Forgiveness Once? Don't Be A Dunce!

[unred typo]

quote by Cymbalistic1 on Sun Oct 14, 2007
to unred typo:

Ha! I need to be alot more clear when posting, lol. In all truthfulness, what you said is what I believe, but I also believe what I said too. I realize that its rather conflicting when I don't clarify myself, which is why I hope to do so now.

You see, as I said, I believe that we are all already forgiven for everything, but as you said (if I understood right), we'll be tested as time goes on. To make it short, if we fall off the "straight and narrow" then we'll have to seek repentance and honor the fact that Jesus did die for our sins by doing all we can to get back on the right path and stay there.

How about this. The price has been paid and the sacrifice is available for our sin, and actually for the sin of the whole world, past, present and future. The blood is not applied unless we repent of our sins. We are forgiven if we repent of the sin we have already committed. Paul says ‘the sins that are past’ in Romans 3:25:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God…

So, if you genuinely repent of sleeping with your neighbor’s wife yesterday, you are forgiven right now. If you then go out and commit adultery again tomorrow, you are not automatically forgiven. In fact, you must genuinely repent of that sin before you can be forgiven again. The blood is then presented on your behalf and covers your sin again. :-D

 

[mondar]

Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

"Jakob I loved, Esau I hated", "I hate divorce". God "hates" sin. And those who have not turned from their sin and received the salvation that is found in Christ Jesus alone will be tormented in the place of gnawing and gnashing of teeth.

That doesn't mean that God hates the person that sins. He hates their ways; as you said, the sin itself. Sure, they'll be casted into the gnawing and gnashing of teeth, but God still doesn't hate them. As another poster said above this one, God loves even those in Hell.

The scriptural phrase spoken by alonevoice is clear. The text says "Esau I hated," but Cymbalistic1 says it does not men God hated Esau, but only his actions. This seems to me to be a case of "because my theology does not allow for this statement, it cannot mean what it says."

Now if God hated Jacob only because his works were evil, that would probably be seen in the context. Yet what does the context say? It gives us indication that God did not hate Esau because of his works. The context give the exact opposite indication of what is asserted above.

Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,

Verse 11 is clear that the reason God loved Jacob and hated Esau was not related to works. With verse 11 in the context, the reason for Gods hatred cannot be Esau's works (or lack thereof). So then, not only does verse 13 make a point blank statement that "Esau I hated," but the context eliminates the concept that God hated Esau's works. When God hated Esau was before there was any works.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (NLT)
Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.

There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies.

As far as I'm concerned the bible states very clearly that you can sin after you're forgiven, which means you cut yourself off from God. You need to ask for forgiveness again and try not to repeat it! Besides, if we are to treat God as a friend then we owe Him our apologies out of friendship.

Would you be interesting in more closely studying this verse? I would first want to take note that what ever sin is committed in this context is the final sin from which there can be no salvation. This willful sin, is an unforgivable sin. There can be no return from this sin. No repentance is allowable.

I guess I will give you a hint. Read verse 29.
Heb 10:29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Does the context give you a hint as to what sin verse 26 is talking about?

Verse 26 is sometimes taken that we can loose our salvation. In this context, was the person ever actually saved? Can you be saved while "counting the blood of the covenant (new covenant) an unholy thing?

To recieve knowledge of the truth doesn't necessarily mean to be forgiven. It just means that you have no excuse; you can't say "Oh, I didn't know that was sin."

Close... I would agree that to receive a knowledge of the truth does not mean one is forgiven. It only means there is no excuse. Yet, I have the feeling that you see this as just any sin. I think verse 29 demonstrates that the context is talking about one specific sin, the sin of unbelief.

Pretty much, the way I understand it is that Jesus died for all of our sins, past, present, and future. We're all already fully forgiven for any and everything.

And go easy on me; I'm new to Christian debate, lol.

Difficult concept. We are pronounced justified, past present and future.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
Rom 8:39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

When the Corinthians sinned, they were judged by God (in this life) so that they would not be condemned with the world (in eternity). If sin is a problem, God does judge sin in the christians life, but that is "chastening" and not eternal condemnation. We are only chastened as sons.
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7 It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not?
Heb 12:8 But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Mon Oct 15, 2007
The scriptural phrase spoken by alonevoice is clear. The text says "Esau I hated," but Cymbalistic1 says it does not men God hated Esau, but only his actions. This seems to me to be a case of "because my theology does not allow for this statement, it cannot mean what it says."

Now if God hated Jacob only because his works were evil, that would probably be seen in the context. Yet what does the context say? It gives us indication that God did not hate Esau because of his works. The context give the exact opposite indication of what is asserted above.

Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,

Verse 11 is clear that the reason God loved Jacob and hated Esau was not related to works. With verse 11 in the context, the reason for Gods hatred cannot be Esau's works (or lack thereof). So then, not only does verse 13 make a point blank statement that "Esau I hated," but the context eliminates the concept that God hated Esau's works. When God hated Esau was before there was any works.

God did not say Esau was hated before any works were done. The passage says Jacob was chosen over Esau before any works were done. It means that when push came to shove, Jacob would be given the victory in battle over Esau, and Jacob’s line was the favored line to be the remnant if someone were to target the Jews for extinction. They were both loved, but the younger son was given the preeminence over the older so no one would assume the birthright was only a selection by birth, but by God’s choice.

The entire Romans passage is not about individual salvation, but the election of the birth line of Christ. Read it. What Paul is trying to show is that the Jews cannot claim their salvation by pointing to their election as the chosen people. Being the chosen people was by God’s choice, not of works, but by sovereignty. The Jews could not claim that because they were the chosen people that they were automatically saved and also chosen for eternal rewards.

quote by mondar on Mon Oct 15, 2007 :
Hebrews 10:26-27 (NLT)
Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.
There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies.
Would you be interesting in more closely studying this verse?

Yes, I probably would be more interesting in the study of that verse but, alas, I have life to attend to. I’ll mop up when you get done chopping it to bits.


:-D

 

[mondar]

....They were both loved, but the younger son was given the preeminence over the older so no one would assume the birthright was only a selection by birth, but by God’s choice.

Again, when you read the biblical statement in verse 13 that says "Esau I have hated" this of course does not mean that God hated Esau. Why, because your theology tells you so. Your theology simply does not allow for the words "Esau I have hated" so therefore they cannot mean that God hated Esau. It seems to me that if you are confronted by a verse that does not fit your theology, then you simply conclude the verse cannot be saying what it says.

The entire Romans passage is not about individual salvation, but the election of the birth line of Christ. Read it. What Paul is trying to show is that the Jews cannot claim their salvation by pointing to their election as the chosen people. Being the chosen people was by God’s choice, not of works, but by sovereignty. The Jews could not claim that because they were the chosen people that they were automatically saved and also chosen for eternal rewards.

Yes, we have been through this before. This is total isogesis. The birth of Christ is nowhere mentioned in the passage. You imported this concept of the birth of Christ into the passage because you do not want to face the actual theology in this context. But again, the birth of Christ is not a concept even mentioned in Romans.

Now there is a relationship of the passage to the election of Israel. Verse 6 is a key concept. No all Israel (genetic) is elect Israel. There is an individual election within genetic Israel. This group of elect Israelites receives the promises and covenants of verse 4-5. The blessings in verses 4-5 concern issues such as the gift of a new heart (new covenant). It is not the nation that is promised a new heart in the new covenant, but individuals. Now some of the blessings could relate to national promises, but not all of them are only national promises. While Genesis 9 is material that involves Israel, to deny that it is about individual salvation is to ignore the greater context. Chapter 8:29 has predestination to be that some will conform to the image of Christ. This is not a nation, but individuals. In 8:33 Pauls asks who will lay something to the charge of Gods elect. The elect here is individuals. Also, in 9:24 we see that Paul inserted Gentiles into the context. The mention of Gentiles in this passage demonstrates that the passage cannot be completely about Israel. If this passage is completely about national Israel, why are Gentiles being mentioned as "called"

The Rhetorical structure of Romans 9 is :
TOPIC The principle of that the unbelief of Israel does not mean that "the word of God has taken no effect-------------verses 4-6
ILLUSTRATION Isaac illustrates this principle ---------7-9
ILLUSTRATION Jacob illustrates this principle---------10-13
TOPIC AND INTRODUCTORY QUESTION------------------------------Vs 14
This question is a bridge. It is a question based upon the concept in verse 11 that election is never based upon works. If God does not base his election upon works, then is God unrighteous? Notice the ABAB structure of the next verses.
A-OT QUOTE (vs 15) - This OT quote demonstrates that Gods mercy is sovereign.
B-EXPLANATION OF OT verse(V 16) Election is totally of Gods will and not related to mans will.
A-OT QUOTE (vs 17) -
B-Explaination of OT (vs 18) - The word hardening is introduced in verse 18 as a part of the concept of election. Remember verse 13 that God hated Esau.
2nd Rhetorical question functioning as a bridge (vs 19) This question relates more to the hardening in verse 18. If God hates someone and hardens them, can they not reply "why have you made me thus?"

I think I will quite here.

 

[mondar]

The concept of forgiveness once comes from the scriptural concept of "justification." Now the meaning of the term is a little more broad. Nevertheless, I think the meaning is best seen in the context of Romans 8:33. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? Is it God that justifieth?" Justification in this context can be seen to be the act of a divine judge. Justification occurs only once. It occurs at the moment that the divine judge bangs his gavel and pronounces the elect innocent. Once a person is innocent of charges of sin, can a person be condemned? Read verse 34. "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." If once the gavel is banged, there can be no more charges, neither can there be condemnation.

If sin leaves us under condemnation in spite of justification, then heaven will be empty, for there is none righteous.

 

[Drew]

I believe that references to election in Romans 9 are about the nation of Israel's corporate role in the plans of God.

Here is what NT Wright writes about Romans 9

If we came “cold†to Romans 9-11, one of the first things that might strike us
would be its story line. Paul begins with Abraham, continues with Isaac and Jacob,
moves on to Moses and the exodus, and by the end of chap. 9 has reached the prophets
and their predictions of exile and restoration. Then, in 10:6f., he expounds that passage in
Deuteronomy (chap. 30) which predicts the return from exile, and in 11:1ff. develops this
in terms of the “remnant†idea, before reaching, toward the end of chap. 11, the great
predictions of covenant renewal from Isaiah and Jeremiah. He narrates, in other words,
the covenant history of Israel, in a way that, at least in outline, is parallel to many other
great retellings of this story in Jewish literature

So we do not do justice to this text if we do not see the "story of Israel" in it and interpret references to election accordingly. I believe that in Romans 9, Paul is explaining how national Israel has been "elected" to be the place where the sin of the world is to be accumulated before it is to be borne by Jesus.

Seeing Romans as primarily an explanation of Paul's theology of how "individuals are all sinners, are justified by faith, are elected unto salvation ,etc" is to not see the bigger picture. If I recall, one of AVBunyan's chief protestations was that we should not mix up "the Jewish covenant" with the covenant we have in Christ. To me, and with all due respect, that is an astonishing error.

Romans is largely about how God has been faithful to the covenant and Romans 9 explains, among other things, how national Israel has been "elected" to be bear the terrible burden of paying the price for the sin of the world.

And of course, God fulfills his covenant in a way that is surprising but is entirely consistent with his covenant with Abraham - the nations are not blessed by faithless national Israel, but rather by the one faithful Israelite who, as a truly representative Messiah, bears the destiny of national Israel and is cast away for the sin of the world.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Mon Oct 15, 2007:
urned typo wrote: “....They were both loved, but the younger son was given the preeminence over the older so no one would assume the birthright was only a selection by birth, but by God’s choice.â€Â

Again, when you read the biblical statement in verse 13 that says "Esau I have hated" this of course does not mean that God hated Esau. Why, because your theology tells you so. Your theology simply does not allow for the words "Esau I have hated" so therefore they cannot mean that God hated Esau. It seems to me that if you are confronted by a verse that does not fit your theology, then you simply conclude the verse cannot be saying what it says.

Actually my theology does allow for God to hate Esau. God said Esau (Edom) was a nation upon whom he would have indignation forever for what they did to their brother, Jacob. Jacob is Israel. Edom is Esau. Genesis 36:8 says “Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom.â€Â
Esau was never said to be personally hated by God in the Bible. His brother was chosen to have the birthright of the spiritual firstborn, even though he was technically the firstborn son. God claimed the firstborn as holy unto himself. Esau was not given his birthright but he was not hated. He only became hated later through his children. When God carried his elect people, Israel, out of bondage, he led them to go through the land of Esau. Edom could have won favor with God by allowing his chosen brother safe passage but instead they refused. Still, God did not hate the Edomite, nor allow the Israelites to hate them. Look at Deuteronomy 23:7
You shall not abhor an Edomite; for he is your brother: you shall not abhor an Egyptian; because you were a stranger in his land.

They became hated later:
Read Obadiah 1:9-11 And your mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter. For your violence against your brother Jacob shame shall cover you, and you shall be cut off for ever. In the day that you stood on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even you were as one of them.
And Amos 1:11
Thus says the LORD; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever:
And finally read Malachi 1:3
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
That is how and when they became hated. Before then, God did not hate Edom (Esau). Paul quotes this verse to show how Jacob was favored over Esau, even though they were both sons of Jacob. The line of Jacob was figured as the line from which the Messiah would come, therefore God would not allow them to be destroyed by Esau. God will fight for Jacob and destroy Esau for sins against Israel, because Jacob was the chosen line.

quote by mondar:
urned typo wrote: “The entire Romans passage is not about individual salvation, but the election of the birth line of Christ. Read it. What Paul is trying to show is that the Jews cannot claim their salvation by pointing to their election as the chosen people. Being the chosen people was by God’s choice, not of works, but by sovereignty. The Jews could not claim that because they were the chosen people that they were automatically saved and also chosen for eternal rewards.â€Â

Yes, we have been through this before. This is total isogesis. The birth of Christ is nowhere mentioned in the passage. You imported this concept of the birth of Christ into the passage because you do not want to face the actual theology in this context. But again, the birth of Christ is not a concept even mentioned in Romans.

Yes, we have done this before. You couldn’t answer me then and you haven’t got a better “isogesis†now.
Paul doesn’t have to mention the fact that the reason Jacob was chosen was to be in the line of the Messiah. It was what the sons of Abraham were all about, Mondar. Why do you think they kept such accurate records of who was son of who? This was huge to them. Why did they tie a ribbon on the hand of the first twin to appear from the womb? The firstborn was the one that would normally be chosen. For what? One from the godly line would to be the king that would be favored to have the everlasting kingdom as promised, who would bless the whole earth with his righteous reign. To miss this aspect is to miss the whole context of the passage and be forced to make up something weird to acknowledge the promise, as you have done here:

quote by mondar:
Now there is a relationship of the passage to the election of Israel. Verse 6 is a key concept. No all Israel (genetic) is elect Israel. There is an individual election within genetic Israel. This group of elect Israelites receives the promises and covenants of verse 4-5. The blessings in verses 4-5 concern issues such as the gift of a new heart (new covenant). It is not the nation that is promised a new heart in the new covenant, but individuals. Now some of the blessings could relate to national promises, but not all of them are only national promises. While Genesis 9 is material that involves Israel, to deny that it is about individual salvation is to ignore the greater context. Chapter 8:29 has predestination to be that some will conform to the image of Christ. This is not a nation, but individuals. In 8:33 Pauls asks who will lay something to the charge of Gods elect. The elect here is individuals. Also, in 9:24 we see that Paul inserted Gentiles into the context. The mention of Gentiles in this passage demonstrates that the passage cannot be completely about Israel. If this passage is completely about national Israel, why are Gentiles being mentioned as "called"

Yes, Mondar, individuals are being chosen to be in the godly line, the seed that will bear the Messiah, the elect ones whom God is hand picking to bring his son into the world. Paul is explaining that the promises to preserve the nation are for the preservation of the godly seed. Jesus is that godly seed. This passage is not about salvation of individuals for eternity in heaven.

Are you seriously trying to say that none of the unchosen sons of Abraham are saved? All of Abraham’s earthly descendants, all of his own sons, and his grandchildren are going to hell except Isaac, and Jacob, Mondar? Abraham loved Ishmael. Isaac loved Esau. Abraham also had many sons after Sarah died. Genesis 25 even records their names and their sons names:
1Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abidah, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

Are all of these sons going to hell because your weird theology won’t allow God to save anyone but the chosen two or three, Mondar? Your whole idea of what it means to be ‘elect’ and ‘chosen’ is faulty and just plain wrong. Which of your own children are elect and which ones are rejects, Mondar? Answer me that.

quote by mondar:
The Rhetorical structure of Romans 9 is :
TOPIC The principle of that the unbelief of Israel does not mean that "the word of God has taken no effect-------------verses 4-6
ILLUSTRATION Isaac illustrates this principle ---------7-9
ILLUSTRATION Jacob illustrates this principle---------10-13
TOPIC AND INTRODUCTORY QUESTION------------------------------Vs 14
This question is a bridge. It is a question based upon the concept in verse 11 that election is never based upon works. If God does not base his election upon works, then is God unrighteous? Notice the ABAB structure of the next verses.
A-OT QUOTE (vs 15) - This OT quote demonstrates that Gods mercy is sovereign.
B-EXPLANATION OF OT verse(V 16) Election is totally of Gods will and not related to mans will.
A-OT QUOTE (vs 17) -
B-Explaination of OT (vs 18) - The word hardening is introduced in verse 18 as a part of the concept of election. Remember verse 13 that God hated Esau.
2nd Rhetorical question functioning as a bridge (vs 19) This question relates more to the hardening in verse 18. If God hates someone and hardens them, can they not reply "why have you made me thus?"

I think I will quite here.

You can’t quit quite yet, we’re just getting started.
Election is not based on works, but election is not for salvation either. The whole discussion is about whether the election of the nation makes the individual Jew saved for eternity based on the fact they are born into the chosen nation. Paul is saying that it can’t be because Jacob was chosen before he had works and had done nothing good or bad to be judged by.

Paul is stating in verses 4-6 that the nation was given the privilege of being the people of God for the purpose of bringing to the world the promises (of eternal life through Christ) the adoption of God (through belief in Christ), the glory of the temple ( and of Christ when he returns as king), the law (to lead the world to Christ), and the service of God through the tabernacle (that pictured the death of Christ), because through them, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. They had been blessed with all these things for the purpose of bringing Christ into the world. Christ was the fulfillment of all the promises of Abraham. Their unbelief did not nullify their purpose. Christ came into the world through the seed of Abraham, just as God had said. Their unbelief actually became the instrument of bringing the promise of mercy to the gentiles as well, by bringing Christ’s death into effect as Drew has also explained.

In verse 14, we have the question of whether this was fair, seeing that their blindness to who Christ was, actually made them reject their Messiah. God allowed them to do what they did, in fact, hardened them to do it so Christ could die for the world. Paul says that just as Pharaoh was hardened so that God could display his power, this was nothing but a sovereign God using people to accomplish his will. The nation of Israel was blinded to who Christ was so they would crucify him and he could bear the sin of the world. After, when this was accomplished, they were allowed to come to Christ, but not as Jews reigning the world with their Messiah, but as believers in him as their sacrifice. Not what they wanted, for the most part, so they continue to stumble at the stumbling stone.

There, now you’re quite done and you can quit.

:-D

 

[francisdesales]

Paul says that just as Pharaoh was hardened so that God could display his power, this was nothing but a sovereign God using people to accomplish his will. The nation of Israel was blinded to who Christ was so they would crucify him and he could bear the sin of the world. After, when this was accomplished, they were allowed to come to Christ, but not as Jews reigning the world with their Messiah, but as believers in him as their sacrifice. Not what they wanted, for the most part, so they continue to stumble at the stumbling stone.

There, now you’re quite done and you can quit.

:-D

That was pretty good. Romans is a letter of hope for the Jews. Although the Jews had fallen to the level of the Gentiles, turned away from God, even crucified the Messiah, Paul still held out hope that God had not abandoned them, and that in the end, God would bring them together, the new shoot with the old.



Regards

 

[mondar]

Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
QUESTION 1---For those of you who say that Romans 9 is only about Israel, please explain this reference to Gentiles.

Are you seriously trying to say that none of the unchosen sons of Abraham are saved?

Yes, that is exactly what Paul is saying.

QUESTION 2---Do you see any relationship between Romans 9:6 and verses 4-5? Do you actually think that genetic (non-elect Israel) comes under the blessings and covenants in verses 4-5?

QUESTION 3---Do you really understand why 9:6 is a key verse in the rhetorical structure? Do you see how the two illustrations of Isaac (7-9) and Jacob (10-12) are illustrations of the statements found in verse 6?

QUESTION 4---Do you understand why Paul says at the beginning of 9:6 "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect." Do you understand the relationship of that phrase to the preceding 2 verses? When it comes to the promises, and covenants, do you understand the relationship of the new covenant to soteriology? When it comes to the covenants, Jeremiah 31:34 says "...for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Do you consider that a soteriological statement? What would make the covenants and promises of the tenakh of none effect? <--- The correct answer is "NOTHING." The word of God is always effective. The covenants and promises are always effective. The point of Chapter 9 is that the promises and covenants of verses 4-5 were not given to all genetic Israel, but to the remnant (elect Israel). Therefore, the word of God is not made ineffective to genetic Israel, because the promises and covenants of verses 4-5 were not given to unbelieving Israel (genetic) Israel.

Which of your own children are elect and which ones are rejects, Mondar? Answer me that.

Election took place in eternity past (Eph 1:4). Unless a person was with God at that time, no one can infallibly know who the elect are. Yet this misses the whole point of election. Election is not about us knowing who the elect are, it is about the grace of God. The one who does not understand the doctrine of election, fails to understand the deepness of Gods grace.

This passage is not about salvation of individuals for eternity in heaven.

Well, that is what we are talking about. Of course it is simply impossible to deny that election to salvation is a biblical doctrine. The most you can say is that it is not in this passage and then admit it is in other passages. It is simply indisputable that we are chosen to salvation by God.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Now I think you previously tried to suggest that the phrase "from the beginning" means that God did not choose us to salvation. You look at the phrase "at the beginning" and ask "when" is that. Then in your head you make up some scheme as to why the question of "when" nullifies the concept that God choses people to salvation? The point is not "when" is it that God chooses people to salvation (Ephesians 1:4 already tells us when). it is the fact that God choses some to salvation.

More comments on Hebrews to come.

 

[mondar]

Heb 9:12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.
If Christ enters once into the holy place to obtain eternal redemption for us, and we sin, how do you know he will again re-enter the holy place. He did it once, and nowhere does it say he will ever do it again. He only enters once.

Heb 10:12 but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
There is no repeated sacrifice for sins. Notice the nature of Christs sacrifice is that it is "one sacrifice for sins." After this blood is presented, there is no more sacrifice, no more presentation of the blood (think about transubstantiation here).

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Notice what this one offering of Christs blood does. It perfects "for ever."

Christs death was not related to time, it was a once and for all thing. He does not resubmit his blood to resave you, is propitiation is once and for all. As alonevoice once said, you cannot be regenerate, and then God reverses the new nature takes it away, and then gives it back, and takes it away. You cannot be justified, and then condemned, then again justified. You cannot be born again, and then be unborn again. That is not the nature of salvation. Salvation is not based upon your obedience to Christ (that is certainly the fruits of salvation, but not its cause). Salvation is based only on the shed blood, and Christs high priestly presentation of that blood once and for all. The teaching that we are saved only until we sin our next sin, is not salvation at all. Salvation is eternal. Salvation is "for ever."

 

[Drew]

Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
QUESTION 1---For those of you who say that Romans 9 is only about Israel, please explain this reference to Gentiles.

In Romans 9, Paul is clearly focussing on Israel and its story. The chapter begins with Paul's expression of grief about his kinsmen. The main theme of the chapter is a re-telling of Israel's story. Woven through Romans 9 are all the relevant elements of the story delivered in the appropriate sequence. We have Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the exile, and hints of restoration. I find it hard to see how one would then think that Paul is talking about something other than national Israel when he gives the potter's account in relation to election. Why, in the middle of a narrative about Israel, would he suddenly disentangle himself from that context and start making abstract theological statements about individuals being elected unto salvation?

The fact that Romans 9:24 mentions the Gentiles is Paul's re-assertion that the true people of God are, and actually always were (as per earlier "selectivity" material in Romans 9), not specifically defined by Jewish ethnicity but rather a people marked out only on the basis of faith. Obviously Pauls' "re-definition" of who the covenant people really are cannot be extricated from the story of national Israel - a people who thought they were "born into" covenant membership.

As I have argued elsewhere it would seem strange that Paul would go to such lengths to disassemble a claim by the Jews that they "covenant people by birth" only to replace it with a variant of the very same thing - a theology where people's covenant membership has been established before they are even born.

But the question about ethnic Israel remains and still needs to be answered. In the potter's account, Paul is telling us, I believe, that ethnic Israel has indeed been elected - but elected to be the bearer of the world's sin.

Romans is all about the covenant and how God has been faithful to it. If this were not so, why does Paul write the following things in Romans 9:

It is not as though God's word had failed.

What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
By asking such questions, Paul is underscoring that God has kept his covenant. Israel has indeed been the instrument by which the nations of the world have been blessed.

But, as is often the case with God, the way that this has been done is surprising and may only make sense to us in retrospect. God always intended to use Israel to solve the Adamic sin problem - this is part of His covenant with Abraham. The Jews probably thought that this would be accomplished through the gift of the Law. But strangely, the Law only served to magnify sin (Romans 5).

So the strange way that national Israel has been "elected" is not by teaching the world the Law, but rather by being the place where the Law draws the sin of the entire world into one place in preparation for it being focused onto the body of the lone faithful Israelite - the principle of selection in Romans 9 carried out to its ultimate conclusion. I think that this is what the potter's account is all about - national Israel is "elected to be cast away for the sin of the world".

 

[mondar]

In Romans 9, Paul is clearly focussing on Israel and its story. The chapter begins with Paul's expression of grief about his kinsmen. The main theme of the chapter is a re-telling of Israel's story. Woven through Romans 9 are all the relevant elements of the story delivered in the appropriate sequence. We have Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the exile, and hints of restoration. I find it hard to see how one would then think that Paul is talking about something other than national Israel when he gives the potter's account in relation to election. Why, in the middle of a narrative about Israel, would he suddenly disentangle himself from that context and start making abstract theological statements about individuals being elected unto salvation?

No, Paul is not disentangling himself from the context at all. Paul is not simply telling a nice bedtime story about Israel. To say such a thing totally ignores the context and rhetorical structure of the passage. Tell me drew... why do you think Paul asked two rhetorical questions in verses 14 and 19?
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Drew
QUESTION 1---Do you see any relationship at all between the question found in verse 14 and the material that follows? You still think in 14-18 Paul is telling a nice little story about Israel, or is he making theological points? How does Paul answer the question "Is there unrighteousness with God?" Also, do you see any relationship between the preceding material in 9:4-12 and the question in verse 14?

QUESTION 2---Why did Paul ask the Rhetorical question in verse 19? Again, how is this question addressed in verses 20-23. What is Pauls answer? Also, why would be place these two rhetorical questions side by side in this context?

The fact that Romans 9:24 mentions the Gentiles is Paul's re-assertion that the true people of God are, and actually always were (as per earlier "selectivity" material in Romans 9), not specifically defined by Jewish ethnicity but rather a people marked out only on the basis of faith. Obviously Pauls' "re-definition" of who the covenant people really are cannot be extricated from the story of national Israel - a people who thought they were "born into" covenant membership.

So in Romans 9:6 Gods people is Israel, but by Romans 9:24 we find out that God never really did pick Israel as a people unto himself. By Romans 9:24 God not longer means that Israel is Gods people, it was always the nations or gentiles?

Not only this but Paul is making a "re-defination" of who the people of God really are? Would it be OK with you if Paul "re-defined" a few more terms to suit his fancy? It amazes me that someone could think the OT defined the people of God in one way, and that Paul came along and just redefined it all. Yet in the very same paragraph you say "and actually always were."

I think what you are saying is that Paul is making up a complete redefinition of the term "Gods people." God used to mean one thing by the term, but when that idea fell apart and did not work God and Paul just redefines terms to keep his word from totally failing? Oh, and I forgot, this term "Gods people" has nothing to do with salvation. Your suggesting that the OT promises in verse 4-5 were to unbelieving genetic Israel and God came along and just said, "Well, I am going to re-interpret my promises to Israel and change it all up." Really? You really believe that?

Drew, if you understood what Paul is saying in Romans 9:6, you would see that Paul is saying the exact opposite of what you have suggested. Drew, in Romans 9:6 there is no redefinition of terms. Romans 9:6 is dividing up Israel into two groups. Group 1 (all Israel) is every genetic Israelite. Not all of these had faith and were saved. This group is "non elect."
Group 2 is the remnant, or elect Israel. They are the ones with whom the word of God takes "effect."

The point of Romans 9:24 is that just as there is an elect and called Israel, there is an elect and called gentile group. To say that the context is not about salvation, then the natural question is:
QUESTION 3---What are the gentiles "called" to or elected to in verse 24?

QUESTION 4---Why do you say that Paul cannot be telling some nice little story about Israel and then suddenly stop and make a theological point? Such behavior is impossible for Paul? Paul only told nice little stories and never made any theological points?

As I have argued elsewhere it would seem strange that Paul would go to such lengths to disassemble a claim by the Jews that they "covenant people by birth" only to replace it with a variant of the very same thing - a theology where people's covenant membership has been established before they are even born.

QUESTION 5---Why would it be strange? Paul denies that the word of God will have effect with all genetic national Israel, but he still says that there is a remnant of Israel and that this is the true Israel that receives the promises. What Paul says in 11:1-2 that 9:6 is not to be seen as a complete rejection of Israel.
Rom 11:1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew....

But the question about ethnic Israel remains and still needs to be answered. In the potter's account, Paul is telling us, I believe, that ethnic Israel has indeed been elected - but elected to be the bearer of the world's sin.

Oh, I did not know that. I always thought that was Christ that was the bearer of the worlds sin.

Also, ethnic Israel is not elected, but the remnant of ethnic Israel is elected.

Romans is all about the covenant and how God has been faithful to it. If this were not so, why does Paul write the following things in Romans 9:

It is not as though God's word had failed.

What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
By asking such questions, Paul is underscoring that God has kept his covenant. Israel has indeed been the instrument by which the nations of the world have been blessed.

Close.... Certainly it is part of the blessings mentioned in 9:4-5 that Israel would bring us the Messiah. Verse 5 says.
Rom 9:5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
But to say that this is all the chapter is about is to completely misunderstand the chapter. Now you did use the word covenant, and that is also a part of it, but both the Abrahamic Covenant includes soteriological promises and so does the new covenant. I am not sure that we should narrow things down to one covenant because verse 4 says "covenants" (plural). This will include several covenants and several blessings.

But, as is often the case with God, the way that this has been done is surprising and may only make sense to us in retrospect. God always intended to use Israel to solve the Adamic sin problem - this is part of His covenant with Abraham. The Jews probably thought that this would be accomplished through the gift of the Law. But strangely, the Law only served to magnify sin (Romans 5).

So the strange way that national Israel has been "elected" is not by teaching the world the Law, but rather by being the place where the Law draws the sin of the entire world into one place in preparation for it being focused onto the body of the lone faithful Israelite - the principle of selection in Romans 9 carried out to its ultimate conclusion. I think that this is what the potter's account is all about - national Israel is "elected to be cast away for the sin of the world".

Again, if this is 100% about the birth of the Messiah, then the calling of Gentiles in verse 24 does not fit. Certainly it was a part of Gods choice (election) to choose Israel to bring forth the Messiah. And that is one of Israels blessings listed in verse 5. But there are many more blessings in verses 4-5.

Notice the quote from Hosea in Romans 9:27 (please)
Rom 9:27 And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved:
The remnant will be what? Is this the word "saved?" Heh, I gotta make this a question
QUESTION 24596004--- Why does Paul quote a verse about "saved?"

Notice in 9:30 how the issue is one of attaining righteousness.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:
This is related to justification.

 

[mondar]

One of the great and massive problems of the concept of not being forgiven for all sin is that it makes keeping your salvation dependent on your own righteousness. This self-righteousness is never the basis of either salvation, or keeping salvation. Notice that God is always be basis of salvation. In the process of salvation, notice it is always God who does the action. All pronouns are speaking of Gods actions in salvation.

Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
Rom 8:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

On the other hand, it is the elect who receive the benefits.
Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
Rom 8:39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Salvation is not partially the work of God and partially the work of man, rather it is completely the work of God and man receives the benefits.

 

[Drew]

No, Paul is not disentangling himself from the context at all. Paul is not simply telling a nice bedtime story about Israel. To say such a thing totally ignores the context and rhetorical structure of the passage. Tell me drew... why do you think Paul asked two rhetorical questions in verses 14 and 19?
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Drew
QUESTION 1---Do you see any relationship at all between the question found in verse 14 and the material that follows? You still think in 14-18 Paul is telling a nice little story about Israel, or is he making theological points? How does Paul answer the question "Is there unrighteousness with God?" Also, do you see any relationship between the preceding material in 9:4-12 and the question in verse 14?

Paul is clearly talking about Israel in Romans 9. The very introduction makes it clear. What makes this conclusion inescapable is the way that in the remainder of Romans 9, Paul retells the entire covenant history of Israel including exile. I would think it would be very challenging to deny this - the entire chapter follows the timeline of Israel's history - names are named, as it were.

So in verse 14-18, Paul is not suddenly leaping out of this clear narrative and making theological statements about the status of individual persons. He is still talking about Israel. So, indeed, Paul needs to ask if there is unrighteousness with God.

But why is he asking this? Well, I think it is rather obvious that verses 3 to 5 set the stage:

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen

Paul has been arguing in previous sections of the letter that God has given the covenant blessings to Jesus, and through Jesus, to those who believe in Him by faith. So the issue is this: Has God been unfair in taking what were understood to be national Israel's covenant blessings and giving them not to national Israel but to this new family?

Paul says no and in the potter's account underscores this by stating that Israel is indeed a "vessel fitted for destruction".

Israel is following the Christ pattern - being elected to be cast away for the sins of the world. This is what Paul is talking about in the potter's account in Romans 9. And this must be this way if God is to remain faithful to his covenant, and God's faithfulness to the covenant is the underslying motivation for the very question Paul asks in verse 14:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

 

[francisdesales]

One of the great and massive problems of the concept of not being forgiven for all sin is that it makes keeping your salvation dependent on your own righteousness. This self-righteousness is never the basis of either salvation, or keeping salvation. Notice that God is always be basis of salvation. In the process of salvation, notice it is always God who does the action. All pronouns are speaking of Gods actions in salvation.

Classic case of not being able to distinguish "primary" from "secondary" causes.

Grace is grace, a pure gift of God, NOT in giving us nothing real but in giving us, insofar as we remain dependent on it, the reality we are incapable of acquiring by ourselves. Far from seeing this, you set free will against grace. Naturally, this is against the entire authentic Tradition of the Church. Man is himself only as he recognizes his radical dependence on the Creator. This does not mean that creation is a fiction, legal or otherwise (to incluce the "new creation"), but the most authentic of ALL realities. Nor is it necessary to crush or annihilate man so that "God remains supreme". Man saved is therefore man restored by faith to the consciousness of that absolute dependence and so recovering his life at the very source - God Himself.

Your view, the nominalist one, views God and man using the same tools to pull a team of mules. Because of your philosophical view, you cannot break free of this non-Scriptural view that EITHER God does it all OR man does part and then God's sovereignty is lost. God is God, regardless of how much HE, GOD HIMSELF, raises us up. It is GOD HIMSELF who gives man the grace to respond to Him. This response earns us nothing. God gives it to us so THAT WE MAY become "little less than gods", to become divinized, to share in the Divine Nature, Jesus Christ Himself.

Regards

 

[yesha]

Welcome back friends. Today's topic is "forever forgiveness". Are you aware that some denominations believe that you only have to ask for forgiveness once? After that you're supposedly forgiven for all of your future sins as well. I have a problem with this for several reasons.,

Just the topic I wanted to discuss.

Ephesians 4:26-27 (NLT)

And “don’t sin by letting anger control you.†Don’t let the sun go down while you are still angry,

for anger gives a foothold to the devil.

My first issue is if we are forgiven for all future sins then why would we have to be careful in letting the devil get a foothold? And also remember that Paul was writing this letter to a body of believers who had accepted Christ as their savior. So why would he warn then to not sin? It's impossible to sin if you're already forgiven. Wouldn't he have just said "act like a believer and be careful"?

This is new ground for me, but let's brainstorm.
1) Being 'forgiven sin' may simply suggest that the wages of sin has been paid (ie death). Therefore the one who has been forgiven sin is saved (will live), but still will be judged, that is not everyone will be equal.
2) Sin has consequences in this life, and probably the next (see above point). Being forgiven of sin doesn't mean you are free from the consequences, does it? Sin will put strain on you are everyone around you, and make it difficult to have the relationship with God He wants you to have (from your perspective).
3) When you sin, you add to the weight Christ did/must? bear. Such a price.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (NLT)

Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.

There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies.

As far as I'm concerned the bible states very clearly that you can sin after you're forgiven, which means you cut yourself off from God. You need to ask for forgiveness again and try not to repeat it! Besides, if we are to treat God as a friend then we owe Him our apologies out of friendship.

If all that need be done is ask for forgiveness of sins, then why did Christ have to die?

Regards,

 

[Drew]

QUESTION 2---Why did Paul ask the Rhetorical question in verse 19? Again, how is this question addressed in verses 20-23. What is Pauls answer? Also, why would be place these two rhetorical questions side by side in this context?

Paul ask the question about God's fairness in verse 19 immediately after talking about how God hardened Pharoah. I think it is well established that the main narrative of Romans 9 is a re-telling of the story of Israel (I will gladly make that case in more detail if asked). So after giving the example of pharoah (again, an integral part of the story of Israel), Paul wishes to make the case that, just like Pharoah, Israel has been "hardened" by God. And just as the hardening of Pharoah's heart was done for a specific redemptive purpose, so it is with the hardening of Israel - they have been "elected" to a terrible burden, to be cast away for the sins of the world (I will defend this more in later posts). Israel is being hardened in order to magnify the greatness of God's redeeming action for the whole world.

In Romans 9:15, Paul quotes from Exodus 33 - "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion". Note that Paul is standing in the Moses position - like Moses he is in a position of wanting to intercede for his people - national Israel. It is no co-incidence that Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 - he is re-telling this well-known story about the people of Israel, bringing it forward into the present to serve his present rhetorical purposes.

Note what Moses says to God:
But now, please forgive their sinâ€â€but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written

Now here is what Paul says in Romans 9:
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

Are there any of you who think this parallel is a co-incidence? I certainly don't. Paul is re-telling the story of his people - national Israel.

Now what about the famous potter's account - a story that is traditionally held to be about election and pre-destination of individuals. We have seen how Paul has just made very specific connections to Moses and has joined Moses in lamenting over national Israel. Paul is in the middle of a story about Israel - so why in the potter's acount are we to believe that Paul abandons his story and starts making theological declarations about God electing individual human beings. This would be a very odd jump.

And what about specific use of the "potter-clay" metaphor elsewhere in Scripture. We have the following from Isaiah 29:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"

16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

Who are "these people"?

I think that the answer, and the relevance to the matter at hand, is clear.

 

[Drew]

The fact that Romans 9:24 mentions the Gentiles is Paul's re-assertion that the true people of God are, and actually always were (as per earlier "selectivity" material in Romans 9), not specifically defined by Jewish ethnicity but rather a people marked out only on the basis of faith. Obviously Pauls' "re-definition" of who the covenant people really are cannot be extricated from the story of national Israel - a people who thought they were "born into" covenant membership.

So in Romans 9:6 Gods people is Israel, but by Romans 9:24 we find out that God never really did pick Israel as a people unto himself. By Romans 9:24 God not longer means that Israel is Gods people, it was always the nations or gentiles?

Not only this but Paul is making a "re-defination" of who the people of God really are? Would it be OK with you if Paul "re-defined" a few more terms to suit his fancy? It amazes me that someone could think the OT defined the people of God in one way, and that Paul came along and just redefined it all. Yet in the very same paragraph you say "and actually always were."

Don 't blame me - it is Paul who make the case, not me. And I never said that the OT "defined the true nation of Israel one way and that Paul re-defined it". Paul's very argument is that true Israel has always been defined in terms of one thing and one thing only - faith.

Paul writes the following in Romans 9:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel

and

"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"

Paul is saying that, from the very establishment of the covenant, the true people of God are marked out by faith and not by ethnic Jewishness. This is underscored in the very establishment of the covenant:

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness

Paul is saying that, at the time Jesus arrives, there are two Israels - one expressed in terms of ehtnicity and the other, a subset of this first Israel - those ethnic Jews who actually have faith in the God who declares:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength

But this "real Israel" will soon expand beyond the boundaries of ethnic Israel. In keeping with what the covenant promised all along, the Gentiles are now to be grafted in.

I think what you are saying is that Paul is making up a complete redefinition of the term "Gods people." God used to mean one thing by the term, but when that idea fell apart and did not work God and Paul just redefines terms to keep his word from totally failing? Oh, and I forgot, this term "Gods people" has nothing to do with salvation. Your suggesting that the OT promises in verse 4-5 were to unbelieving genetic Israel and God came along and just said, "Well, I am going to re-interpret my promises to Israel and change it all up." Really? You really believe that?

I am not saying that God's idea "fell apart" and that Paul is redefining Israel on this basis. I am saying, actually it is Paul that is saying, that "true Israel" was never reckoned on the basis of Jewish ethnicity. In fact, in Romans 4, Paul writes:

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast aboutâ€â€but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Paul here is saying that Abraham was never justified by being under Torah - that is what "works" refers to here, not moral self-effort - but rather by faith. In covenant language, justification equals membership in the true family of God.

 

[Drew]

QUESTION 4---Why do you say that Paul cannot be telling some nice little story about Israel and then suddenly stop and make a theological point? Such behavior is impossible for Paul? Paul only told nice little stories and never made any theological points?

Of course it is not impossible for Paul, it would just turn him into a wildly schizophrenic writer. I am entirely convinced that Romans 9 is all about Israel and the covenant. The way the chapter both opens and closes makes this clear.

The opening:

I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen

The closing:

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame

And of course, the covenant history of Israel is recounted in the "in-between" bits.

Do you deny that Romans 9 literally drips with "Israel covenant" specificity?

If Romans 9 is all about the covenant, it would be awfully odd for Paul to suddenly insert an abstract theological statement, disconnected from the Israel-specificity of the entire chapter (not to mention continued Israel-specificity in Romans 10) , that dealt with how individuals are elected unto salvation and damnation.

And the evidence piles up further - I can cite additional OT texts where the "potter-clay" story is used specifically in respect to how God deals with Israel through history. The potter account in Romans 9 has nothing to do with abstract theological principles but rather with the relationship between God and Israel as played out in history.

 

[mondar]

No, Paul is not disentangling himself from the context at all. Paul is not simply telling a nice bedtime story about Israel. To say such a thing totally ignores the context and rhetorical structure of the passage. Tell me drew... why do you think Paul asked two rhetorical questions in verses 14 and 19?
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Drew
QUESTION 1---Do you see any relationship at all between the question found in verse 14 and the material that follows? You still think in 14-18 Paul is telling a nice little story about Israel, or is he making theological points? How does Paul answer the question "Is there unrighteousness with God?" Also, do you see any relationship between the preceding material in 9:4-12 and the question in verse 14?

Paul is clearly talking about Israel in Romans 9. The very introduction makes it clear. What makes this conclusion inescapable is the way that in the remainder of Romans 9, Paul retells the entire covenant history of Israel including exile. I would think it would be very challenging to deny this - the entire chapter follows the timeline of Israel's history - names are named, as it were.

I must admit that I see so very little information in Chapter 9 on the covenant history of Israel. First of all, a covenant history would certain include some clips the Mosaic Covenant. Then there would be some content about Israels disobedience to the Covenant. All that is completely absent. The most you can point to is a quote from Ex 33 that does not refer directly to the Mosaic Covenant. Also, if it were a covenant history of Israel it would not focus so much on the patriarchs. Israel had not even begun at that time. There is very little connection between the material selected from the patriarchs and the concept of covenant. You think Paul would have included the cutting of covenant in Genesis 15, or quotes from the OT where the covenants were cut. There is none of this.

In verses 4-5 the word "covenants" does occur, but it is only one of the many blessings given to Israel. To say that this is a covenant history of Israel fails to recognize some of the other words. What about the "glory...the service of God...the promises."

Since the context does include some aspects of "covenant history," how does pointing to a few of those aspects prove that the entire context is exclusively about the covenant history of Israel?

So in verse 14-18, Paul is not suddenly leaping out of this clear narrative and making theological statements about the status of individual persons. He is still talking about Israel. So, indeed, Paul needs to ask if there is unrighteousness with God.

To call this "narrative" literature is a farce. Paul is using anecdotes from patriarchal, and Israelite history to establish a theological point. I have no clue how you can call this material "narrative." This is not narrative, but theological epistolary material explaining why the promises of God did not take place with national Israel, but take place with individual Israelites (the remnant) and gentiles. These are the elect. The elect are individuals. There is a way that the elect are the nation of Israel in the context of Romans 9-11, but that misses the point of our discussion. At the point of the 2nd coming, the new covenant says of Israel "they shall all know me..." At the time of the 2nd coming, only the elect will enter the kingdom. (You must be born again to enter the kingdom of God). There is a concept of national Israel in the context, but to dismiss individual election in the passage and say "ahhh, its only about Israel" completely misses the point of what Paul is saying.

But why is he asking this? Well, I think it is rather obvious that verses 3 to 5 set the stage:

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen

Paul has been arguing in previous sections of the letter that God has given the covenant blessings to Jesus, and through Jesus, to those who believe in Him by faith.

Heh, this is a mis-statement. Jesus was not given the covenant blessings, he was the covenant blessing. The concept of Jesus being sinful and needed the blessings of the covenants is absurd. Part of the new covenant says that man will receive a new heart. Jesus never had the old nature. He never sinned, and so needed no covenant blessings.

So the issue is this: Has God been unfair in taking what were understood to be national Israel's covenant blessings and giving them not to national Israel but to this new family?

While this is close, it does not grasp the concept of Romans 9:6. Paul and God are not taking covenant blessings from anyone. God never gave fleshly Israel the covenant blessings to begin with. The whole point of Romans 9:6 is that God originally gave the covenant blessings, and all other blessings to regenerate Israel, not genetic Israel. There is no taking away of blessings.

Paul says no and in the potter's account underscores this by stating that Israel is indeed a "vessel fitted for destruction".

So Israel is the vessel of wrath? Holy Cow!!!! When the promises of verse 4-5 are made, and Paul denies in verse 6 that it is not like the word of God takes non-effect, then you say that the word of God took non-effect. You say God judged Israel and took away her blessings and became the vessel of wrath!!! Simply amazing!!! How in the world can Paul say in 11:1-2.
Rom 11:1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel: (I like your idea of using colors for verses---cool)

Israel is following the Christ pattern - being elected to be cast away for the sins of the world. This is what Paul is talking about in the potter's account in Romans 9. And this must be this way if God is to remain faithful to his covenant, and God's faithfulness to the covenant is the underslying motivation for the very question Paul asks in verse 14:

Parts of this is true. There is an aspect of covenant faithfulness in the passage. Israel unfaithfulness is partial and temporary. Gods faithfulness to his covenant demands that there be no total rejection. The bottom line is that it is individual Israelites that are regenerate or unregenerate. It is individual Israelites that are elect or non-elect. The illustrations of vs 7-12 show this. Isaac and Ishmael were both genetic children of Abraham, but God selected one of them to carry the covenant blessings. This election was not by works (vs 11), not by the will of man (verse 16), but by Gods will. The same with Jacob and Esau. They were both children of Isaac. Yet God chose one of them to be regenerate and carry the covenant blessings. So then he loved Jacob and hated Esau. Of course you could point out that Gods hatred is not an adrenaline charged irrational temper tantrum. Gods hatred is expressed in not selecting Esau.