Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 1
David Bercot argues that Romans 9 has been repeatedly misread (by Gnostics, Augustine, and later Calvinists) because people “ignore the rest of the Bible”; what specific features of Romans 9 make it easy to misuse, and what does the early church’s refusal to read it “in a vacuum” reveal about how they believed God would (and would not) speak in Scripture?
Another way to ask: What parts of Romans 9 make it easy for people to twist or misuse? What does the early church’s choice to read it with the rest of the Bible show about how they thought God does—and does not—speak in Scripture?

Direct Answer Romans 9 is easy to misuse because a “casual” reading can make Paul sound like he is teaching arbitrary, individual predestination, especially if you isolate it from Romans 1–8 and from the rest of Scripture. The early church’s refusal to read it “in a vacuum” shows they believed God would not contradict Himself in Scripture, so any interpretation must harmonize with the Bible as a whole.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says that “when a person casually reads chapter 9 and ignores the rest of the Bible, he can easily misunderstand Paul” toward arbitrary predestination.
  • He notes misuse: “Before Augustine, the Gnostics used this chapter to argue that God has arbitrarily predestined all humans to either eternal damnation or eternal life.”
  • He says Romans 9 is “one of those parts of Paul’s writings that Peter described as hard to understand,” making it prone to abuse.
  • The early Christians “realized that they could not read this chapter in a vacuum” and “could not interpret a single passage…in such a way that it would contradict the rest of the entire Bible.”
  • They avoided error by “carefully following Paul’s flow of thought from the first chapter of Romans through this chapter.”
Discussion Follow-ups If a reading of Romans 9 produces conclusions that clash with other passages, what does that say about our method? What habits keep us from “casual” proof-texting?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10
Back Questions Next