Romans 9:16

[troyjs]

Greetings,

How do we all understand Romans 9:16?:
*So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. *

My understanding is that according to the Catechism, God provides equal grace to all so that if they will, they may come to faith.
Eg, John and David are both sinners, and God has given them grace so that they may, if they will, come to Him. John repents and believes, whereas David does not.

Would you say that the determining factor in John’s salvation is not grace, since David had equal grace? It is not God’s fault then, that David does not come to faith – it is David’s fault.

Likewise, the determining factor in John’s coming to faith, was not God, but John.

How do we reconcile this with St Paul explicitly saying that the determining factor is NOT the will, NOR effort, but although God’s grace and human action are both necessary – it is God’s mercy which is the determining factor?

kind regards

 

[WesleyF]

Can’t explain it better than this -

youtube.com/watch?v=ZSNM75FVBCA#t=05m10s

 

[Cryptic1]

Your example of John and David’s choice (free will) on whether or not to accept God’s promise of salvation may have been a factor, but without God’s initial gift of saving grace, neither John nor David would have been saved. Without an invitation from God Himself, no one can hope to enter into heaven.

God Rocks

 

[po18guy]

We must cooperate with Gods grace. God will not save us against our will.

 

[WoundedIcon]

Well, the answer modern exegetes will give you is that it’s a mistake to view that passage as having anything to do with individual salvation at all. In the bigger picture of what the book is dealing with, which is Jewish-Gentile Christian relations, all the Paul is actually discussing is the history of salvation and God’s providence in guiding the world from Abraham, through Israel, to Christ, etc.

 

[troyjs]

In verse 11, the context is elaborated for what God is to do next: the children are not yet born and have done nothing good or evil; and in the second half of verse 11, it is explained why God acted in the context o the children not having done anything good or bad – that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.
In verse 11, we see the context, and why God chose that context, and in verse 12, we see what God actually did in that context: It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
To recap, why did God say this to Rebecca? So that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. The reason why the elder will serve the younger, is not dependent on what either of would have done, but because of God’s purpose.
In verse 13, we see that God loves Jacob, and hates Esau. In the context, we see that God’s love toward Jacob is making him over Esau, and God’s hatred toward Esau is putting him under Jacob – and this it explicitly says, is not based on their works, but according to God’s purpose.
In verse 14, St Paul rhetorically asks, 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. The reason why St Paul asks this of himself seems obvious – why should God favour one brother, and not the other? Why should God have love on one brother, which He does not show to the other brother – before and not according to any works they might do, either good or bad? If God is righteous, should He not love the one, based on his good works, and hate the other, based on his bad works?
Remember that in verses 6-8, not all who are of Israel, are of Israel, but only those of the promise. Verses 9-13 explain what the promise is, and on what basis one is a child of the promise and a child of God. In verse 14, we see St Paul rhetorically asking if this makes God unrighteous. In verse 15 and 16, we see St Paul answer his own question: 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
How do others here understand verse 16?
Kind regards

 

[troyjs]

There seem to be 2 types of responses I am receiving:

1. God’s grace is necessary, but man’s actions are also a determining factor.
2. The passage is not in regard to individuals, but to nations.

In regard to the first type of response, I am not sure how this answers my question in that St Paul explicitly states that man’s actions are not responsible for his receiving mercy. In our example, both John and David have received the exact same grace from God, yet one comes to faith and the other does not. If David does not come to faith, we say that David’s actions were the determining factor – it is not God’s fault. The verse does not say that both man and God’s actions are necessary or important, but it explicitly says that it is NOT dependent upon the man’s will or actions, but upon God.

Let us add some context to verse 16:
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Verse 15 seems to indicate that God can have mercy on whoever God wants to have mercy on, and if God wants to have mercy on a sinner, God will have mercy upon him. This seems to reflect the idea that ‘having mercy’ is something God does upon those who do not deserve mercy – that if mercy is given only to those who deserve it, it is no longer mercy. But verses 15-16 do not say this explicitly, however they do seem to teach that God having mercy upon someone is dependent upon God, and not the man.
I understand that The Catholic Catechism teaches that both God’s and Man’s actions are necessary, but my question was regarding Romans 9:16. Does verse 16 teach that it also depends on man’s actions? If it does, what does St Paul mean when he says, “It is NOT of him….”?
In regards to the view that it is in regards to nations and not individuals, the context of the passage seems to indicate the nation of Israel:
*6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.*Not everyone who is of Israel, is really of Israel(verse6), and being of the seed of Abraham is not what makes one a child thereof, but being a seed called in Isaac(verse7). That is, it is not because we are naturally Israelites, or children according to the flesh, which makes us children of God, but being children of the promise, are we counted for seed(verse8).
In these 3 verses, we see that St Paul is not abrogating the importance of Israel, but is revealing that to be truly of Israel, one must be a child of the promise in order to be a child of God. The verse does not seem to indicate that all nations everywhere are Israel, as it limits being of Israel to those who are children of the promise, and it explicitly says that not everyone who are naturally of Israel, are of Israel – in other words, some people are of the true Israel, and some people are not. Nor do the verses seem to indicate that Israel is no longer favoured by God, but it seems that St Paul is explaining who are truly of Israel – the children of the promise. In the next 6 verses, St Paul explains that the promise is:
*9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.*The promise St Paul was referring to in verses 6-8, are explained in the next few verses – that Sarah will have a son, and not only is this the promise, but when Rebecca also conceived by Isaac(verse9-10). The when in verse 10, begins to set the context for the rest of the promise that St Paul was referring to. Paul further details the context in the first half of verse 11: Rebecca’s children not having been born yet, and have not done anything good or evil. In the second half of verse 11, St Paul explains why God chose to act in that context: that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth. The reason God acted in that particular context, is so that the promise might be according to God’s purpose, and not because of any person’s works. In verses 12 and 13, St Paul tells us what God actually did in that context: It was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. St Paul elaborates verse 12 with verse 13, in that the way God loves Jacob is having his brother to serve him, and the way God hates Esau is by having him to serve Jacob – and this not in accordance to good or evil works, but in accordance to God’s purpose.
So St Paul teaches us that if one is to be truly of Israel, to be a child of God, to be a child of the promise, it is not according to good or evil works, but according to Him who calleth.
**Continues on my next post.**kind regards

 

[troyjs]

This is part 2, read my previous post if you have not yet. thank you.

. Immediately, we see what seems to be a form of unrighteousness. If God is righteous, should not God take into consideration the good works and the evil works of people? Furthermore, if God is to make one a child of the promise, should He not also make the other also a child of the promise – If God is righteous, should He not show the same love to both Jacob and Esau? St Paul in verse 14, asks the rhetorical question: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
In verse 14, we see that St Paul explicitly denies that there is unrighteousness with God. Although it may seem unrighteous that God loves one and hates the other, St Paul tells us that it is not unrighteous for God to do this. Also, if we are to understand what St Paul is teaching here, this verse helps us to understand that we can not reject an interpretation of this passage, just because it seems to make God unrighteous – and that St Paul is writing this verse precisely because the correct interpretation does seem to make God unrighteous, although God is not.
In the next 2 verses, we have the verse in question, and St Paul’s preliminary remarks on why it is not unrighteous of God to have love for one, and not for the other, according to His own purpose and not according to any good or evil works:
*15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. *In all this, there is no indication that those who are children of the promise, are anything but also naturally of Israel. In this passage, no mention is yet made in regards to Gentiles. In verse 6, it says that not all who are of Israel are of Israel, which means that only some who are of Israel, are truly of Israel – it does not say that any Gentiles are of Israel. This comes later in verse 24 and 25:
*24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. *There may be some temptation to say that what St Paul is saying, is that we are all children of God, both Jews and Gentiles, and not because any nation is better than the other. Remember however, that in verse 6, not all who are of Israel are of Israel, and in verse 7, not all who are of Abraham’s seed are children, but only those of the promise. Verse 6 explicitly says that not everyone is a child of God, or a child of the promise, verse 8 says that the children of the flesh are not the children of God, and in verses 9-13, we learn on what basis one is a child of promise, ie. God’s purpose according to election.
The context after verse 16:
*17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?*I understand what the Roman Catholic position is on both man’s and God’s work being necessary, but my question is not about any person’s position, but on their understanding of Romans 9, verse 16: 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
I would be most appreciative if we could express our views on what the verse itself teaches.

Kind regards

 

[po18guy]

I see now that you misunderstand what you read in the catechism. You might re-read the catechism, but please understand that you speak a much newer and different theological language than the ancient Church.

 

[bmullins]

If you read the entire passage in context it becomes apparent what the passage is about. Paul is defending God’s freedom to be merciful and patient, not his freedom to punish sinners.

 

[WesleyF]

my question is not about any person’s position, but on their understanding of Romans 9, verse 16: 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
I would be most appreciative if we could express our views on what the verse itself teaches.

Kind regards

Just today, I had a discussion with someone on this subject. This is what I wrote -

In order to understand the point that Paul is making in Romans 9, we have to see the context of his whole letter. Throughout the letter, Paul is trying to prove to the Jews that they cannot be justified before God by their own works; something that the Jews were insisting on doing with observances such as circumcision and keeping the Jewish ceremonial observances. In Romans 4:2, he says, “if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.” So also in Romans 9:31-32, he says “Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works.”

Therefore, he says, “it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.” (Romans 9:16). So man’s will or exertion doesn’t justify him before God, but it is God’s mercy which causes God to justify man. It is God who chooses man and not the other way round (John 15:16). So in order to prove to the Israelites that it is not possible to be chosen or be “elected” through their own works, Paul shows them a scenario where it is impossible to do any work. He shows them the example of Esau and Jabob, where even before Esau or Jacob could do anything, GOD chose Esau to serve Jacob. Paul uses this example to prove his point, that it is not we who do anything to be chosen by God, but it is God who chooses us. That’s his whole argument. The passage doesn’t say anything at all about the damnation of Esau. By the way, in the above case Jacob’s “election” was not election into salvation but election to be served by Esau. That’s all that the text says.

So now returning to your original question -

How do we all understand Romans 9:16?:
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.

My understanding is that according to the Catechism, God provides equal grace to all so that if they will, they may come to faith.
Eg, John and David are both sinners, and God has given them grace so that they may, if they will, come to Him. John repents and believes, whereas David does not.

Would you say that the determining factor in John’s salvation is not grace, since David had equal grace? It is not God’s fault then, that David does not come to faith – it is David’s fault.

Likewise, the determining factor in John’s coming to faith, was not God, but John.

How do we reconcile this with St Paul explicitly saying that the determining factor is NOT the will, NOR effort, but although God’s grace and human action are both necessary – it is God’s mercy which is the determining factor?

The determining factor for what? For being chosen to have mercy upon! Not for coming to faith. They are two different things. God chooses to have mercy on people but not on everyone at the same time. He might have mercy on John today, but on David ten years later. The fact is that neither John nor David could do anything of themselves to force God to have mercy on them. As Catholics, we do hold that God has mercy on everyone, but he does it according to his time and not ours. So he might have mercy on someone when he is 40 years old, or 5 years old, or an infant. It depends not on our will or exertion, but on him.

 

[po18guy]

The determining factor for what? For being chosen to have mercy upon! Not for coming to faith. They are two different things. God chooses to have mercy on people but not on everyone at the same time. He might have mercy on John today, but on David ten years later. The fact is that neither John nor David could do anything of themselves to force God to have mercy on them. As Catholics, we do hold that God has mercy on everyone, but he does it according to his time and not ours. So he might have mercy on someone when he is 40 years old, or 5 years old, or an infant. It depends not on our will or exertion, but on him.

As well, the OP is privately interpreting scripture. This invariably leads to error. Paraphrasing Dei Verbum no. 10, “The Bible is the Church’s own book, and only she is the final and authentic interpreter of the meaning of any passage.”

Those who disregard 2 Peter 1:20 for personal reasons risk being counted among the “unlearbed and unstable” who “wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16

How is it more noble to misinterpret Paul than to heed the advice of Peter?

 

[WesleyF]

As well, the OP is privately interpreting scripture. This invariably leads to error.

I don’t agree with you. I believe that private interpretation is okay with the methods prescribed by the church in CCC 112-114. As long as those guidelines are followed, private interpretation is ok.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t agree with you. I believe that private interpretation is okay with the methods prescribed by the church in CCC 112-114. As long as those guidelines are followed, private interpretation is ok.

Definition: Private interpretation of scripture is that which is undertaken apart from and without the guidance of the Church.

 

[fred_conty]

QUOTE
The verse does not say that both man and God’s actions are necessary or important, but it explicitly says that it is NOT dependent upon the man’s will or actions, but upon God.
UNQUOTE

Man must make a decision on everything God proposes to him. If he didn’t have that choice presented to him, then he would not be treated according to his rational nature, and would be downsized to an irrational animal. God would respect what he kind of creature he made and treat that creature accordingly. Man always has the power to say “yes” or “no” to a proposal because he was made that way.

Now from another viewpoint, man receives blessings from his creator who has the right to give any creature a gift if he so pleases. Just as we give gifts to those who we so choose.
God is free just as we are free to do that and is done independently of the receiver. Yes?

Just a thought.

 

[po18guy]

Let’s see what Paul had to say just a few paragraphs ahead:

Romans 10:10
King James Version (KJV)
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Is Paul being deceptive or inconsistent, first saying that it is up to God, then later claiming that man has a role?

And, since the bible contains more than the book of Romans, lets see what Paul wrote seven years later:

Titus 2:11
King James Version (KJV)
11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

OP: Are you saying that salvation is beyond our control? Will God force our salvation or damnation against our will?

 

[troyjs]

I was really hoping that someone would exegete Romans 9, for this is really the topic at hand. I understand that there are other relevant passages in the Bible, but I was really hoping that someone would provide some exgesis of what St Paul was writing here.

I don’t understand what private interpretation is, other than interpretation which is not in accordance to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. We all agree that if God speaks, we are to submit and believe His word. It is a shame that the RCC has not infallibly interpreted the whole Bible in the last 2 thousand years, and it is not novel to say that the Bible teaches us more than what is recognised as dogma by the RCC. Nevertheless, I am really hoping someone would provide some exegesis as to what the Holy Spirit through St Paul, is teaching us in the passage, and how it would have been interpreted as it was being read in the churches it was sent to. It is a matter of obedience that we believe what God has given us to believe – all of what He has given us, and at this time, we are dealing with what God has given us to believe in Romans 9.

The determining factor for what? For being chosen to have mercy upon! Not for coming to faith.

Remember that Romans 9 is in regards to the children of the promise, and it is the children of the promise which are the children of God.

*6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. *

Also, in verse 6, we see that not everyone is of Israel – not those who are naturally of Israel, but only those who are children of the promise – and the children of the promise are such because of God’s purpose according to election, not of works

*9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.*

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Is Paul being deceptive or inconsistent, first saying that it is up to God, then later claiming that man has a role?

And, since the bible contains more than the book of Romans, lets see what Paul wrote seven years later:

The verses you mention in context are:
*10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. *
We are all agreed that belief results in righteousness, and that confession results in salvation, but is our belief and salvation the cause of God’s choosing us, or is God’s choosing us the cause of our having belief and salvation?

 

[troyjs]

Titus 2:11
King James Version (KJV)
11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

We all know that some Roman Catholic biblical scholars interpret ‘all men’ to mean ‘both jews and gentiles’, for to these particular Roman Catholic scholars, the context seems to indicate this. It is also true that some Roman Catholic scholars interpret ‘all men’ to mean every individual. I was really hoping that we could try to study together Romans 9, and I would be most appreciative if we could try to exegete St Paul there. Nevertheless, we all agree that the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, and therefore what Romans 9 teaches can not contradict Titus 2:11.

So then, does Romans 9 teach that some are not children of the promise, some are not of Israel, some are not children of God, or does it teach that everyone is a child of the promise?

• 6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed*

Are you saying that salvation is beyond our control? Will God force our salvation or damnation against our will?

What I am saying is this:
*For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

**21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: **

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,*

Notice that in verse 22, the vessels of wrath are fitted to destruction. We may be left wondering who it is that fits these vessels to destruction, but only if we had missed the very previous verse. In verse 21, God makes one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour. In verse 23, we see why it is that God does this: that he might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory. Upon which vessels are made known God’s glory, those vessels God had made for that purpose. Which vessels were fitted to destruction? Those vessels God chose unto dishonour.

kind regards

 

[bmullins]

You have to take it all as a whole. Not one verse here and another there. Paul defends God’s right to mercy. That he is not accountable to anyone else. That God is God. The potter, the creator. He makes the rules. He is defending God’s right to choose whomever he wants. It’s about grace, not election. For instance, Titus 2:11 makes perfect sense when you compare it to 1 Timothy 2:4.

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 2:4[/bibledrb]

The Father wants ALL men to repent. He wants ALL men to receive salvation offered by Christ (1 timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 3:9). It is wrong then to ever suggest that Jesus died only for a few individuals and not for the salvation of every man, woman and child. (1 John 2:2) This is why we believers are supposed to make intercession for all of mankind, not just believers. (1 Timothy 2:1)

Which is precisely why the Catholic church teaches the following:

851 Missionary motivation. It is from God’s love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”;344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94 She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.95

 

[troyjs]

I had said:

The verses you mention in context are:
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
We are all agreed that belief results in righteousness, and that confession results in salvation, but is our belief and salvation the cause of God’s choosing us, or is God’s choosing us the cause of our having belief and salvation?

I want to add further, that Romans 9 answers this very question as to what comes first: Do we have belief and salvation because God’s choosing us(as I am affirming), or did God choose us because we have belief and salvation (as you are affirming)?

***11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth **
12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.*

If someone denies that this is in regards to salvation, then let us read God’s word in who St Paul identifies with these children of promise:
*6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.*
The children of promise are the children of God, and not everyone is a child of God (verse 6). Furthermore, St Paul answers his own question of verse 14, with these words:

*16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

**22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,***
We see that those God has chosen as children of the promise, are those who are made unto honour and glory, while those who are not the children of the promise, are fitted for dishonour , wrath, and destruction.

kind regards