Romans 9 Theology Quiz
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
A. He is grieving the fact that many of his fellow Jews have not accepted Christ despite the many ways God has blessed them.
B. I dunno.
C. He is gearing up to explain why God chooses some people and not others for salvation.
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
A. “If many Jews have rejected Jesus, does that mean God’s promises to Abraham have failed to come true?”
B. I dunno.
C. “How is it that people are saved?”
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
A. Being biologically Jewish does not automatically make someone right with God. People are made right with God by trusting what he says with a faith like Abraham’s (Romans 4).
B. I dunno.
C. God’s unilateral decision determines who is made right with him.
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
A. The election of Isaac, not Esau, to be the recipient of God’s special promise to Abraham —God unilaterally decided that Esau would serve Isaac.
B. I dunno.
C. The election of Isaac, not Esau, for salvation. God unilaterally decided that Isaac would be blessed with salvation and Esau would receive eternal judgment in hell.
As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
A. Paul is quoting Malachi 1:2-3 about the nations of Israel and Edom to emphasize that God’s special promise to the nation of Israel is an example of his sovereignty in deciding the rise and fall of nations.
B. I dunno.
C. Paul is referencing the Genesis story to show that, before people are even born, God has already decided to love some of them and hate others.
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
A. Paul is talking about God’s right to give a special blessing to some people and some nations, regardless of their desires or efforts, since it is God’s right to decide when and how he blesses and shows people mercy.
B. I dunno.
C. Paul is defending God’s right to unilaterally save some people and choose not to save others, since salvation is purely God’s choice and human desire or effort doesn’t factor into it.
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
A. God put Pharaoh in a position of power because he knew Pharaoh would respond in a way that would highlight God’s power and bring glory to his name.
B. I dunno.
C. God created Pharaoh with a hard heart for the very purpose of pouring out his wrath and judgment on him. This demonstrates God’s power and glorifies his name.
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
A. God has the right to use people to accomplish his purposes, including giving some people extra undeserved favor or pushing others even farther into their stubbornness. You might ask, “If God uses even people who sin to accomplish his unstoppable plan, why does he still hold them accountable?” But you, as a limited human, are not in a position to critique God about how he chooses to accomplish his plans.
B. I dunno.
C. God decides to send some people to heaven and damn other people to hell based exclusively on his own secret plan. You might ask, “Why does God still blame people for their sin when he's making them sin and they can't resist sinning even if they want to?” You're right that God operates that way and if it seems unjust to you, it's because you're a dumb human so you don't get to say anything about it.
Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
A. It’s about God creating and using people to accomplish his purposes in the world. He is the Creator and so he has the right to use people for the purposes he chooses. This image is also an allusion to Jeremiah 18:1-11 which is all about God’s flexibility in responding to people — if people repent, AT ANY TIME, even after God has already promised them judgement, he will change his plans and not punish them. He can do this because he is like a potter and people like clay in his hands.
B. I dunno.
C. God has the right to create some people in order to show them kindness and to create other people specifically for the purpose or punishing them. We don’t have any say in whether we are made for joy or torture.
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
A. It's about how people (and nations) are of service to God. Some people are used by God to do things that both accomplish His purposes and are also honorable for the person. Other people are used by God in ways that accomplish His purposes but are dishonorable for the person.
B. I dunno
C. “Honorable use” means being saved, and “dishonorable use” refers to how reprobate people display God's wrath and justice as they suffer in hell.
A. As their creator, God has every right to make and use people however he chooses, but he makes it clear that he does this in response to people's free decisions. This is stated clearly in Jeremiah 18:7-10 and also in 2 Timothy 2:20-21 where Paul uses the exact same analogy: “If anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use.”
B. I dunno
C. Paul is using the same metaphors of a potter shaping clay and vessels made for honorable and dishonorable use, but he's using them to arrive at opposite and contradictory conclusions compared to what is clearly stated in those other passages. In this verse the metaphor clearly means that God's unconditional mysterious will predetermines whether someone is saved or damned.
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
A) A vessel is something a person uses to store, transport, and pour out its contents. God uses people full of wrath to display/pour out his wrath. He uses people full of mercy as a means for spreading His mercy.
B) I dunno
C). The word choice isn't that important. Vessels basically just means objects. "Vessels of wrath" means people who get wrath; "vessels of mercy" means people who get mercy.
A. He’s enduring them with much patience, but is planning to destroy them.
B. I dunno
C. He’s causing them to do the things that bring punishment and will torment them for eternity because that’s what they were made for.
A. It's ambiguous who the primary preparer is since the verb is passive, but it probably means that the wicked people themselves are doing evil things that will eventually result in their destruction. They are storing up wrath for themselves (Romans 2:5). It could also mean that God has prepared to destroy them because of their wickedness. But it would be really strange for God to patiently endure the very actions he predestined.
B. I don't know.
C. This obviously means that God prepared these people before they were born to do evil things and receive eternal punishment. The "vessels prepared for destruction" means the people God created specifically to punish with eternal, conscious torment.
even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
A. This is a major theme of this section and of the whole book of Romans. This conclusion reminds us that Paul's focus is mostly about God's plan for communities, not about the salvation of individuals.
B. I dunno.
C. This is a kind of incidental detail that isn't really relevant to the rest of what Paul has been talking about.
As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called sons of the living God.’”
A. He's emphasizing that Gentiles, who were formerly not seen as God's people, are also welcome because God's plan was always for this Good News to be for everyone. He’s reminding his readers that, just as with the story of the unfaithful wife, God's wrath is meant to lead people to repentance. Once the faithless wife said, “I will go and return to my first husband” (Hosea 2:7) God said he would allure her, cleanse her, and have mercy on her (Hosea 2:14-23).
B. I dunno
C. The point is that whether or not an individual is called “beloved” and “a child of the living God” is totally and exclusively God's choice.
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.”
And as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.”
A. Paul is showing that God’s promises to Abraham have not failed because 1) there was always a plan to include the Gentiles in the New Covenant, and 2) God has kept a remnant of faithful Israelites.
B. I dunno.
C. Yeah, I guess A sounds right. I usually stop reading before this part since it doesn’t seem related to the questions I have about sovereignty and election.
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.
They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
A. The Gentiles have received the good news that faithful Israelites have always understood: that right standing before God and the ability to obey his Law have always been based on relational trust in him (i.e. faith). But the vast majority of Israelites still do not have right standing with God because they are relying on their own efforts instead of on relational trust. People have a hard time putting their trust fully in Jesus instead of in their own efforts, but whoever does this will be able to stand before God unashamed.
B. I dunno.
C. Yeah this is good, I skimmed it and it looks like we’re back to talking about personal salvation not being based on works — no one could ever obey the law, we needed God to supernaturally impart saving faith to us so we can be declared righteous, all that good stuff. Oh, but it should be clarified that, “whoever” actually means “the Elect”.
If you answered A to most or all of these questions, your interpretation of this passage aligns most with Arminian Theology. You get an A for Arminianism.
If you answered B to most or all of these questions, your interpretation of this passage is confused and noncommittal. You get a B for Befuddled.
If you answered C to most or all of these questions, your interpretation of this passage aligns most with Calvinist Theology. You get a C for Calvinism.1
1This is still a passing grade because, despite the total depravity of your answers, the results are based on grace rather than works ;-)