Drew
Member
Hello Mondar (and others):
I have been away for a few days. If possible, I would like to respond to some of your points.
I agree that Pharoah was "elected" - but I think that Romans 9 only justifies concluding that he was elected in respect to doing something in God's grand plan - not that he was elected from the foundation of time unto damnation. Can you justify such a conclusion of personal election unto damnation for Pharaoh if you indeed hold such a view.
Although you personally may not be guilty here, I suggest that many / most people read Romans 9:22-23 without knowing the history and context of Paul's letter to the Romans, and without seeing how much Romans is not "systematic theology" (much of what I will write in the remainder of this post express the ideas of NT Wright).
Romans is not a series of statements about the sinfulness of man, how people get justified, and whether people are "elected" unto that justification, etc. It is more properly seen, I suggest, as Paul's account of how God, through Christ, has remained faithful to his covenant with Abraham and the implications of that for how the Gentiles and the Jews are to get along in the church in Rome. So while there are indeed implications for "individuals" the book is really about how God has remained true to his covenant with Abraham, created a new covenant family (containing both Jews and Gentiles) and what the implications are for "Israel according to the flesh".
This where Romans 9 kicks in. The verses in Romans 9 before the famous verses 22 and 23 are all about the covenant story told from beginning to end. We have Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Romans 9:14 contains a direct quote from Exodus 33:19: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion".
So there is every reason to assume that in Romans 9, Paul is telling Israel's story and not expounding a theology of individuals. When we get to verses 22 and 23, I suggest that Paul is speaking specifically about the following: following the "Christ-pattern", national Israel has indeed been elected by God to be cast away for the sins of the world- and to play this role specifically in fulfilling the purpose of the covenant . Israel has indeed been a vessel "prepared for destruction" and it is all part of God's plan - to use the law to effectively "draw the world's sin onto Israel" and thereafter, in his great mercy, transfer it to the faithful Israelite - Jesus, thereby remaining true to the original covenant promise to use Israel to solve the problem of sin. Of course, we see in retrospect that it was not national Israel after all who solved the problem, but rather Jesus who effectively bears Israel's destiny as a truly representative Messiah - a destiny that national Israel has been faithless to.
The entire plan of redemption is "cruciform" - all of it is imbued with the same pattern. Israel, being elected unto destruction as per Romans 9:22-23, is acting out part of this pattern.
I see no reason to the potter's account in Romans 9 as being an expression of pre-destination of individuals in respect to eternal life. Once one realizes that Romans is all about the covenant, the coherence of the "personal election to heaven or hell" take on Romans 9:22-23 seems highly questionable.
I have been away for a few days. If possible, I would like to respond to some of your points.
I see no evidence at all to the effect that Romans 9 teaches election unto salvation for human beings generally. I agree that material in Romans 9 refers to God's sovereign use of individual persons, such as Pharaoh, to work out his plan of redemption for all mankind. The fact that God hardens hearts and sovereignly "manipulates" people does not justify a conclusion about election of individuals specifically unto salvation. Are you claiming that we can draw such a conclusion? I would be surprised if you could justify such a conclusion from the Romans 9 material only.mondar said:
I agree that Pharoah was "elected" - but I think that Romans 9 only justifies concluding that he was elected in respect to doing something in God's grand plan - not that he was elected from the foundation of time unto damnation. Can you justify such a conclusion of personal election unto damnation for Pharaoh if you indeed hold such a view.
Although you personally may not be guilty here, I suggest that many / most people read Romans 9:22-23 without knowing the history and context of Paul's letter to the Romans, and without seeing how much Romans is not "systematic theology" (much of what I will write in the remainder of this post express the ideas of NT Wright).
Romans is not a series of statements about the sinfulness of man, how people get justified, and whether people are "elected" unto that justification, etc. It is more properly seen, I suggest, as Paul's account of how God, through Christ, has remained faithful to his covenant with Abraham and the implications of that for how the Gentiles and the Jews are to get along in the church in Rome. So while there are indeed implications for "individuals" the book is really about how God has remained true to his covenant with Abraham, created a new covenant family (containing both Jews and Gentiles) and what the implications are for "Israel according to the flesh".
This where Romans 9 kicks in. The verses in Romans 9 before the famous verses 22 and 23 are all about the covenant story told from beginning to end. We have Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Romans 9:14 contains a direct quote from Exodus 33:19: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion".
So there is every reason to assume that in Romans 9, Paul is telling Israel's story and not expounding a theology of individuals. When we get to verses 22 and 23, I suggest that Paul is speaking specifically about the following: following the "Christ-pattern", national Israel has indeed been elected by God to be cast away for the sins of the world- and to play this role specifically in fulfilling the purpose of the covenant . Israel has indeed been a vessel "prepared for destruction" and it is all part of God's plan - to use the law to effectively "draw the world's sin onto Israel" and thereafter, in his great mercy, transfer it to the faithful Israelite - Jesus, thereby remaining true to the original covenant promise to use Israel to solve the problem of sin. Of course, we see in retrospect that it was not national Israel after all who solved the problem, but rather Jesus who effectively bears Israel's destiny as a truly representative Messiah - a destiny that national Israel has been faithless to.
The entire plan of redemption is "cruciform" - all of it is imbued with the same pattern. Israel, being elected unto destruction as per Romans 9:22-23, is acting out part of this pattern.
I see no reason to the potter's account in Romans 9 as being an expression of pre-destination of individuals in respect to eternal life. Once one realizes that Romans is all about the covenant, the coherence of the "personal election to heaven or hell" take on Romans 9:22-23 seems highly questionable.