy on whomsoever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses.”

For a more extensive discussion of Romans 9, see How do you respond to Romans 9?

Related Reading

How do you respond to Acts 2:23?

Peter preaches to the crowd on the day of Pentecost, “[T]his man [Jesus], handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.” Jesus’ death was certainly planned and foreknown by God, as the previously discussed verses have repeatedly demonstrated.…

How can we determine what is and is not “open” about the future?

Question: You believe that the future is partly open. You’re writing has pretty much convinced me this is true, but I’ve still got some serious questions about it. For example, how does anyone determine what part is open and what part is not? If we can’t determine what is and is not open, isn’t the…

What’s the significance of Acts 17:26-27?

This passage is frequently cited by determinists, for Paul here states that God “marked out” the “appointed times in history and the boundaries” of nations (Ac. 17:26). This doesn’t entail omni-control on God’s part, however. It only entails that God is involved in setting temporal and geographical parameters around nations. Moreover, nothing suggests that God…

Topics:

Shouldn’t preachers rally Christians to fight political injustice?

Question: My pastor has publicly supported your book The Myth of a Christian Nation. But he’s recently called on the church to take a stand against the injustice of our local government cutting funding for inner city recreational facilities. This seems right to me, since we’re suppose to defend the cause of the poor and…

What is the “classical view of God” and what about it do you find objectionable?

The “classical view of God” refers to the view of God that has dominated Christian theology since the earliest Church fathers. According to this theology, God is completely “immutable.” This means that God’s being and experience never change in any respect. God is therefore pure actuality (actus purus), having no potentiality whatsoever, for potentiality is…

How do you respond to Genesis 45:5; 50:20?

Joseph said to his brothers, “…now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life,” (cf. v. 7). Joseph later says, “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people…”…