I was listening to a preacher talk about why he is a Calvinist and one of his proofs was dealing with the questions of Romans chapter nine and how his answers gel with what Paul writes. I’m not sure if that makes sense right now and I’ll have to go into further detail on how he (and others) do this, but up front I think this argument is flawed.
Now, this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve heard this argument. From Calvinistic teachers of {{Romans 9}} to straight up Arminian readings of Romans in general this type of reasoning keeps coming up. If I have heard it in the context of other books I don’t remember it because of a horrendously bad memory but I’m thinking we dispensationalists may be guilty of this type of arguing in some of our readings.
Specifically with {{Romans 9}} though the argument goes something proceeds like the following sentences. “If Paul’s argument in Romans 8 dealt with God’s election to belief we would be asking the questions exactly like what Paul is presenting here. Note the text:” Is there injustice with God?” is the natural question after seeing that God elects the believer. Also: “Why does He still then find fault? For who resists his will?” are the obvious questions of one who has heard that God saves the elect and the others he hardens after they do it to themselves. Romans chapter 9 is obviously then talking about God’s election of people to believe.”
Now, here’s what I have a problem with. The argument looks something like this
If Paul is talking about election to believe.
Then a listener would ask the exact questions Paul writes down.
Since these are the Questions Paul writes down therefore Paul is talking about God’s election to believe.
It basically reads like this: if p then q. q. Therefore p. Do you see the problem then? It’s taking the exclusive interpretation dependant on broad questions that may come up with different interpretations as well. In other words:
If it is a taxi
Then it is a car.
Since it is a car then it must be a taxi.
I don’t think I’m wrong about this and perhaps someone would say that it’s the way I presented the opposing argument.