romans 9 study

[Eventide]

Putting a straw man argument forward as an imitation of what I'm saying is intellectually dishonest.

Strawman... I think it's a Calvinists favorite word.. lol

Yeah, you're right.. God choosing you unconditionally and then enabling you yo believe isn't luck at all.. it's just false doctrine.

 

[RoadDebris]

Strawman... I think it's a Calvinists favorite word.. lol

If you'd stop constantly using that type of logical fallacy maybe you wouldn't hear it so much. Besides, I think Calvinists favorite word is sovereignty.

Yeah, you're right.. God choosing you unconditionally and then enabling you yo believe isn't luck at all.. it's just false doctrine.

Not according to the Bible:

It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.â€Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. - Rom. 9:16-18

And once again, for the record, there is no such thing as "luck", except as a superstitious concept.

 

[Eventide]

If you'd stop constantly using that type of logical fallacy maybe you wouldn't hear it so much. Besides, I think Calvinists favorite word is sovereignty.

What logical fallacy..? Instead of blanket accusations without any support.. please tell me what the logical fallacy is that you're talking about ?

Not according to the Bible:

It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. - Rom. 9:16-18

Is Romans 9 your only support for your doctrine of unconditional election ?

How about this..

If ye shall seek to save your life ye shall lose it.. and if ye shall lose it for Me and the gospel, ye shall save it.. OR.. If any man shall come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me..

How do these verses 'fit' into your doctrine of 'unconditional election'..

And once again, for the record, there is no such thing as "luck", except as a superstitious concept.

You mean to tell me that you don't feel lucky that you did absolutely nothing and that God chose you for no reason other than His own glory while others have no chance because God didn't unconditionally choose THEM and then enable them to repent and believe that Christ died for our sins..?

What makes you any different from the ones He didn't choose then... if it's not lucky..?

 

[savedbygrace57]

rom 9:

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.

God is Sovereign in who He shews Mercy..

The grand mistake of proud man is that we think that we deserve Gods mercy or better yet, we have a right to it, but thats not so. The misery that sin brings us, of which we were guilty of, deserves punishment, for mercy is not a right that men are entitled to.

Mercy is the Attribute of God by which He has pity and relieves the miserable and sinful..ps 103:

13Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

14For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

The objects of Gods mercy are those who are miserable as a result of their sin and are deserving of punishment and not mercy, to say that we deserve or have a right to mercy is a contradiction....

Scripture teaches from our text that God bestows mercy upon whom He pleases, according to His own pleasure..also see ex 33:

19And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

Please bear with me for a few more lines, and i will Illustrate from scripture this truth that God shows mercy to whomever He wills, and will not show mercy to others..

jn 5:

3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.


4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

This impotent man was merely one of many people who needed help or healing see vs 3..

But Jesus chose just one man to shew mercy to at this time in our narrative, and this should be instructive..


For this man had not exhibited any faith, he had not importunately called out for mercy like the blind man did..

Jesus merely asked him a question, would thou be made whole ! And he responded:

7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

Nothing of faith in Jesus in this answer i can see..but Jesus said immediately after:

8Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

At this instance the man was healed..

Finally Jesus preached this discriminating concept of God being merciful to whomever He will and passing by others who are in the same condition in His first sermon in lk 4:

25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;


26But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.

27And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

28And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,

 

[Eventide]

rom 9:

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

Do people understand where and when this was written..?

It is written in the book of Malachi.. and Malachi lived hundreds of years AFTER Jacob and Esau were on earth.. it was written hundreds of years AFTER Esau sold his birthright which he despised..

 

[RoadDebris]

What logical fallacy..? Instead of blanket accusations without any support.. please tell me what the logical fallacy is that you're talking about ?

All straw man arguments are logical fallacies. When I point out each instance were you are making such an irrational argument I am being specific.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Romans 9 your only support for your doctrine of unconditional election ?

No. But out of curiosity, how many times does the Lord God Almighty have to tell you something before it becomes true?

How about this..

If ye shall seek to save your life ye shall lose it.. and if ye shall lose it for Me and the gospel, ye shall save it.. OR.. If any man shall come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me..

It's a metaphor. If He were teaching that we save ourselves by our own works then the Gospel would contradict itself. When your theology contradicts itself that's a really bad sign.

You mean to tell me that you don't feel lucky that you did absolutely nothing and that God chose you for no reason other than His own glory while others have no chance because God didn't unconditionally choose THEM and then enable them to repent and believe that Christ died for our sins..?

I already told you, there is no such thing as luck, except as a superstitious concept. I am blessed that by the grace of God I've been taught not to mock the glorification of God. I pray that you receive the same blessing.

 

[Eventide]

All straw man arguments are logical fallacies. When I point out each instance were you are making such an irrational argument I am being specific.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now this is funny.. iow you're telling me that there are NO logical fallacies because you can't even tell me what they are... and you speak of being intellectually dishonest..? Shame on you !

No. But out of curiosity, how many times does the Lord God Almighty have to tell you something before it becomes true?

It's never a good idea to build doctrine from one source, especially when the context of Romans 9 has nothing to do with individual salvation... and all things should be established by two or three witnesses..

It's a metaphor. If He were teaching that we save ourselves by our own works then the Gospel would contradict itself. When your theology contradicts itself that's a really bad sign.

OOOH... it's only a metaphor... there's no need to deny ourselves and take up our cross... it's no wonder you guys believe that you're all the elect..

I already told you, there is no such thing as luck, except as a superstitious concept. I am blessed that by the grace of God I've been taught not to mock the glorification of God. I pray that you receive the same blessing.

Ok... well at least you're very special since God chose you along with His only begotten and beloved Son in whom He delights..

 

[RoadDebris]

Now this is funny.. iow you're telling me that there are NO logical fallacies because you can't even tell me what they are... and you speak of being intellectually dishonest..? Shame on you !

~facepalm~

Each time you've made a straw man argument I've responded by telling you that that particular comment is a straw man argument. Now I just gave the definition of straw man, so you should should at least now know what that kind of fallacy entails. If you don't know what a term like straw man means then it would be honest just to say so in the first place. And pretending not to know what is being said is, obviously, dishonest.

It's never a good idea to build doctrine from one source, especially when the context of Romans 9 has nothing to do with individual salvation... and all things should be established by two or three witnesses..

So you need God to say something more than once for it be valid? Wow. I wonder shy Adam didn't try that ploy. Romans 9:16 speaks of all men. There is no man who receives salvation by virtue of his desire. At least according to God.

OOOH... it's only a metaphor... there's no need to deny ourselves and take up our cross... it's no wonder you guys believe that you're all the elect..

Loosing one's life and taking up the cross are obvious metaphors for obedience. Again, pretending to misunderstand my comments is intellectually dishonest. That you seem to be forced into this type of response says a lot about your point of view (IMO).

Ok... well at least you're very special since God chose you along with His only begotten and beloved Son in whom He delights..

There's nothing special about me. It's all about God. Ironically, it's you who delusionally insinuate your own specialness by insisting that you saved yourself by your own wisdom and self-control in choosing to be a Christian.

 

[savedbygrace57]

rom 9:13-16 cont



Not only is God Sovereign in His Mercy, but also God is Sovereign and discriminate in His Love..

Thats the force of Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated..

Proud man believes that God must love all men in the world, but thats not so. scriptures like our text shows that, and statements like this show the discriminatory nature of Jesus love..Jn 13:

1Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

The spirit inspired the writer to write this in that fashion..He loved His own in the world, and he loved them

He did not love the devil and his children who are also in the world..

So, God and Christ do not love everyone in the world, but everyone whom God chose in Christ Jesus before the world began.

God does not love everybody, he does not love the devil, lest one can show me a scripture that says He does, for i have not seen it..

As stated, Gods love is limited to some is illustrated in rom 9 13, and Gods love for Jacob and hatred for Esau, was before they had been born and done either good or evil cp with jn 5:

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The reason why God Loves one and hates another is not found within the Individuals themselves, but in Gods Sovereignty..

Lets look at a very enlightening passage eph 1:

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:


4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In Love having predestinated us [ the chosen] unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to what ?

Is it according to freewill ? What He foresaw ? According to faith ? how about according to Repentance ? NO none of the above, but it is written, according to the good pleasure of His will..

Hence God is Sovereign in who He Loves and who He does not Love..

This is the Gospel of the kingdom that I preach for a witness to all nations..

 

[RoadDebris]

@57, God is good. All the time.

 

[Eventide]

~facepalm~

Each time you've made a straw man argument I've responded by telling you that that particular comment is a straw man argument. Now I just gave the definition of straw man, so you should should at least now know what that kind of fallacy entails. If you don't know what a term like straw man means then it would be honest just to say so in the first place. And pretending not to know what is being said is, obviously, dishonest.

This is perhaps the fourth or fifth time that you have accused me of being dishonest.. do you actually think that I'm intentionally lying to you ? And so what's the deal, whatever you happen to say is correct and what I say is dishonest.. is that your game here..

So you need God to say something more than once for it be valid? Wow. I wonder shy Adam didn't try that ploy. Romans 9:16 speaks of all men. There is no man who receives salvation by virtue of his desire. At least according to God.

The point is that we don't build doctrine (especially something like unconditional election) on ONE VERSE of scripture.. and Paul writes that all things are established by the mouth of two or three witnesses...

Loosing one's life and taking up the cross are obvious metaphors for obedience. Again, pretending to misunderstand my comments is intellectually dishonest. That you seem to be forced into this type of response says a lot about your point of view (IMO).

Ok, let's go with the metaphor thing for a second... now even though it's a metephor, you're still laying down YOUR LIFE for His, right ? Not physically but by putting off the old man (our natural man) and putting on the Lord Jesus Christ.. (the Spiritual)..

So how does that equate to God choosing YOU if you're laying down your life for HIM..?

There's nothing special about me. It's all about God. Ironically, it's you who delusionally insinuate your own specialness by insisting that you saved yourself by your own wisdom and self-control in choosing to be a Christian.

This is what you've been taught isn't it... that people who do not buy into Calvinism SAVED THEMSELVES.. and it's pretty sad that people go to these lengths just to justify themselves and their own doctrine..

Nobody saves themselves.. the scriptures clearly teach that AFTER we trusted in Christ, after hearing the gospel, and that after we believed, that it was GOD who sealed us with the Holy Spirit of promise.. that's how we're saved.. by grace through faith as the bible teaches throughout..

But this will never stop the Calvinists from telling others that they SAVED themselves... and yet they often question the honesty of others while putting up the same ol straw man time after time..

 

[savedbygrace57]

@57, God is good. All the time.

Its good hear that on such a subject as this.

 

[savedbygrace57]

rom 9:13-16 cont



God is also Sovereign in giving grace..in the scripture that Paul references in God being sovereign in showing Mercy in ex 33 19 it says this:

19And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

The word gracious is the heb is

chanan and means:

to be gracious, show favour, pity

a) (Qal) to show favour, be gracious

b) (Niphal) to be pitied

c) (Piel) to make gracious, make favourable, be gracious

d) (Poel) to direct favour to, have mercy on

e) (Hophal) to be shown favour, be shown consideration

f) (Hithpael) to seek favour, implore favour

This word would be the equivalent to the NT word for grace which is:

charis :

grace

a) that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech

2) good will, loving-kindness, favour

for we definitely see the ideal of Favor being prominent in both words in the testaments..

And God is Sovereign in who He gives grace or favor to..rom 5:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul teaches here that grace reigns [ as sovereign ] at the expense of righteousness [ justice], that is Grace reigns at the expense of Justice having been satisfied by its infliction on the surety of the sheep..

zech 13:7

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

That sword should be taken in the sense of the sword of Justice as it is similarly used in the NT for civil authority in rom 13:4

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

You see the Ideal here, the sword Justly executes wrath upon him that doeth evil..

Now, the shepherd did no personal evil, but He suffered the Justice and wrath of the sheep who had done evil..

And so if Grace reigns, it is Sovereign.. Are all going to be saved by Grace ? No they are not, for Grace reigns Sovereign and saves only them for whom Christ died for as their sheherd..see Jn 10:11, 15 and none others !

Some will object and say, but one is saved by grace through faith, Yes thats True, But the whole of salvation by grace through Faith is the Gift of God by grace, for the believing too is through grace per acts 18:27b

helped them much which had believed through grace:

The greek preposition here is dia and in this instance it means through:

through

a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done

1) by reason of
2) on account of
3) because of for this reason
4) therefore
5) on this account

Hence they believed on the account of grace or they believed for this reason, or because of grace..

so faith or believing comes along for the ride when grace is reigning through Jesus Christ our lord..

and this grace is bestowed upon all those for whom Gods Justice has been supremely satisfied by the shepherd of the sheep..

 

[RoadDebris]

This is perhaps the fourth or fifth time that you have accused me of being dishonest.. do you actually think that I'm intentionally lying to you ? And so what's the deal, whatever you happen to say is correct and what I say is dishonest.. is that your game here..

Oh, just off the top of my head, the way you carried on about my claim that cross carrying was a metaphor and your denials of making logical fallacies are a couple of good examples. No, I'm not infallible. But I don't have to stoop to being disingenuous. I think there's a pretty good dose of pretence in some of the things you say. Keep it real.

The point is that we don't build doctrine (especially something like unconditional election) on ONE VERSE of scripture.. and Paul writes that all things are established by the mouth of two or three witnesses...

Once again, straw man. I'm not doing that. More importantly, when God says something there are three witnesses (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and he doesn't have to repeat himself to make his words true. That you seem to think he does is a very sad commentary on your theology.

Ok, let's go with the metaphor thing for a second... now even though it's a metephor, you're still laying down YOUR LIFE for His, right ? Not physically but by putting off the old man (our natural man) and putting on the Lord Jesus Christ.. (the Spiritual)..

Hmmm? Now you accept that it's metaphorical? If so, don't you think you should be honest and admit that the way you mocked this idea just previously was out of line?

Saved people accept God's sovereignty. They accept that they are not in control anymore. While this doesn't necessarily mean one will become a literal martyr, they no longer seek to be their own master. So it's an effect of salvation, not it's cause.

So how does that equate to God choosing YOU if you're laying down your life for HIM..?

I was already saved when I accepted God's sovereignty. Again, it an effect of salvation, not it's cause. Any act of man that causes his own salvation is a violation of grace. According to the Bible, that's not the way it works.

This is what you've been taught isn't it... that people who do not buy into Calvinism SAVED THEMSELVES.. and it's pretty sad that people go to these lengths just to justify themselves and their own doctrine..

Yet another straw man. Why don't you just stop doing that? It does no service to your point of view.

I'm not saying anyone saves themselves because that is not possible, according to the Bible. Some people claim to have gone in 50/50 with God, but that is simply a delusion, according to the Bible.

Nobody saves themselves.. the scriptures clearly teach that AFTER we trusted in Christ, after hearing the gospel, and that after we believed, that it was GOD who sealed us with the Holy Spirit of promise.. that's how we're saved.. by grace through faith as the bible teaches throughout..

You are right. Nobody does. Some, like you, claim you do by your doctrine and then turn right around and contradict that doctrine by denying what it says. That's irrational.

What the scripture shows is believers reacting to their new birth in Christ by professing their faith publicly, renouncing their old ways, being baptised, joining with other believers in a community of brotherhood, and living a clean life that's focused on serving others and obeying God. It's your false presupposition that people must do something to be saved that leads you down the wrong path here. People don't do anything to cause their salvation. It's all about God.

But this will never stop the Calvinists from telling others that they SAVED themselves... and yet they often question the honesty of others while putting up the same ol straw man time after time..

I've never heard anyone who follows Reformed Theology say anyone ever saves themselves. They simply point out the contradictory beliefs of Arminianism which, if true, would mean that salvation is a work of man.

 

[RoadDebris]

Its good hear that on such a subject as this.

Amen.

 

[Eventide]

Oh, just off the top of my head, the way you carried on about my claim that cross carrying was a metaphor and your denials of making logical fallacies are a couple of good examples. No, I'm not infallible. But I don't have to stoop to being disingenuous. I think there's a pretty good dose of pretence in some of the things you say. Keep it real.

OK, so now you've accused me of being dishonest and disingenuous.. anything else while you're at it..?

Once again, straw man. I'm not doing that. More importantly, when God says something there are three witnesses (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and he doesn't have to repeat himself to make his words true. That you seem to think he does is a very sad commentary on your theology.

So at least tell me ONE other portion of scripture which you build the doctrine of unconditional election upon..

Hmmm? Now you accept that it's metaphorical? If so, don't you think you should be honest and admit that the way you mocked this idea just previously was out of line?

Why would I do that.. I'm dishonest and disingenuous.. ? Although NO I don't take this as a metaphor, remember you're the one who said that.. and I went with it to at least try to get to the point.. which of course you have not answered..

Saved people accept God's sovereignty. They accept that they are not in control anymore. While this doesn't necessarily mean one will become a literal martyr, they no longer seek to be their own master. So it's an effect of salvation, not it's cause.

You're not answering the question though... IF YOU are laying down YOUR LIFE for HIS LIFE, then how does that equate to God choosing YOU ?

I was already saved when I accepted God's sovereignty. Again, it an effect of salvation, not it's cause. Any act of man that causes his own salvation is a violation of grace. According to the Bible, that's not the way it works.

So let's think about AFTER you're saved.. we're called to PUT OFF THE OLD MAN who is corrupt according to deceitful lusts and PUT ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST..

So who's the elect there..?

Could you also tell me who you believe the old man is.. ?

I'm not saying anyone saves themselves because that is not possible, according to the Bible. Some people claim to have gone in 50/50 with God, but that is simply a delusion, according to the Bible.

You're being dishonest.. YOU just told me that I SAVED MYSELF.. and now you're telling me that you're not saying that anyone saves themselves... so which is it..?

You are right. Nobody does. Some, like you, claim you do by your doctrine and then turn right around and contradict that doctrine by denying what it says. That's irrational.

Oh right, because when I tell you that nobody saves themselves I actually believe that I am saving myself.. and I'm just being dishonest and disingenuous...

What the scripture shows is believers reacting to their new birth in Christ by professing their faith publicly, renouncing their old ways, being baptised, joining with other believers in a community of brotherhood, and living a clean life that's focused on serving others and obeying God. It's your false presupposition that people must do something to be saved that leads you down the wrong path here. People don't do anything to cause their salvation. It's all about God.

So God must be dishonest in His word when Paul answers the question as to what must I do to be saved.. there's really nothing that the Jailor had to do.. just sit back and wait until God unconditionally and irresistable enabled him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..

I've never heard anyone who follows Reformed Theology say anyone ever saves themselves. They simply point out the contradictory beliefs of Arminianism which, if true, would mean that salvation is a work of man.

You talk about strawmen and raise the biggest one of all.. which is that people who are not Calvinists save themselves.. that's because this is what the Calvinists are taught over and over... that Arminians save themselves.. and then of course they need to learn the word strawman.. dishonest.. and disingenuous... because that's basically all they ever say.

 

[Drew]

Not according to the Bible:

It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. - Rom. 9:16-18

I suggest that this text does not specifically support the assertion that God elects some to eternal salvation and others to eternal loss. It could, of course, be read that way in isolation.

But in the broader context of Paul's argument in Romans 9 to 11, and in the letter as a whole, I believe that Paul is simply making the more general point that God has the right to "harden" people. And, I suggest, Paul's real point here is that the nation of Israel has been hardened as a whole. However, I see no case to read this texts as suggesting that from the beginning of time, God "ordained" some to loss and some to salvation.

Romans 9 to 11 is an argument about Israel and her relation to the Gentiles in God's grand plan of redemption. I suggest that Paul is simply not talking about a theology of personal election, he is instead explaining that God has hardened the nation of Israel in order to extend salvation to the entire world.

No doubt, I will need to explain this position further.

One fundamental point I wish to raise: We cannot simply assume that talk of God "electing" is necessarily talk of electing in respect to an eternal destiny. To "elect" means to choose. And many of the examples of election earlier in Romans 9 are examples of God "electing" people not to an eternal fate, but rather to some "fate" or "role" in this present world.

Prime example: Esua was elected not to hell, but to "serve" Jacob.

 

[taromina2003]

I suggest that this text does not specifically support the assertion that God elects some to eternal salvation and others to eternal loss. It could, of course, be read that way in isolation.

But in the broader context of Paul's argument in Romans 9 to 11, and in the letter as a whole, I believe that Paul is simply making the more general point that God has the right to "harden" people. And, I suggest, Paul's real point here is that the nation of Israel has been hardened as a whole. However, I see no case to read this texts as suggesting that from the beginning of time, God "ordained" some to loss and some to salvation.

Romans 9 to 11 is an argument about Israel and her relation to the Gentiles in God's grand plan of redemption. I suggest that Paul is simply not talking about a theology of personal election, he is instead explaining that God has hardened the nation of Israel in order to extend salvation to the entire world.

No doubt, I will need to explain this position further.

One fundamental point I wish to raise: We cannot simply assume that talk of God "electing" is necessarily talk of electing in respect to an eternal destiny. To "elect" means to choose. And many of the examples of election earlier in Romans 9 are examples of God "electing" people not to an eternal fate, but rather to some "fate" or "role" in this present world.

Prime example: Esua was elected not to hell, but to "serve" Jacob.

From your quote:
One fundamental point I wish to raise: We cannot simply assume that talk of God "electing" is necessarily talk of electing in respect to an eternal destiny. To "elect" means to choose. And many of the examples of election earlier in Romans 9 are examples of God "electing" people not to an eternal fate, but rather to some "fate" or "role" in this present world. I agree with this statement and to add further these "Elect" will be delivered up to the anti-christ and allow the Holy Spirit to speak through them.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Many of the adversaries of the Gospel in order to eliminate the doctrine of individual election in romans 9, argue that it is national election instead, yet when that is considered, technically speaking, there is no difference in one nation [ of people] being chosen above other nations [of people] and that of some individuals being chosen over and from the masses of individuals from mankind, for the principle is the same.

Men cavil against election because they say it makes God a respecter of persons, that is because we as men choose based on advantage, outward appearance, or some other status or desirable trait, but not so with God, God instead chooses the foolish, weak, base and despised things, things that are not, in order that no flesh should Glory.

1 cor 1:


24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence

 

[Drew]

Many of the adversaries of the Gospel in order to eliminate the doctrine of individual election in romans 9, argue that it is national election instead, yet when that is considered, technically speaking, there is no difference in one nation [ of people] being chosen above other nations [of people] and that of some individuals being chosen over and from the masses of individuals from mankind, for the principle is the same.

You are begging the question - assuming the very thing that you should be attempting to make a case for.

It is, of course, perfectly coherent for God to think and act as follows: "If the nation of Israel falls, if they do not remain faithful to me, I will, contingent on their free choice to fall away, harden them for my redemptive purposes".

This is, I suggest, what Paul is arguing that God is doing in respect to the nation of Israel.