Free will or no free will?

[Drew]

First, to use the term "covenant renewal" is an innaccurate concept of the death of Christ. If you ask "who isll disagree that the live, death, and resurrection of jesus renews the covenant," I would answer that I disagree. There is no evidence anywhere in the scripture that the shed blood of JEsus accomplishes mere covenant renewal. I would easily agree that it is a fulfillment of the stipulations of covenant, but not covenant renewal.

I think it is clear that the scriptures make it clear that it is accurate to say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus can be properly described as renewal of the covenant. I am not sure what you mean by "mere" covenant renewal here. In any event, I believe there is mounds of evidence that it is appropriate to think of Jesus' work as renewing the covenant. Here are some arguments:

1. Look that the structure of Isaiah 52-53-54-55: In Isaiah 52 and 53, we have the work of the servant - an obvious allusion to Jesus' work on the cross. In Isaiah 54, we have language that suggests covenant renewal:

The LORD will call you back
as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spiritâ€â€
a wife who married young,
only to be rejected," says your God.
"For a brief moment I abandoned you,
but with deep compassion I will bring you back.
In a surge of anger
I hid my face from you for a moment,
but with everlasting kindness
I will have compassion on you,"
says the LORD your Redeemer.

Now perhaps you will argue that it is a stretch to characterize this as a promise of renewal of the the covenant in particular. But the context is clearly about the treatment of Israel (whoever true Israel will turn out to be) and the language suggest a promise of renewed connection after abandonment.

And in chapter 55, we get the theme of new creation, echoing the fact that, in Paul's writing in Romans, new creation (chapters 5-8 of Romans) follows new covenant (chapters 1-4 of Romans). I have only touched on how 1-4 is about covenant renewal, and I have not even argued for 5-8 being about new creation - but I plan to.

The obvious conclusion is that covenant renewal is achieved by the work of the servant, who is obviously Jesus.

2. Romans 2: 28-29 is Paul's clear statement about covenant renewal - about a re-definition of what a "true Jew" is:

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

That this represents a specific act of renewal (and not some timeless truth) is substantiated by texts such as Romans 11, which clearly talk about a "grafting in" of the Gentiles into covenant membership through what Jesus accomplished on the cross.

3. Consider this from Romans 9:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God

This is new covenant language - a redifintion of who the true heirs of the covenant have turned out to be. And I hope I need list all the other texts in Romans (and other books) where Paul makes it clear that is specifically in Christ that the Jew and the Gentile are both brought into covenant membership.

 

[mondar]

I think it is clear that the scriptures make it clear that it is accurate to say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus can be properly described as renewal of the covenant. I am not sure what you mean by "mere" covenant renewal here. In any event, I believe there is mounds of evidence that it is appropriate to think of Jesus' work as renewing the covenant. Here are some arguments:

If you read back, I stated that the cross can be seen as the fulfillment of covenant stipulations. Do you understand the difference between the concept of the "fulfillment of covenant stipulations" and "covenant renewal?" I deleted your stuff from Isaiah, and I certainly do not object to concepts of covenant related to the death of Christ. But those covenant concepts are not covenant renewal, but more related to covenant fulfillment. A part of the stipulations for covenant fulfillment would be the shed bood that apeases the wrath of God. If the death of Christ is covenant renewal, then when is the covenant fulfillment? You posts from Isaiah do not even begin to address the issues. Just because there is langauge that relates the death of Christ to a covenant does not demonstrate that it is a renewal ceremony.

This is not a small distinction. If you are correct, Christs death does not fulfill any of the required stipulations of the new covenant. It is merely some minor covenant renewal ceremony. I would suggest that you speak of Christ death as a fulfillment of Covenant, and not mere covenant renewal.

2. Romans 2: 28-29 is Paul's clear statement about covenant renewal - about a re-definition of what a "true Jew" is:

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

First, I see nothing in the text that says that this is a "redefinition" of what a true Jew might be. Again, that seem to me to be the isogetical approach that I was referring to.

The passage does say that the one who does the ordinances of the law his uncircumcision is counted as circumcision, but this is not a redefinition of what a Jew is. We can discuss this more later if you wish.

That this represents a specific act of renewal (and not some timeless truth) is substantiated by texts such as Romans 11, which clearly talk about a "grafting in" of the Gentiles into covenant membership through what Jesus accomplished on the cross.

I would agree that there is a connection between the concept of covenant and the "root" in Romans 11. Verse 27 demonstrates this. But again, there is no covenant renewal in this context. Neither is this a redefinition of the term "Israel" or "Jew."

3. Consider this from Romans 9:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God

This is new covenant language - a redifintion of who the true heirs of the covenant have turned out to be. And I hope I need list all the other texts in Romans (and other books) where Paul makes it clear that is specifically in Christ that the Jew and the Gentile are both brought into covenant membership.

There is some new covenant language in the verses in the quotes from Hosea and Isaiah. There are some exegetical questions concerning those quotes. I am inclined to favor the view that the antecedent of those verses is Romans 9:6, rather then verse 24.

Now I suspect you do not see the flow of Pauls thought in Romans 9. Up until verse 24 the context refers more to Gods right of election. I verses 25ff he is providing scriptural support for his thesis in 9:6.

Now the verses Paul quotes would naturally have some covenant language in it. The reason for such Covenant language would be that Israel was under covenants, promises, and blessings from God as outlined in 9:4-5. The question of the OT quotes is that "not all Israel is Israel." In otherwords there is an Israel within Israel, and Elect Israel, a saved ISrael, an Israel of the New Covenant. Now certainly verse 24 expands the concept of the saved to both Israel and the Gentile.

Such covenant langauge does not proove any of your points. No one is denying the existance of covenant terminology anywhere in scriptures or in Romans. You seem to be focused upon the term "covenant renewal" like it is the only aspect of the subject of Covenant. Then anywhere you see any covenant language you want to make the entire discussion about covenant. Then you seem to want to make some exegetical backflips to make claims that justification is future and by works. For some reason that I do not understand, anytime you see any langauge that relates to a covenant, you seem to think this proves your point. It simply does not justify (excuse pun) your conclusions.

gotta go

 

[Drew]

If you read back, I stated that the cross can be seen as the fulfillment of covenant stipulations. Do you understand the difference between the concept of the "fulfillment of covenant stipulations" and "covenant renewal?" I deleted your stuff from Isaiah, and I certainly do not object to concepts of covenant related to the death of Christ. But those covenant concepts are not covenant renewal, but more related to covenant fulfillment. A part of the stipulations for covenant fulfillment would be the shed bood that apeases the wrath of God. If the death of Christ is covenant renewal, then when is the covenant fulfillment? You posts from Isaiah do not even begin to address the issues. Just because there is langauge that relates the death of Christ to a covenant does not demonstrate that it is a renewal ceremony.

The material from Isaiah is directly relevant and its pattern is telling. First, we have the work of the servant in 52 and 53. In 53 we have new covenant language all over the place. In 54, the author clearly has covenant somewhere in his mind at least:

Though the mountains be shaken
and the hills be removed,
yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken
nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.

I will not repeat arguments already made - other bits of Isaiah 54 talk about a "bringing back" a renewal of old promises as in this bit:

The LORD will call you back
as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spiritâ€â€
a wife who married young,
only to be rejected," says your God

And then in chapter 55, we have a clear "new creation" account

Here we have the exact same pattern that is reflected in Paul's structuring of Romans - the work of Jesus is the climax of the covenant (Romans 3), leading to renewal of the covenant (Romans 5), leading to new creation (Romans 8).

I would suggest that you speak of Christ death as a fulfillment of Covenant, and not mere covenant renewal.

It is really both - the work of the Cross is indeed where the covenant was heading and where it was fulfilled. It's effect is to "renew" the covenant in the sense that a new understanding is expressed of what the covenant has been all about. I think that I have not made clear to you what I mean by renewing.

Besides a major chunk of Paul's analyis in Romans is that the covenant has been renewed thus:

- The covenant promise of the inheritance of the land has been broadened out to include all creation (Romans 8:18 and following);

- "True Israel" has been identified as per Romans 4 and 9;

- In chapters 5 through 8, Paul systematically hands over the covenant promises that the Jews thought were for them and them alone to this new Israel.

I would agree that perhaps I need to clarify what I mean by "renewing" the covenant. Part of it is not "real" renewal in the sense that Paul merely explains what the the covenant has meant all along. But, of course, something real and substantial happened on the cross. So the original covnenant has not merely been explained by Paul, it has been explained as renewed by Paul.

 

[Drew]

2. Romans 2: 28-29 is Paul's clear statement about covenant renewal - about a re-definition of what a "true Jew" is:

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

First, I see nothing in the text that says that this is a "redefinition" of what a true Jew might be. Again, that seem to me to be the isogetical approach that I was referring to.

The passage does say that the one who does the ordinances of the law his uncircumcision is counted as circumcision, but this is not a redefinition of what a Jew is. We can discuss this more later if you wish.

This text from Romans 2 is clearly an expression by Paul about who a "true Jew" is. And what is a Jew? He is a covenant member. So Paul is telling the reader who the true covenant members are. Note that in almost the next breath - the first 10 or so verses of Romans 3, Paul talks about how the Jews have been unfaithful to the covenant. The questions he raises in Romans 3 are the exact same covenant-centred questions that he addresses in Romans 9 - I can spell this out if you wish.

In Romans 9, Paul tells us who true Israel is. And this is the answer to the questions raised intially in Romans 3 and which follows immediately from 2:28-29 where he tells what a true covenant member really is.

 

[MarkT]

Yeah. But that question (good works vs Torah) doesn't come into it, as Paul says, 'works', not 'the' works, as if he is speaking of a moral law.

I do not see how the absence of a "the" in front of works means anything at all. I can say "not as a result of works" and mean either:

A. works as in "good deeds";
B: works as in "works of Torah"

How about 'any' works then?

Paul addresses the Gentiles who believed in Christ saying, 'for by grace you have been saved through faith', and then later on he says, 'you must no longer live as the Gentiles do'. 4:17 So he was telling Gentiles not to live like Gentiles. The words are meant for all men and especially believers. The ones who believed were no longer Gentiles but a new man in the Spirit. So saying, we can no longer see ourselves as Jews and Gentiles, but as men, saying Christ created one man in the place of two men. This is not a metaphor.

Before they were saved, these men didn't follow the law. So 'by works', Paul is saying 'any' works, and he adds 'any' man - 'lest any man should boast.' Is Paul saying the law of Moses didn't save them? If so, is he saying Greek works did save them? No. They were not saved by Greek works either. You could specify works of the law but if you do then you are really missing the point. The point is it's a gift not earned by works. It's God's doing. God can see us at a distance. And when we came to our senses and turned back, he saw us and he ran out to us, and he put a ring on our finger.

The important this is that this ambuguity is clearly resolved in favour of position B by what Paul writes in verse 11 and following where he clearly is addressing the Jew-Gentile divide, something that has everything to do with the works of Torah and nothing to do with an ability to do "good deeds". Paul is saying that "salvation by faith" dissolves this divide and that the Jew cannot claim exclusive access to salvation by doing the things that are for Jews and Jews only - that is the works of Torah.

There is no Jew-Gentile divide. Verse 11 Paul reminds the Gentiles, who were called 'the uncircumcision', that there was a period of time when the disciples were sent out to preach the word of the gospel only to the men of Israel (12 tribes, the men of Judah being one tribe: the Jews) Some Jews believed, but most didn't, and they still don't. But afterwards the word came to the Gentiles as well. So while Jesus was on earth, the 1st churches were established (the commonwealth of Israel), and at that time the men Paul is speaking to were like the rest of mankind; without God and without hope.

I'm confused. Are you saying the Gentiles were saved by the works of Torah? Or will be saved by the works of Torah?

 

[mondar]

The LORD will call you back
as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spiritâ€â€
a wife who married young,
only to be rejected," says your God

And then in chapter 55, we have a clear "new creation" account

Here we have the exact same pattern that is reflected in Paul's structuring of Romans - the work of Jesus is the climax of the covenant (Romans 3), leading to renewal of the covenant (Romans 5), leading to new creation (Romans 8).

I would suggest that you speak of Christ death as a fulfillment of Covenant, and not mere covenant renewal.

It is really both - the work of the Cross is indeed where the covenant was heading and where it was fulfilled. It's effect is to "renew" the covenant in the sense that a new understanding is expressed of what the covenant has been all about. I think that I have not made clear to you what I mean by renewing.

Besides a major chunk of Paul's analyis in Romans is that the covenant has been renewed thus:

- The covenant promise of the inheritance of the land has been broadened out to include all creation (Romans 8:18 and following);

- "True Israel" has been identified as per Romans 4 and 9;

- In chapters 5 through 8, Paul systematically hands over the covenant promises that the Jews thought were for them and them alone to this new Israel.

I would agree that perhaps I need to clarify what I mean by "renewing" the covenant. Part of it is not "real" renewal in the sense that Paul merely explains what the the covenant has meant all along. But, of course, something real and substantial happened on the cross. So the original covnenant has not merely been explained by Paul, it has been explained as renewed by Paul.

Drew, OK, you are still not explaining what you mean by the term "renewal." I would see covenant renewal as very seperate from the fulfillment of covenant stipulations. I can see that there is a long discussion of covenants that needs to happen here. We have been speaking of "Covenant" as though there is one Covenant in view. The scriptures actually has a series of interconnected covenants.

Let me make a few comments on the covenants. They will have to be extremely brief.
When speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant the land is an everlasting possession conditioned only upon Gods grace. The stipulations of this covenant are all Gods to fulfill. Covenant renewal might would be a divine matter since all the stipulations are Gods. Moses enjoined God to remember his covenant with God in Exodus 32. I would hesitate to call that covenant renewal. Then later in history, God gave Israel a Mosaic Covenant. The Mosiac covenant has land issues in it also. A part of the curses is for the land to be conditionally fulfilled. This presents a theological tension. How can God make unconditional promises under Abraham, and then make those same promises conditional? The answer is that Israel must disobey because as Deuteronomy 29:4 says they are a stiff necked people, but then in Deuteronomy 30:6 God says he will "circumcise" their hearts. So while the Mosaic Covenant would be open to Covenant disobedience, and therefore Covenant renewal, the ultimate fulfillment is still dependant upon God. It is Gods action to circumcise the hearts of ISrael that they should obey him.

The question in Romans 9 deals with who is this Israel. Romans 9:6 defines Israel as believing Israel within Genetic Israel. Of course by the time Paul reaches 9:24 he includes all gentiles. Gentiles are not included as a part of Israel, but simply included by Gods grace. Herein lies a great difference between you and I. You seem to be saying that Gods grace can only come through covenant. I do not see Gods grace as limited to Covenant. Gods grace is not limited by his promises. He promised Israel a new heart and so they will one day have one. This does not mean he cannot give the Gentile a new heart under those same promises. Thus the gentiles are grafted into the promises of Israel, but they do not become Israel.

The bottom line is this, God can always do more then he promised, but he can never do less.

Gotta go. More later.

 

[MarkT]

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The question of freewill is answered here in this first Scripture. It's so simple I cannot understand where this idea of man's freewill came from, unless it's non-belief in the whole Bible, brought about by the "New Testament Only" people. As we can see man was not asked if he would like to be created, he was not invited to a business meeting and his opinion sought!

Independent of other arguments, the text you quote in no way establishes that humans do not have freewill. It almost seems that you are arguing that since, obviously, we do not have free will in respect to our own creation, we cannot then have free will as the creatures that we are.

The idea of freewill seems necessary if we are, in any meaningful sense, to be considered creatures and not more "objects". If Fred does not have some measure of self-determining free will, then he is, in essence, no different than a rock which tumbles down the mountain-side when the forces of nature dictate. I think that the very concept of "creature" has the concept of free-will bundled into it.

And I suspect that many who do not believe in the reality of freewill will say "where do the scriptures say that?". Well, the scriptures are written in words. And words point to concepts. The Scriptures do not tell us what a "man" or an "apple" is - but they do deploy the concepts.

I think a serious flaw in the "no free will" position is that is collapses the concept of "creature" into the concept of "object".

Drew,
Several pages back I wrote this to Vic:

Vic,
You can only take a concept so far, but the point is that God alone will do the right thing, make the right decision, never sin and etc., man does not have the ability because his will is not free. Before being born again man was a slave to Satan, once born again he has the ability to do right, but still struggles with the flesh. God's will is free to always do whats right. God was free to decide the events of the earth before one thing was created and orchestrate every page of history since that miracle of creation, knowing the end at the beginning of all events that ever would be.
Now on the other hand, Vic had no chioce to whom he would be born to, or what country, or what sex or what would influence his life. Vic did not have a choice if he would be born with retardation or if he would be a genius or something in between. Vic could of been born with a terrible illness that he had no choice to be inflicted with.Vic could of been born in a Hindu culture and with no one in his family or acquaintance that even knew what Christianity consisted of, then died one second after what ever the age of accountability might be (though there is none). How free are you? Everything we have been taught, seen or experience in our small part of the universe has become a part of our make up. How blessed is the man born to Christian Parents, in a Christian culture and able to live to have good teachers and other influences beyond his control early on to the end of his life. Yes, Vic does have the volition to choose what socks he wants to wear, or what food he would like to eat for supper, only because he was not born to a impoverish single mother in Ethiopia.
Bubba

That's right Bubba. And what a man will do depends on what God puts in him for we were all made for a purpose according to the will of the one who made us. God made man and it's up to God what he puts in him.

If a man was made for wrath, then there is nothing he can do about it. He can rant and rave but he can not change his destiny. God fills him with wrath so that he kills somebody or he gives him a heart of stone so that there is no mercy in him. The men who turned on Jesus were made for turning. The man who betrayed him was made for betraying. The men who see were made for seeing. The men who can not see were made for not seeing. It's the spirit in a man that makes him understand. In terms of intelligence and ability, not all men are created equal. But everyone is created for his purpose. If they have eyes that can not see the heavenly things, it is God's will. The devil and his angels are in this world. Is it any wonder God puts his wrath in them so that they hate us.

If they hate you, God made them for hating you. Perhaps the ones who help you were made by him to help you.

 

[Drew]

Neither is this a redefinition of the term "Israel" or "Jew."

I think that Paul, throughout Romans, if not elsewhere is "re-defining" what it means to be part of "Israel" in terms of his understanding that "Israel" - whoever that turns out to be - is the heir to covenant promises. Now I want to be clear - Paul is not saying that God has "changed" anything. Instead Paul is telling us what has always been the case, but which needs to be straightened out for the reader, who will naturally think that the heirs to the covenant promises are "national" Israel.

His first (I think) statement of this is in Romans 2:

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code

Here Paul clearly makes an argument about what a "true" Jew and is obviously countering the perception that "circumcision and Torah" are the determining criteria

And we have this from Romans 4:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring  not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

As I plan to demonstrate in a later post, Romans 4 is covenantal through and through. But even apart from such arguments, Paul here clearly "re-defines" the standard position on what it means to be a Jew. He states that "real Jews" are not marked out by Torah, but by having the faith of Abraham. This is indeed a re-definition of how his audience would have understood the criteria for being a "true Jew".

I am not, of course, suggesting that Paul is denying the reality of the group of national Israel. Rather, he is talking here and elsewhere about how "national Israel" does not equal "true Israel" - the heirs of the covenant promises.

And of course we have this passage from Romans 9:

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! Amen.

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children..

Clearly, from so many treatments of this issue, Paul wants to convince the reader that they should not assume that national Israel are the heirs to the covenant promises. It is in this sense that he "re-defines" Israel - he expresses a new view of who are the heirs of the covenant.

And he goes on to say this, again affirming and repeating that the true covenant people are not "national" Israel after all:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.

And I believe that the potter account that immediatley precedes this has nothing to do with individuals being "elected" to eternal salvation or to loss - Paul is speaking of the election of national Israel to be the "vessel of destruction" whereby true Israel gets blessed.

 

[Drew]

Now the verses Paul quotes would naturally have some covenant language in it. The reason for such Covenant language would be that Israel was under covenants, promises, and blessings from God as outlined in 9:4-5. The question of the OT quotes is that "not all Israel is Israel." In otherwords there is an Israel within Israel, and Elect Israel, a saved ISrael, an Israel of the New Covenant. Now certainly verse 24 expands the concept of the saved to both Israel and the Gentile.

In Romans 9, at least up to verse 21 or so, Paul is not talking about election in the sense of a certain set of people being fore-ordained to salvation and others to loss.

Paul is rather talking about the general concept of a people or a person being "elected" to play a specific role in the redemptive purposes of God. And here, in Romans 9, his central thesis is this: just like Pharoah was "elected" to be hardened to fulfill a role in God's first great act of covenant faithfulness, so Israel has been hardened in order to fulfill the climax of the covenant - the death and resurrection of Jesus. And Paul goes on, in chapter 11 to fill this out - Israel's has been elected to "stumble" so that the Gentiles can be grafted in. This also makes sense of statements about the Torah in chapters 5 and 7 (but I won't go into that now).

There are a number of Old Testament texts in books like Isaiah and Jeremiah that clearly liken God's treatment of Israel to the way a potter manipulates a clay pot. Paul would have known that and I am convinced that his use of the "potter and his pot" is intended to evoke echoes of those very texts.

A methodological point. When considering alternate interpretation of texts such as what kind of election Paul is talking about in Romans 9, I trust we all agree that a vital consideration is the matter of overall coherence.

So in this context, the coherence question is manifest thus: Which intepretation of election fits in better with the overall flow of the argument? I think, and have argued in the past, that Paul is not talking about election in the sense of being elected to salvation or loss, but rather in the sense of election to play a specific role in the redemptive plan of God. What is Paul talking about in Romans 9? He introduces the chapter as a treatment of Israel - what about Israel? Does it make sense that he goes off on a tangent about how some individuals being elected to salvation or loss, or is he still talking about Israel? If we assume that Paul is not wandering, the Israel explanation is clearly the better one. This is what I mean by thinking in terms of matters of coherence.

And what about Pharoah - does it make sense that Paul would use Pharoah as an example of someone elected to "loss"? Not really, there are many elected to "loss", so why pick Pharoah? I submit that the reason why Paul chooses Pharoah as his archetype is that Pharoah was "elected" to participate in a great act of redemption - the (covenant) promise of delivery from Egypt. This is what is distinctive about Pharoah, not that, like millions of others, he is elected to damnation.

 

[Drew]

Herein lies a great difference between you and I. You seem to be saying that Gods grace can only come through covenant. I do not see Gods grace as limited to Covenant. Gods grace is not limited by his promises. He promised Israel a new heart and so they will one day have one. This does not mean he cannot give the Gentile a new heart under those same promises. Thus the gentiles are grafted into the promises of Israel, but they do not become Israel.

I agree with your characterization at the beginning - I do indeed believe that it is only members of the covenant who "get grace". So indeed, this a correct and useful way to characterize my position. If you can provide evidence against this position, please do so.

I am sure that you know that I never claimed that the "Gentiles become Israel" as if ethnic Jews were excluded. I am arguing that Paul is saying that "true" Israel is constituted by both(ethnic) Jews and Gentiles.

There are many texts make this very point:

From Ephesians 2, we have this much debated text:

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ

Clearly, the Gentile are now included in "Israel" (not "national" Israel of course, but the "true" Israel whose existence and distinction from national Israel is a central theme for Paul).

And this from Romans 4:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Paul is talking a family - Abraham's offsspring. And who are in that family? Only ethnic Jews? No - all, Gentile included, who have Abraham's faith. This is the "true" Israel whose existence Paul so ardently argues for. I find it very hard to see how anyone can argue that Paul is not re-defining "Israel" - that is who Abraham's offspring are. And is this Israel constituted by Jews only? No it is not.

I think these are devastating arguments against the position that Paul does not discern a "true" Israel that, while it indeed contains some ethnic Jews (such as himself), it also contains Gentiles.

I am aware that, in this post, I have not directly addressed my reasons for believing that grace extends beyond the covenant.

But I have indirectly addressed this. What are the covenant promises? Life, peace, "land", vindication before the nations, etc. Who receive these blessings? Why members of the covenant of course! The promises are for the members of the covenant, and not for others.

So when Paul argues that Gentile can really be part of "Abraham's offspring", he is saying that the Gentiles are part of the covenant family - and not to a "split" family, but to a single world-wide family. Paul argues passionately in Galatians that Jew and Gentile are members of one family.

Is the "grace" of which you speak a covenant blessing? I suggest that it is indeed, although I will not pursue this further.

 

[MarkT]

I think that Paul, throughout Romans, if not elsewhere is "re-defining" what it means to be part of "Israel" in terms of his understanding that "Israel" - whoever that turns out to be - is the heir to covenant promises. Now I want to be clear - Paul is not saying that God has "changed" anything. Instead Paul is telling us what has always been the case, but which needs to be straightened out for the reader, who will naturally think that the heirs to the covenant promises are "national" Israel.

His first (I think) statement of this is in Romans 2:

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code

Here Paul clearly makes an argument about what a "true" Jew and is obviously countering the perception that "circumcision and Torah" are the determining criteria

You're writing nonsense Drew. Paul isn't redefining anything. He's just saying circumcision doesn't mean anything if you don't keep the law/break the law. A real Jew is supposed to keep the law. If he breaks the law, then his circumcision doesn't mean anything. In fact if an uncircumcised Gentile kept the law, his uncircumcision would be regarded as circumcision.

The Jews Paul is speaking to were Jews by race and nationality, and Christians by belief. So when you're talking to believing Jews or believing Gentiles, you're not redefining what a Jew is or what a Gentile is. Christianity started with the Jews (Jesus was a Jew) Then the word was preached to the rest of Israel. Then it was preached to the Gentiles.

Let's not get too scientific. We're not looking for evidence to prove a hypothesis. We're not looking for criteria to define words.

Get yourself an RSV

And we have this from Romans 4:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring  not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

As I plan to demonstrate in a later post, Romans 4 is covenantal through and through. But even apart from such arguments, Paul here clearly "re-defines" the standard position on what it means to be a Jew. He states that "real Jews" are not marked out by Torah, but by having the faith of Abraham. This is indeed a re-definition of how his audience would have understood the criteria for being a "true Jew".

What? A Jew would be an adherent of the law. Paul isn't redefining what it means to be a Jew. The Jews had the law. Paul is simply explaining to them that the promise God made to Abraham came through the righteousness of faith. Not by the law. For Abraham wasn't circumcised before he believed God. And God didn't bless him because he was circumcised. Abraham's faith in God was reckoned to him as righteousness. He wasn't blessed through the law. In fact Paul is talking about the nature of faith here, for he goes on to say, 'It (righteousness) will be reckoned to us who believe him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord.' Romans 4:24

I am not, of course, suggesting that Paul is denying the reality of the group of national Israel. Rather, he is talking here and elsewhere about how "national Israel" does not equal "true Israel" - the heirs of the covenant promises.

Well, you're suggesting alot that he doesn't say.

And of course we have this passage from Romans 9:

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! Amen.

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children..

Clearly, from so many treatments of this issue, Paul wants to convince the reader that they should not assume that national Israel are the heirs to the covenant promises. It is in this sense that he "re-defines" Israel - he expresses a new view of who are the heirs of the covenant.

Treatment of what issue? That Paul is saying the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants? How is that an issue?

Paul quotes the scripture where God says to Abraham, 'through Isaac shall your descendants be named' - 'I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him' Genesis 17:19

So Paul is saying the covenant didn't fail even though the Israelites proved faithless.

Indeed Isaiah says, 'Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved.'

Israel was the natural tree because Jesus was a Jew. But it is by the Spirit of God that we are known.

Get yourself an RSV.

And he goes on to say this, again affirming and repeating that the true covenant people are not "national" Israel after all:

Clearly
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.

And I believe that the potter account that immediatley precedes this has nothing to do with individuals being "elected" to eternal salvation or to loss - Paul is speaking of the election of national Israel to be the "vessel of destruction" whereby true Israel gets blessed.

Nonsense. But getting back to the question of freewill, what are you trying to say?

 

[Drew]

You're writing nonsense Drew. Paul isn't redefining anything. He's just saying circumcision doesn't mean anything if you don't keep the law/break the law. A real Jew is supposed to keep the law. If he breaks the law, then his circumcision doesn't mean anything. In fact if an uncircumcised Gentile kept the law, his uncircumcision would be regarded as circumcision.

Paul's words are what they are. He, at multiple places in both Romans and other books makes it clear that he is vitally concerned with convincing his readers that a "true" Jew is not marked out by ethnicity and Torah, but rather by having the kind of the faith that Abraham has.

The facts are clear:

1. A Jew at the time Paul was writing was marked out by circumcision and possession and doing of Torah.

2. Paul says that a "true Jew" is marked out by something else - having the faith that Abraham has.

3. Therefore, while Paul is obviously not doing away with national Israel as an entity, He is saying that the "real" covenant members - the true Israel - is marked out by faith.

The above is what I mean when I refer to Paul re-defining Israel.

 

[Drew]

Nonsense. But getting back to the question of freewill, what are you trying to say?

The idea that Paul is speaking about the election of individual persons to salvation or loss in Romans 9 is so obviously incorrect, one could write for hours and still not run out of material. In fact, I and others have done this very thing in other threads. Paul's point in Romans 9 is about Israel and how she has been "elected" to be a vessel of destruction so that the world will be saved. Just to give the highest level treatment:

1. There is strong Biblical precedent for reference to God's treatment of Israel being likened to a potter and his clay pot.

2. The reference to Pharoah does not really work if you think Paul is talking about election to ultimate salvation or loss. Pharoah is clearly an example of someone who has hardened, not so that he would end up in hell, but so that he would oppose God's effort to redeem Israel from Egypt(covenant promise, again). Paul sees Israel as being likewise hardened - and in chapter 11, he repeatedly refers to how the "stumble" of Israel resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles. This makes perfect sense if, in chapter 9, Paul is saying that Israel, like Pharoah, is being hardened for a great redemptive act.

3. Paul introduces chapter 9 with a clear focus on national Israel - it is hardly likely that any writer with a normal sense of focus would then spin off into a general theological statement about how some are elected to salvation and some to loss.

4. The assertion that Paul is talking about an "election" of Israel to be a vessel fitted for destruction coheres perfectly with Pauls' view that the destiny of Israel to be the solution to the Adamic problem of sin has devolved onto Jesus. The corollory of this is that Israel will act out the Christ-pattern, being cast away for the sin of the world. This is what Israel has been elected to, and this is what Paul is talking about when he uses the potter metaphor, echoing passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah which use this same metaphor in relation to Israel.

5. The mysterious statements in Romans 5 and 7 about how the Torah makes sin increase in national Israel work beautifully with the proposition that again, Israel has been elected to be the place where the sin of the world is accumulated. This is the election of Israel, to act out the Christ pattern, being the place where sin is piled up.

The view that Paul is talking about election of individuals to salvation or loss ignores all these connections and seems to have been simply some kind of a random insertion on the part of Paul. The explanation that I am proposing works much better from a contextual point of view.

And I admit that I (and mondar) have rather clearly got off the main topic of "free will". However, there is an indirect connection, I think.

But since you asked: I believe that man, even fallen man, has a limited amount of self-determining free will.

 

[MarkT]

Paul's words are what they are. He, at multiple places in both Romans and other books makes it clear that he is vitally concerned with convincing his readers that a "true" Jew is not marked out by ethnicity and Torah, but rather by having the kind of the faith that Abraham has.

Ok. A true Jew would be a Christian.

Paul was commissioned to preach the gospel. If Paul said anything about being a Jew, it was to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. According to Acts, when Paul arrived in Rome, he called the local leaders of the Jews together. So there was a Jewish community living in Rome before he arrived. And it says he tried to convince them about Jesus from the law of Moses and from the prophets. And some of them were convinced. And then it says he spent two years in Rome. So Paul established the church at Rome.

So we have a letter from Paul to the church at Rome, and in it he says some things to the Jewish membership. For example when he begins with, 'But if you call yourself a Jew', he is obviously talking to his brethren by race. He even says, 'Do you not know brethren - for I am speaking to those who know the law' Romans 7:1 Now when I say they were Jews, I mean they were Jews by race. I'm not saying they were not Christians. The Jewish believers didn't separate their Jewish identity from their Christian identity. In fact knowing the scriptures, the law and the prophets (what you call Torah), is what convinced them that Jesus was the Christ. Some people would say you have to become a Jew, at least in spirit, knowing the law and the prophets, to be a Christian. I would almost agree with that but I would put it another way. God has to give you a new heart and a new spirit. I think it applies to the elect. Anyways anyone reading, 'He is a Jew who is one inwardly' speaks volumes to that. We are immediately reminded of what Jesus said, 'you cleanse the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.' Mt. 23:25,26

 

[MarkT]

The idea that Paul is speaking about the election of individual persons to salvation or loss in Romans 9 is so obviously incorrect, one could write for hours and still not run out of material. In fact, I and others have done this very thing in other threads. Paul's point in Romans 9 is about Israel and how she has been "elected" to be a vessel of destruction so that the world will be saved. Just to give the highest level treatment:

'Election' is another word for choice, as in, 'many are called, few are chosen'. To be elected is to be chosen by God. Mary was chosen by God. Abraham was chosen by God. Isaac was chosen by God. Jacob was chosen over Esau. The elect are called to be saints. Truly they are the brothers of Christ.

A nation consists of individual men. There's no such thing as a 'nation' without individuals. Similarily, a potter makes individual pots. A nation is not a vessel. A nation consists of many individual vessels.

1. There is strong Biblical precedent for reference to God's treatment of Israel being likened to a potter and his clay pot.

I haven't seen any.

The scripture says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." There's no way we can misunderstand God. Paul says, in order to continue the purpose of election, meaning not by works but because of his call - because they hadn't been born yet and had done nothing either good or bad - God chose Jacob over Esau saying, 'The elder will serve the younger'. And Paul says, 'So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.' Romans 9:16 And then he goes on to ask, 'But who are you, a man to answer back to God?' Why does he still find fault? Who can resist his will?

2. The reference to Pharoah does not really work if you think Paul is talking about election to ultimate salvation or loss. Pharoah is clearly an example of someone who has hardened, not so that he would end up in hell, but so that he would oppose God's effort to redeem Israel from Egypt(covenant promise, again). Paul sees Israel as being likewise hardened - and in chapter 11, he repeatedly refers to how the "stumble" of Israel resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles. This makes perfect sense if, in chapter 9, Paul is saying that Israel, like Pharoah, is being hardened for a great redemptive act.

Well, he's not talking about salvation when he mentions Pharoah. He's talking about God raising Pharoah, to accomplish his purpose, according to his will. And he goes on to say, 'You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault?' For who can resist his will?'

Our decisions are dependent on what God puts in us. If he gives us a heart of flesh and a spirit of understanding, then we will hear his Son and believe in him. But he would only do so because he is our Father.

But Paul says, 'What if God, 'desiring to show his wrath' and to make known his power, (which is a direct reference to Pharoah - ' I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you'), has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction.' So of course Paul is talking about individuals and he is saying God put his wrath into the vessel.

Let's put it this way. I have a vessel for gasoline (a gas can). I only use it for gasoline. I wouldn't use it for wine. If I wanted a vessel for wine, I would have to create one. If I wanted to get rid of the gasoline, I would get rid of the vessel too.

3. Paul introduces chapter 9 with a clear focus on national Israel - it is hardly likely that any writer with a normal sense of focus would then spin off into a general theological statement about how some are elected to salvation and some to loss.

He's talking about his kinsmen by race; those who did not believe his testimony who were not saved. Paul is human. But then he goes on to say it is God's will.

 

[Drew]

A nation consists of individual men. There's no such thing as a 'nation' without individuals. Similarily, a potter makes individual pots. A nation is not a vessel. A nation consists of many individual vessels.

This is not really correct. People can and do speak of nations and peoples as corporate entities without any intent whatsoever to make representations about specific individuals. We say that "the US invaded Iraq" or "Sweden advanced the state of public health care". These statements are valid statements without making implications about individuals.

1. There is strong Biblical precedent for reference to God's treatment of Israel being likened to a potter and his clay pot.

I haven't seen any.

Here are some:

From Isaiah 29, we have this in the context of a treatment of Israel:

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"?

And in Isaiah 30, we have this. Again, the context clearly shows that Isaiah writes about Israel:

this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant.

14 It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly
that among its pieces not a fragment will be found

And this text from Jeremiah:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

There are more.

There is no doubt - there is indeed strong Biblical precedent for the potter metaphor being used specfically in relation to Israel. As an educated Pharisee who knew the Old Testament inside and out, Paul almost certainly is making reference to these passage in the Romans 9 passage.

 

[MarkT]

This is not really correct. People can and do speak of nations and peoples as corporate entities without any intent whatsoever to make representations about specific individuals. We say that "the US invaded Iraq" or "Sweden advanced the state of public health care". These statements are valid statements without making implications about individuals.

I understand your expression but you wouldn't call the US a 'vessel'. We know Bush decided to invade Iraq and we know US troops were sent over there. Bush would be a 'vessel'. The troops would be 'vessels.'

We are talking about things made and the Maker. God makes us in the womb. God made a nation of one lump of clay ie. Israel, but still nations consist of individuals.

The Lord said, 'You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"? Isa. 29:16

The LORD said, "Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter. Does the clay say to him who fashioned it, "What are you making? or 'Your work has no handles'? Isa. 45:9

You have to remember where Paul get's his words. They come from the prophets; from the mouth of God.

 

[Drew]

The scripture says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." There's no way we can misunderstand God.

I think that there has indeed been widespread misunderstanding here. Paul is not talking about people being elected to heaven or to hell - he is talking about the election of Israel to bear the sins of the world - to be a vessel fitted for destruction

Paul says, in order to continue the purpose of election, meaning not by works but because of his call - because they hadn't been born yet and had done nothing either good or bad - God chose Jacob over Esau saying, 'The elder will serve the younger'. And Paul says, 'So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.' Romans 9:16 And then he goes on to ask, 'But who are you, a man to answer back to God?' Why does he still find fault? Who can resist his will?

Indeed, but the issue here is not personal salvation but rather God's right to use Pharoah, and Israel, to play a specific role in the redemptive purposes of God.

 

[Drew]

You have to remember where Paul get's his words. They come from the prophets; from the mouth of God.

And I am doing precisely that when, following Isaiah and Jeremiah, I see Paul as talking about using corporate Israel as a vessel, just like the prophets wrote in the texts I posted.

These texts from Isaiah are about Israel and not about individuals. You seem to argue as if a nation cannot be a vessel. Well, that is precisely what Isaiah and Jeremiah are asserting when they use the potter metaphor in relation to corporate Israel.

Again from Jeremiah:

O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Who is the clay in the hand of the potter? Indivduals? No. It is Israel.

 

[MarkT]

There is no doubt - there is indeed strong Biblical precedent for the potter metaphor being used specfically in relation to Israel. As an educated Pharisee who knew the Old Testament inside and out, Paul almost certainly is making reference to these passage in the Romans 9 passage.

He's not speaking metaphorically when he names individuals; Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh. When he says to Pharaoh, 'I have raised you up', he is not speaking to a metaphor. He is speaking to a man. He is not speaking metaphorically when he says, "Who are you, a man, to answer back to God." Are you not a man? When did you lose your individuality?

When Paul says, 'in order that God's purpose of election might continue', he is not speaking metaphorically. For what is God's purpose of election if it isn't to show us his power and his glory; that he is God over all; that we didn't choose him, he chose us? We didn't make him. He made us. That we are his sons by his call, not because of our works.

So it depends on God's call, not on our will or exertion. What he puts in you, what he gives you to know; who can resist his will?

God keeps choosing men to give to his Son. And Jesus thanked God for the men he was given saying, 'thine were they, and thou gavest them to me.' John 17:6