Romans 9 is one of the most debated passages when it comes to the Arminian/Calvinist debate concerning divine election and whether this election is conditional or unconditional.  Calvinists see in Romans 9 their view of God's omnicausality or the idea that God causes whatsoever comes to pass by His own divine purpose and power.  Those whom He has chosen from before time begin are His elect and those whom He has rejected are destined for hell.  Calvinist John Piper, for example, has written a book in which he sought to show from Romans 9:1-17 the sovereignty of God in salvation and that God has elected some to salvation in Christ Jesus while rejecting others.  Piper, along with most Calvinists, see Romans 9 as a proof text that God's sovereignty means that not only does He cause all things but He has further chosen people by His own sovereign will and purpose.  Calvinists read passages such as Romans 9:11-13 and see divine omnicausality in all things including the damnation of souls.

The Arminian approach, obviously, is different.  John Wesley said about the Calvinist view of election, "this doctrine makes our blood boil."  Calvinists such as John Piper would agree that the Calvinist doctrine of election often does make people mad for he points to Romans 9:20 as an example of man's anger at election.  But it was not with God's sovereignty that Wesley had trouble with but with the Calvinist view of God as the direct cause of all things including the choosing of some to heaven and others to hell apart from the free will choice of the person.  Arminians see the nature of God as creating humanity in His image (Genesis 1:26-27) which includes free will and since the Bible teaches that God is a God of love, He created us with the ability to either accept or reject His love and thus create true loving relationships.  Furthermore, the reformation Arminian sees God as presenting Himself as a God who wants to save people from their sins and so He sent His only begotten Son to die for the sins of all of humanity so that it is now possible for all of humanity to be saved through the preaching of the gospel of God (Romans 1:1-5).

So when we Arminians approach Romans 9-11, what do we see in this portion of Scripture that causes us to reject the Calvinist notion of unconditional election in this passage?  I believe the key to the Arminian position is found in Romans 9:8.

Romans 9:8 reads this way in the NIV, "In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."

What Paul is contrasting in Romans 9 is not the individual salvation of one person versus another but the two people found in Israel.  The Jews often counted on their race to bring them salvation and Paul does commend the Jewish race (Romans 9:1-5, which Piper struggles to find personal salvation in this passage in his exegesis) but he is quick to point out that the promises of God have not failed the Jews but in reality they had been fulfilled in Jesus.  Jesus parallels Isaac whom was the son of promise to Abraham.  To simply be Jewish is not enough.  You must part of the promise and that comes only in Jesus.  It is not the natural children (the Jews) who are God's children but it is those in Christ Jesus.  The elect are not the Jews but the elect children of promise are those who are in Christ Jesus.

From Romans 9:8 we can turn to the rest of Romans 9 to see who Paul is going to build his case that simply to be Jewish is not enough.  He turns in Romans 9:10-13 to show that this principle that God's children are those of promise and not merely flesh is found in the choice of Jacob over Esau.  Note that while Calvinists find election to salvation in Romans 9:13, the passage is dealing with service.  This is clear from reading Malachi 1:2-5 and from verse 12 where we read that the older will serve the younger. This is clearly not referring to personal and individual salvation but to service and particularly to the heir in whom God would establish His covenant people.

Paul goes on in Romans 9:14-18 to talk not about personal salvation but to His right to choose whom He wants to carry out His promises.  Paul is still building his case from Romans 9:8 that it is not merely the Jewish race that inherits salvation but it is those who are children of the promise.  In Romans 9:16 we see a reference back to Abraham who tried to fulfill the promise of God in his flesh through Ishmael but God rejected Ishmael (not in a personal salvation sense) for Isaac whom God said was the child of promise.  Romans 9:17-18 again is not referring to individual salvation but again to God's choice to fulfill His promise through His the child of promise whom He had chosen to do so.  Paul points out that just as Pharaoh was chosen to display God's power so God is able to use whom He wants to fulfill His promise.

Romans 9:18-21 is the Jewish response that Paul expected.  He answers their objections and then points out that just as God had the sovereign right to fulfill His promises through Abraham's son of promise, so He has the right now to bring the Gentiles into this blessing (Acts 3:26; John 10:16).  Romans 9:25 shows that Paul is not referring to individual salvation but to the Gentiles as a whole whom He will bring in through the son of promise which is the Lord Jesus (John 1:29).  Romans 9:30-33 further solidifies this view that Paul is referring to the Gentiles as a whole and not individual people though people come to be in Christ Jesus only by personal faith in Him (Romans 10:9-17).

I believe that to read individual election in Romans 9 is to misread the passage.  Perhaps using Romans 9:8 as a basis we can see that Paul is building a case agains the natural children (Jews) for the children of promise (those in Christ Jesus by faith; Galatians 3:26-29).