Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[reba]

Sometimes i cant help but wonder what the heck you guys are talking about :gah
@Sparrowhawke thanks

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: rom.9: 3

seems Paul is saying if he could he would trade places with his Jewish kin for their salvation he would..

Please do not mistake my simple thinking, if not for this kind of discussion i doubt we would ever had the wonderful translations of his Word we have.

 

[Sparkey]

Sometimes i cant help but wonder what the heck you guys are talking about

Just before this point it was an examination of a very small Greek word, "apo". Sometimes it means 'this' and sometimes it means 'that'. Well, that's not true, but it's just my manner of speech. Then we were examining the word translated by some as "accursed". About the Son of God taught us about it.

The focus of the conversation (at the moment) centers on the words found in Rom 9:3

Prepositions and the tiniest Greek words trip me up all the time. I posted a simple chart that, for a very visual person like me, helps a lot. One word "apo" means from (or it could, in a very simple sense, mean) 'out-from'. Another word, "ana" means 'up-from'. That's my simple understanding. It's directional. It turns out that direction is not the only sense the words may carry. There is stuff here that is worthy of using a fine toothed comb as we try to understand, but that same fine-toothed comb can also be used to pick out nits. Or head lice. Each here also resists the urge to use it (the comb) for that purpose to one degree of success or another.

IN that sense, this moderator says, "WE are doing well." As far as grasping the detail and wondering about things? You are not alone.

 

[mondar]

About the Son of God,
At this point I have read your post twice. I still have no idea what your point is in the previous two posts. In reading your posts, there are things I thought of correcting or commenting on, but I really do not know where to begin. I was tempted to go through the posts and make corrections, but I am not sure what that would do. It might irritate you, and I do not want to do that.

May I go back to this post you made...
My entire discussion to this point is whether or not the Man Esau is damned. eg: is he is provably a vessel of Wrath; Pharaoh has not been discussed yet.
Now there are different ways to understand your words above. You could be saying that the subject of Esau being saved or damned is not the issue of his mention in Romans 9. On the other hand, you could be saying Esau is damned in Romans 9, but that is not the issue you are discussing. Of course, I am definitely saying the man Esau was damned according to Paul in Romans 9. I see individual salvation things in the context. That is why I reacted to your statements on "Anethema." The word "anethema" is starting the context as relating to individual salvation.

In the background, it seems to me we are talking about concepts of atonement. Of course I subscribe to the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. I am guessing you deny a substitutionary view of the atonement and see it as a General atonement.


If an individual can not be shown to be predestined to damnation without their free will involved, then the Calvinist position rests on statistical groups.
In the Calvinist position, those predestined to damnation have free will. This is not to say that even the will of the damned, or unregenerate have a total free will. Romans 1 speaks of God as "He gave them over." I could speak more of this, but in that text, I see God as giving the unbeliever more and more ability to follow his own nature. So if God does anything to the unbeliever, he gives them over to their free will.

So then, I would agree that Esau, the unregenerate, had free will. If God meddled in any ones will, it was Jacob.

I am not grasping what you are talking about "Calvinism resting on statistical groups."

Predestining "some" in Israel, says little to nothing about predestining individuals ; for that's a bulk statistic subject to choice, vs. an individual control not subject to choice.

I have no idea why you make the proposition "Predestining "some" in Israel, says little to nothing about predestining individuals." It seem to me that if we have predestination of some in Israel, it has everything to do with individual redemption. Again, I am not sure if I have the concept your trying to communicate in the 2nd part. I would say that "choice" is not the correct concept or word to use to describe the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology. The issue was never one of "choice" but of the nature of man. Even in Reformed theology, men make a choice. They make that choice because of the work of God in man, and not as the work of man for God. Nevertheless, it is a choice.


Hence, I am focusing first on Esau -- and defending the position that he was blessed rather than damned, and seeing what scriptures can be brought to bear on the question.
And I am defending the position that Esau was an unbeliever, one of the non-elect.

The fact that you admit Malachi is about the nations, automatically excludes it from proving Esau, the man, to be damned.
There is nothing "automatic" about this. Neither does it exclude Paul from using Malachi to demonstrate that Esau was personally hated by God in reference to salvation. Malachi was speaking of God's treatment of the Edomites. Paul saw in Malachi's statement how Esau was rejected as in individual. The context of Malachi is about Gods love for nations, the context of Romans 9 is about Gods love (or hatred) for individuals.
CONTEXT of INDIVIDUAL SALVATION
* Vs 3--- Paul prays/wishes separation from Christ in place of Israel
* Vs 4--- Paul mentions the covenants, some, like the Abrahamic and New Covenants are soteriological
* Vs 6--- The word of God coming to "nought" refers to the promises of salvation not coming to some Israelites.
* Vs 7-9- Isaac is mentioned as being in the elect line. Isaac is an individual.
* Vs 10-13 Jacob is mentioned as an elect individual and Esau was mentioned as a reprobate individual. The issue is that their election had nothing to do with anything they ever did or believed in their upcoming lives. If election were based upon forseen faith, vs 11 could not be in the bible. At the end of verse 11, it specifically says that election is not of man, but of God.
* Vs 17 Pharaoh is mentioned as an idividual. God raise him up. The text is not talking about Egypt, but Pharaoh. God hardened Pharaoh, and did not show mercy upon Pharaoh.
* Vs 23 and 24 are a capstone. The "riches of his glory" must include individual salvation and when God calls Gentiles in verse 24, he is not talking about national promises, but salvation itself. God never called any Gentile nations to salvation, but only individuals within all Gentile nations.

 

[About the Son of God]

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: rom.9: 3 seems Paul is saying if he could he would trade places with his Jewish kin for their salvation he would.. Please do not mistake my simple thinking, if not for this kind of discussion i doubt we would ever had the wonderful translations of his Word we have.

Well, the techinical discussion is just on account of Mondar saying he objects to my translation based on Grammar.
I regret that everyone has to wade through it...

When I started the thread, the problem I had with the sentence of Rom 9:3, is that it suggests that Paul, even now, could wish to be "cut off" from Jesus the Christ. To wish to become an object of God's wrath (Hated seems to be the Calvinist conception).

But that wish, by itself, means Paul *has* a double, and torn heart. Two masters, one he hates, one he loves.
But Jesus ABSOLUTELY doesn't accept double hearts; OTOH he does accept people who love their enemies: Luke 6:35

So, there is this tension between love and hate; and it shows up over and over in predestination threads.
I don't believe "hate" as taken by (some?) Calvinists to assuredly mean "wrath".
eg: as a putative/facile interpretation of God loves Jacob but "hated" Esau (THE MAN); ( VS: Malachi the prophet via Romans 9:13. )

I simply don't think 'hate' as commonly used in scripture means that Esau (the man) was automatically pre-destined to wrath.
Something more is required to prove the point.

For men are to love their wives: Ephesians 5:25
*and* men are to hate their wives: Luke 14:26

Love and Hate are in tension.

The former is when one sides with Christ, the other is about when someone else is more important than Christ;
The bottom line: Jesus the Christ is supposed to be loved with an Undivided Heart.

Just so, Romans 9:3, if it reveals a divided heart in Paul automatically would make Paul condemned by Luke 14:26. etc.
That's what sparked the very in depth study you tripped on....

The blessed discoveries, so far, and simplified, are these:

Paul once wished or prayed for something in Romans 9:3, but the Greek verb for "wish" happens to be a kind of rare verb called "imperfect".
That word clarifies beyond reasonable doubt that Paul's wish was "imperfect." He once wished (or prayed) something about Anathema, but definitely he NO longer does.

That's missing in the KJV, and it's a big relief to me to learn that Paul's heart really isn't divided at the time he wrote Romans 9:3.

The second discovery, is that Ana-Thema is a compound word, with the idea of "up" or "hang up" (boy do we have hang-ups, right?)
I'm sure you know what a theme is, a "chistmass" theme, or a "halloween" theme. etc. The thematic decorations go "up" on the walls, etc.
That's the genra, or mileu, or kind of word Anathema originally came from.

It makes sense: Galatians 3:13, a tree is where something is "hung" up, so is THE Cross, etc.
With that in mind, realize that Romans 9:3 has shades of meaning, and might be translatable in more than one way.
I've been trying to figure out -- who actually/exactly IS provably "the curse" (thing) in the sentence, and *why*?

...

Since Mondar fixated on the grammar, I thought it time to post all the gory details;
I do this also for the sake of others on the thread, who now or in the future may study the question.
I want to insure, that if I have a mistake -- people see the work I did, and can use it as an aid to locate my mistakes.
I don't want to leave a stumbling-stone for others that are humbly seeking Christ.

 

[reba]

Thanks ABSG ... We have room here for technical discussion you bet.... if we can have room for the silliness, which abounds, we sure can have room for this type of conversation...My words were not meant in any way to shorten or stop the conversation you guys are having...

Pleasant to read men not in agreement but being civil please carry on.... and when i get completely lost i will and ask again....

 

[About the Son of God]

Thanks for your expertise. I always learn from your posts even if I don't ultimately share your conclusions.

That's what it's all about.

I suppose the difference in our views hinges on if the apo G575 "from Christ" means 'separate apart from Christ' or 'origin coming from Christ'. My choice is based on the fact that Paul would not have to wish to be anathema coming from Christ because that is what he already was. However, in love for others he could wish to be anathema separate from Christ if only that could save others, but it can not, thus he mourns those who won't be saved.

When you wrote this, I hadn't studied the grammar very closely, and I'm not sure I have everything precisely correct even now.
But, your argument is very understandable and reasonable; although if you would read what I wrote to Reba, I think there might be a little more for you to consider (or maybe you did, I loose track) - and whether you agree or not, I'd love to hear your comments.

Indeed, I saw Paul as an anathema SENT by Jesus ; although now, I also see that 9:3 might mean Paul wished Jesus/Christians were anathema at one time.... sigh... (eg: trophies of the Pharisees, rather than trophies of Jesus)

But, going back to the earlier idea, an anathema sent by Jesus: I think, when Paul was blind, for three days in the house on the Straight road -- and he neither ate nor drank -- It is then that he had an opportunity to pray that he be sent to his brothers.

Acts 9:11
Which God eventually answered:
Acts 9:15
Therefore he *no longer* needed to pray this prayer.

This wish/prayer, also notice, is made precisely when he became anathema. eg: It's associated with his realization of who Jesus was.

So, now-- discussing the grammar very briefly:
There is one fact, that I have verified, and am certain of -- the verb translated "wish" is actually an "imperfect" verb; and it means prayer.

The form of the verb is V-IIM/P-1S ; Verb, Indicative, Imperfect, Middle. person-first-singular
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/9-3.htm

Perfection means finished in the past, with ongoing consequences for as long as the one causing the action continues to live/exist.
Imperfect means the verb happened in the past, (often repetitively), but now the actor no longer does it. It has absolutely ceased.

Paul prayed, I think, for three days ?

In any event,
I still need to examine some examples of "apo" to see if the point can be established more rigorously ; or if I am just flat wrong somehow.
eg: I need to locate passages were it definitively means separation, and others where it means from an origin; and then check to see what determines, grammatically, which connotation the preposition actually has.

--Andrew, under Christ as your brother, praying for our mutual peace.

 

[About the Son of God]

At this point I have read your post twice. I still have no idea what your point is in the previous two posts.

But you do realize by now that I never accepted -- "cursed", right? So, you understand it a little better than before?
eg: A wiser man knows when and what he doesn't understand: Acts 8:30-31
But, you didn't answer the question that I asked, are the disciples who preached only of John's baptism, were they, while ignorant -- Anathema in your sense of cursed? (verb).
hmmm....?

"My entire discussion to this point is whether or not the Man Esau is damned. eg: is he is provably a vessel of Wrath; Pharaoh has not been discussed yet." Now there are different ways to understand your words above. You could be saying that the subject of Esau being saved or damned is not the issue of his mention in Romans 9.

Oh? Why are trying to restrict an entire thread into a couple of posts that only you are in?
I asked if Esau can be proved to-be damned; I said nothing about a restriction to Romans 9. You are free to use the whole bible.

On the other hand, you could be saying Esau is damned in Romans 9, but that is not the issue you are discussing.

Clearly I am discussing that issue; I said explicitly, "my whole discussion ... is whether or not Esau, the man is damned".
Roman's 9 is your own assumption. But at least, after you read my post twice -- you are making less assumptions. That's a relief.

Let's see -- you re-entered the thread at a certain point;
I said that I didn't want a re-hash, so I (for my part) would aim you at historical posts...
But then I presumed you would read all my posts after that time, I see ... my mistake.

eg: I don't want a thread disrupting 1:1 debate between us -- but an attempt to merge with the whole flow of conversation.

And after your entry, there was -- for example this post:
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52286&p=851736&viewfull=1#post851736

As you see: Romans 9 is found nowhere in it. I hope that helps clear up some false assumptions...

Of course, I am definitely saying the man Esau was damned according to Paul in Romans 9.

And I am taking the opposite side, not because I'm certain Esau isn't damned -- but because I want it proved.
To debate, one needs both sides represented. Good debates lead to learning on both sides.

I see individual salvation things in the context. That is why I reacted to your statements on "Anethema." The word "anethema" is starting the context as relating to individual salvation.

Yes. And you really want to discuss, not just react, for I'd like to learn too.
Since I crudely knew your basic position, I gave a detailed word study on Romans 9:3.
I then gave a simplified summary to Reba, which I hope you read even though it's not addressed to you.

I also hope, regarding your dispute about the grammar-- that it sticks to Grammar, and doesn't "jump" to context.
Otherwise, please don't object to my grammar; I want to at least discuss it for real.

In the background, it seems to me we are talking about concepts of atonement. Of course I subscribe to the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. I am guessing you deny a substitutionary view of the atonement and see it as a General atonement.

I'm not even thinking about atonement. Never said a word about it. I have too many other thoughts juggling in my mind... I'm trying hard to stay close to the topic.

In the Calvinist position, those predestined to damnation have free will. This is not to say that even the will of the damned, or unregenerate have a total free will. Romans 1 speaks of God as "He gave them over." I could speak more of this, but in that text, I see God as giving the unbeliever more and more ability to follow his own nature. So if God does anything to the unbeliever, he gives them over to their free will. So then, I would agree that Esau, the unregenerate, had free will. If God meddled in any ones will, it was Jacob. I am not grasping what you are talking about "Calvinism resting on statistical groups."

I agree partially, for I have stated previously as you know (due to an errata on "emmaeus" I know that you know) the following.

If you can't reject it, then salvation is not a gift, but a sentence.

But, some can reject it -- some can't -- is also a possibility. There is the issue of spoils taken in war, called "Anathema"; Paul says at one point, "I could be cut off [anathema] for the sake of my brothers." Paul, recall, was struck down on the road to emmaeus. But, Paul's experience is not every christians experience.

But: I don't accept the position that individual people are PRE-destined to damnation.
That's a puppet free will, Individuals get to choose how they are damned -- but that's all.

In a debate I need someone to try and prove the contrary, eg: that Esau the man is damned from before birth;
As this is a question being explored, it is not assumable (circular argument); but must be shown and reasoned out.
Words which don't say damned, have to be sufficient to INSURE damnation to hell, not just temporal punishment.

issue numero UNO: For it to be PRE-destination, it must be decided BEFORE an individual commits the sin that he will be damned.

So far, no one has brought forth credible evidence of his actual damnation, let alone his predestination to Sin worthy of damnation.
We are NOT told, for example, explicitly, that Esau (the man) went to perdition. But we ARE told this of other men: Revelation 17:11

If we had a statement that Esau went to perdition; I would have to concede the point immediately.

The gist of my defense of Esau is here: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52286&p=850325&viewfull=1#post850325
A prophecy which doesn't come BEFORE the event, is not PRE-destination ; it's a historical reflection or judgment based on history of free will.

Romans 9:12 is a prophecy BEFORE birth;
Romans 9:13 is a statement over ~1000 years after Esau (the man) died.

Therefore: Only #12, then, is explicitly about PRE-destination that could apply to the Man. (POSTdestination isn't the topic).

Next: I question whether Romans 9:12 quotes a prophecy about a man, or about a group of people (the man may or not be included).
So: first I have to Read the prophecy in full: Genesis 25:23, and check the surrounding context of the prophecy AT THE TIME it was made.

The crucial issue is this: I need to know, HOW is the prophecy actually fulfilled in detail via Esau, the man.

A true prophecy, does what it says it will do. A false one -- does not.
A true interpretation of prophecy shows it's fulfillment -- a false one can't.

Now, if this first prophecy includes Esau the man, Showing it's fulfillment means finding an example in the O.T. of Esau the man serving Jacob the man.
I've asked for this example numerous times, but no one produces it. (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but where is it?)

Then, immediately after that prophecy, Paul brings up the question of unrighteousness (biased judment):
Based on something the READER of the texts is presumed to have asked and which may be unjustified racism.

Roman 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

But Paul, strangely, refuses to condemn either man, Jacob or Esau, but gives TWO lines of acquittal.

Roman 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

There is nothing about God hardening Esau's heart, nothing about God sending him to perdition. There are only two statements of mercy and compassion.

And then Paul talks about mercy not coming from will; but not a single suggestion of wrath.
And ... I notice that both of these men come from Isaac.

Immediately AFTER that, God mentions Pharaoh. Who is Not a son of Isaac.
It is ONLY after mentioning Pharaoh that Paul talks about hardening someone's heart
But Paul still refuses to dictate actual damnation, rather he speaks of a HYPOTHETICAL question of wrath.
It is not a statement saying "God did!", but a question of "so what if he did" ?

Earlier you tried to turn a question I asked of you into a statement. That's twisting my words. I hope you won't do that here.

So, Now: Is there any other prophecy about things to "come" (PRE-destination?) that you can show; all I know of is Hebrews 11:20.

I am not grasping what you are talking about "Calvinism resting on statistical groups."

The prophecy in Malachi is not about Esau the man, pre-destined. It comes 1000 years too late. So, it's either about history and/or the future from that time onward. It clearly, therefore, includes a nation or at least a group of people for it to be a prophecy at all.
Within Edom there is a population that has people with the potential to be saved. eg: by scriptural witness, are save-able. How many are saved, vs. how many are damned is not something I know or can know.

I have no idea why you make the proposition "Predestining "some" in Israel, says little to nothing about predestining individuals." It seem to me that if we have predestination of some in Israel, it has everything to do with individual redemption

I understand the assumption; but it's false: Consider a statistics problem with a random variable called "FreeWill":
A boat only has room for 6 life boats, and each boat carries a maximum of 10 people. Call the lifeboats Knowya's arks.
Now the ship holds 100 people on each trip.

The very act of building the ship, and placing the boats, determines some are destined to die if the ship sinks.
The builder of the ship, however, does not determine WHO dies. But the random variable freeWill -- can.

I would suggest a name for this idea "general" or "group" predestination as opposed to specific or individual predestination.
Both kinds of predestination are possible, and God may be forced to use specific predestinations in order to fulfill his promises.

I would say that "choice" is not the correct concept or word to use to describe the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology.

Who says I'm arminian or talking arminian?! :D I'm not a Calvinist, though.
I go against any argument I find to be false, even if it undermines my own position.
It's a learning process.

There is nothing "automatic" about this. Neither does it exclude Paul from using Malachi to demonstrate that Esau was personally hated by God in reference to salvation. Malachi was speaking of God's treatment of the Edomites. Paul saw in Malachi's statement how Esau was rejected as in individual.

That's speculation ; and here's why:

I have shown multiple times that hate sometimes means to "love in a lesser way" rather than dump "wrath" on someone.
It's a serious back post issue. I just spoke of it again with Reba, for I think the point very important.

I have an intuition that the word hate is a major debate issue....

I AM certain, by scriptural witness that:
Esau was blessed, but with a different blessing than Jacob. ( Hebrew 11:20 )
There is also evidence of more than one inheritance in the O.T., eg: land vs. a blessing:
So, I'm still sorting out what is and is not being discussed by Paul; we need the O.T. stories to understand him.

v3: we've not finished the grammar issue ... it's in dispute.
v4: Explain soteriological in terms of bible and history... I'm not here to do "Dr. Calvin vs. Dr. Arminius.", Just Esau.
v6: Implies the promise has SOME effect. Eg: in my analogy -- some life boats could fit in the ship.
For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel -- implies foreigners could marry into Israel, as well. So what is this about Genetics!?
v7: Yes, Isaac is one who receives the blessing, eg: the blessing of being the father of Jesus, the seed. (as of One).

I see that the name of Abraham is called through Isaac, but Isaac is NOW called through Jesus. The seed, as if of "one" -- not many.
Only he who came down (one) from heaven, can go up to heaven.

It was Deborah, I think said it -- we have to be "in" Jesus the Christ. I agree with her; I think that was a good point.

Verse 11? As I said, SOME can be predestined to salvation, while others are Free to choose. Even Anathema can be saved.
So God forces a few to be saved, the rest are free to choose to believe or not. What's so hard about that?

Verse 17: Yes, Pharaoh is mentioned as an individual. That's something I haven't discussed in this thread.
But ... now!!!! DOH!!! you just took a hypothetical "if" and tried to tell me it's a certainty. :naughty I don't accept your point. It's a fallacy.

In verse 18 -- AHA! Of Isaac and Jacob, Paul says: mercy & compassion But of Pharao, Paul says mercy & harden.

Therefore Esau's "justice" is spoke of differently than Pharaohs "justice", eg: by Paul.

 

[mondar]

Rather then cup and past other posts and negatively give criticism, I will attempt to give a positive presentation of both grammatical and contextual evidence on how I see Romans 9.

First, let me speak of the noun and verbal forms of anathema in the greek NT:::::

Act 23:14 And they came to the chief priests and the elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, to taste nothing until we have killed Paul.
* In this verse the word anathema is used twice, once as a noun and once as a verb. The greeks would use terms twice for emphasis.

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit.
* some translations use the term "cursed" others do not translate the word. I do not see the difficulty in using either word for the translation.

1Co 16:22 If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema. Maranatha.
I do not know of any translation that uses the term "cursed" here, but if one were found, I would again not see the difficulty.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.
*KJV translators use the term cursed here too.

Now for the verb form..... anathematizo
Mar 14:71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
This seems a strong passage for the use of the term curse. It is parallel to the word swear.

Act 23:12 And when it was day, the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
* The concept of curse seems to fit here also.

Act 23:21 Do not thou therefore yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, who have bound themselves under a curse, neither to eat nor to drink till they have slain him: and now are they ready, looking for the promise from thee.


The use in Romans 9:3 seems interestingly parallel in use to other NT passages. It seems parallel especially to the acts passage where Jews bind themselves to be liable to some divine penalty if they fail to murder Paul. It seems parallel because in Romans 9:3 Paul seems to be saying something similar. He is willing to bind himself to a divine penalty of being separated from Christ for the sake of the very Jews who bound themselves to divine penalties if they did not murder him.

The verbal form in Mark 14:71 is very difficult to separate it from the parallel word ομνυναι (lexical form -- ὀμνύω) to swear. "Curse and swear" seems a logical translation.

Some translations use the term "separated" from Christ to translate the word "anathema." I am fine with that also. The major point is that Paul is giving up his individual salvation and relationship with Christ for the sake of his countrymen.


Grammatical points:::::::::::::::
As I mentioned before, this fits well with the understanding of the prepositions. The preposition "apo" is used in the clause.... "απο του χριστου" (from Christ). It is true that the article could have stood alone if Paul had chosen not to use the preposition. The preposition is important because it further identifies the meaning of the word αναθεμα (anathema), which is a part of the predicate and is the antecedent for the phrase απο του χριστου (from Christ).


How this view fits into the context of Romans 9::::::::::::::::
Whatever English word you use, because of the prepositional phrase "from Christ" the word anathema must be seen as separating one from the blessings of Christ. In fact that is the whole subject of Romans 9. This can be seen in the very next verse after verse 3.

Verses 4 and 5 can be seen as articulating the blessings of Christ for the Jew.

Then verse 6 continues this same theme of individual salvation. There are two groups of Jews in verse 6. Some are related to Christ and are beneficiaries of the promises of verses 4-5, and others are non-beneficiary Jews who are cursed from Christ. This would be the group that Paul refers to in verse 3. In verse 3, Paul wishes or prays to be separated or cursed or anathema or unsaved from Christ, so that these Israelites in Romans 9:6 would receive the benefits of Romans 9:4-5 and be among the individually saved Jews.

Verses 7-13 give two illustrations of the principle found in Romans 9:6. Paul demonstrates in the illustrations that not all the seed of a patriarch is the promised seed, but only an elect seed is saved. The first illustration is Isaac and Ishmael. Now the curious thing is that Ishmael is not named as being part of the non-elect, or the unsaved. This leaves some doubt as to the eternal destiny of Ishmael. Is Paul saying that Ishmael is like the unsaved Israelites in Romans 9:6? This is not the point of discussion. The question is about Esau.

Esau is actually the 2nd of the two illustrations. Esau, then, is the illustration of a non-elect person under the curse or anathema that Paul mentions in verse 3. Esau is separated from Christ as Paul was willing to be in Romans 9:3. In the greater context of Romans, Esau is the unjustified person, he is not like Abraham in Romans 4, he is the person in Adam in Romans 5, he is the person of the flesh in the beginning of Romans 8, he is not the person of the golden thread in Romans 8:28-30. Esau, is not connected to the gospel of salvation.

Romans 9:11 makes it clear that the non-election of Esau happened not on the basis of anything Esau did or did not do. Election was not on the basis of foreseen faith. Election was not on the basis of anything related to Esau. Romans 9:11 is a text that stands high as one of the mountain peaks of saying that elections or non-election is based solely within God... "election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" So then, election is based not upon what Paul wishes are prays in 9:3. Election is not based upon the faith of the individual, but in God's will and decision. This thought is of course going to raise objections. We do not like the thought of a God that is sovereign over salvation and election. Some objections are articulated in Romans 9:14 and Romans 9:19. Of course those very objections are raised constantly by those holding a non-Calvinist view of Romans 9. The major complaint is that it is "not fair" and that God must give everyone an equal chance at salvation to be fair. Romans 9:14 says the same thing.... "Is there unrighteousness with God?" The complaint is the same... if God does not give everyone an equal chance, he is "not fair" or there is "unrighteousness with God" If God simply chooses and we believe because he chose, then we are just "Robots." So then, how horrible would that be if it were true that God is the one that chooses or elects. (sorry-- digressing).

With the prophecy of Esau that Paul quotes, it is true that the context of Malachi is about the nation of Edom and not the individual Esau. Nevertheless, because of the context of Romans 9, Paul is using this as support of Pauls view that Esau was not saved, not elect, and that Esau's damnation or cursing (non-salvation) is an illustration of the principle Paul articulated in romans 9:6 that God elects some Jews, and not others. Only the elect or saved Jews are Israel. And only the elect or saved Jews receive the promises of Romans 9:4-5. Paul wishes to be unsaved, accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of those unsaved, non-elected, Jews.


By the way, let me re-read your last post, I will respond to at least some of it.

 

[mondar]

eg: I don't want a thread disrupting 1:1 debate between us -- but an attempt to merge with the whole flow of conversation.

OK, I see now that I did disrupt things. My apologies. I did read enough to get the flow and reacted to things you were saying about Romans 9 and not the entire conversation.

Of course, I am definitely saying the man Esau was damned according to Paul in Romans 9.

And I am taking the opposite side, not because I'm certain Esau isn't damned -- but because I want it proved.
To debate, one needs both sides represented. Good debates lead to learning on both sides.

Well, I think my previous post gives a positive statement that in Romans 9, Paul is looking at Esau as a person. The term "election" in verse 11 speaks of God choosing Jacob and not Esau to salvation. Can we begin with the previous post?

I see individual salvation things in the context. That is why I reacted to your statements on "Anethema." The word "anethema" is starting the context as relating to individual salvation.

Yes. And you really want to discuss, not just react, for I'd like to learn too.
Since I crudely knew your basic position, I gave a detailed word study on Romans 9:3.
I then gave a simplified summary to Reba, which I hope you read even though it's not addressed to you.

I also hope, regarding your dispute about the grammar-- that it sticks to Grammar, and doesn't "jump" to context.
Otherwise, please don't object to my grammar; I want to at least discuss it for real.

OK, concerning grammar... I can only repeat what I said already. I am looking at the greek preposition "apo." The preposition diagram that was linked previously came strait out of Dana and Mante. The issue of cursed, is not so much that the word can only be translated cursed, but it must in some way also include the concept of separation from Christ because of the greek word "apo." It is a prepositional phrase that modifies the predicate. How can that prepositional phrase modify the predicate if there is now separation from Christ. In Pauls concept of separation from Christ, he is speaking soteriologically.

In the Calvinist position, those predestined to damnation have free will. This is not to say that even the will of the damned, or unregenerate have a total free will. Romans 1 speaks of God as "He gave them over." I could speak more of this, but in that text, I see God as giving the unbeliever more and more ability to follow his own nature. So if God does anything to the unbeliever, he gives them over to their free will. So then, I would agree that Esau, the unregenerate, had free will. If God meddled in any ones will, it was Jacob. I am not grasping what you are talking about "Calvinism resting on statistical groups."

I agree partially, for I have stated previously as you know (due to an errata on "emmaeus" I know that you know) the following.

If you can't reject it, then salvation is not a gift, but a sentence.

But, some can reject it -- some can't -- is also a possibility. There is the issue of spoils taken in war, called "Anathema"; Paul says at one point, "I could be cut off [anathema] for the sake of my brothers." Paul, recall, was struck down on the road to emmaeus. But, Paul's experience is not every christians experience.

Yes, and I do not see this spoils of war concept as relating to Romans 9:3 and the word anethema. While it might have that concept in certain contexts in the LXX, I do not see it anywhere in the greek NT and specifically in Romans 9:3. When a greek word has a range of meaning, it can fit that meaning in the LXX but not in Romans 9:3.

But: I don't accept the position that individual people are PRE-destined to damnation.
That's a puppet free will, Individuals get to choose how they are damned -- but that's all.

In a debate I need someone to try and prove the contrary, eg: that Esau the man is damned from before birth;
As this is a question being explored, it is not assumable (circular argument); but must be shown and reasoned out.
Words which don't say damned, have to be sufficient to INSURE damnation to hell, not just temporal punishment.

issue numero UNO: For it to be PRE-destination, it must be decided BEFORE an individual commits the sin that he will be damned.

I must be careful of terms here. One of the problems is that Reformed people use the term "pre-destination" in two different senses. The bible actually only uses the term predestination in reference to the elect. When the bible speaks of predestination in this sense, Reformed people recognize that God intervenes in a positives sense and gives his grace to predetermined or elect people. Holiness is predetermined in a positive active sense. God intervenes and acts powerfully to make his will happen.

On the other hand, Reformed people use the term "predestined" in a completely different sense. In this sense, I recognize that the bible itself does not use the term to refer to the reprobate, but the theology is nonetheless scriptural. God actively reprobates people using completely different means then his predestination of the elect. God actively restrains sin (see Romans 1). But God can choose to withdraw his power to restrain sin ("God gave them over"). So then, for God to harden hearts and reprobate those whom he wants to judge and condemn, he does...... nothing. Of course predestination in the sense that God intends to reprobate then is very different from predestination of the elect. On the one hand, God intervenes and is a part of the action (predestination to election), and on the other hand in predestination to reprobation, God again makes a choice from eternity past. He chooses to remove his restraining hand (Romans 1).

So then, the question is did God choose for Esau. That is the point Paul is making in... Romans 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, The point of predestination is that God chose. Evil deeds or good deeds, evil beliefs or good beliefs have nothing to do with Gods reason to predestinate. God chooses on the basis of not of works, but of him that calleth. When Paul says this in verse 13.... 13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. He can only be referring to the two different elections or predestinatins in verse 11. God chose one for holiness, and the other for reprobation. God loved Jacob, but the context is not talking about all the national promises to Jacob, but his salvation. Just the same, Esau is the example of unregenerate reprobation. God can still give Esau blessings, and did give Esau blessings, but the context is speaking of salvation. Concerning Salvation, God hated Esau. God can love Esau as far as other material blessings. God loves all men with a common grace. He loves some with an elective grace. God does not love all men in the same way. As far as salvation, he hates all that he does not predestinate to holiness. He did not predestinate Esau to personal holiness and so the OT text from Malachi is quoted. In the context of Romans 9, Paul is not talking about national blessings.

There is something else that could be discussed. The concept of federal headship. This is found frequently in the scriptures. Christ is the federal head of the elect, and Adam is the federal head of the unregenerate in Romans 5. When God curses or blesses Jacob or Esau, he does it to the individual as the federal head of their descendants. This concept might complicate things further though, but I think it is related to the reason I see Malachi 1 and Romans 9 in two different senses. The statement in Malachi 1 can be about the national blessings and Paul can use the same statement to speak of the federal head, Esau, and his personal salvation. Any forum is probably not the best place to intelligently discuss the concept of Federal Headship. It seems too limited.

So far, no one has brought forth credible evidence of his actual damnation, let alone his predestination to Sin worthy of damnation.
We are NOT told, for example, explicitly, that Esau (the man) went to perdition. But we ARE told this of other men: Revelation 17:11

If we had a statement that Esau went to perdition; I would have to concede the point immediately.

I doubt your saying that "the only way I will believe that Esau went to perdition is if I see those exact words in the text."
You also speak of "creditable evidence." Of course I am wondering what criteria would you use to determine what is creditable evidence.

Someone else already presented Hebrew 12....
15 looking carefully lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled;
16 lest there be any fornication, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright.
17 For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind in his father, though he sought is diligently with tears.
Esau fell short of the grace of God and was defiled. That context relates to those who are chastened as the sons of God and some who are not sons of God and are not chastened.

So what evidence would you accept?

The gist of my defense of Esau is here: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52286&p=850325&viewfull=1#post850325
A prophecy which doesn't come BEFORE the event, is not PRE-destination ; it's a historical reflection or judgment based on history of free will.

Romans 9:12 is a prophecy BEFORE birth;
Romans 9:13 is a statement over ~1000 years after Esau (the man) died.

Therefore: Only #12, then, is explicitly about PRE-destination that could apply to the Man. (POSTdestination isn't the topic).

Next: I question whether Romans 9:12 quotes a prophecy about a man, or about a group of people (the man may or not be included).
So: first I have to Read the prophecy in full: Genesis 25:23, and check the surrounding context of the prophecy AT THE TIME it was made.

The crucial issue is this: I need to know, HOW is the prophecy actually fulfilled in detail via Esau, the man.

A true prophecy, does what it says it will do. A false one -- does not.
A true interpretation of prophecy shows it's fulfillment -- a false one can't.

Now, if this first prophecy includes Esau the man, Showing it's fulfillment means finding an example in the O.T. of Esau the man serving Jacob the man.
I've asked for this example numerous times, but no one produces it. (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but where is it?)

I really do not care about the prophecy in Malachi. Paul is not quoting the prophecy to say it is fulfilled, he is merely using the quote from Malachi as support or as an illustration. It is to illustrate and support his point in verse Romans 9:6. Romans 9:3, and 9:6, and 9:24 are referring to the salvation of individuals. I am not saying that there are no national issues in Romans 9. In fact there are national issues, but that pertains only to the Jews.

In Romans 9:24 that is the reference in Romans 9 that first mentions Gentiles. Notice the way he makes this proposition.
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
This is the effectual calling of salvation. To make the context about the fulfillment of Malachi 1 and the prophecies to the Edomites would be reaching a little hard with the terms "who he also called."

In other words, I think your whole line of statements above misses the whole point of Romans 9.

Then, immediately after that prophecy, Paul brings up the question of unrighteousness (biased judment):
Based on something the READER of the texts is presumed to have asked and which may be unjustified racism.

I do not see that Romans 14 is related to racism at all. Again, I think it misses the whole point of Romans 9. Romans 9:14 is related to the claims made in Romans 9:11. Paul is aware that many will not like his claim of Gods sovereignty in salvation and election. When Paul says in Romans 9:11 "election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth he is acknowledging that election has nothing to do with our choices. Its all about "him that calleth." Many will say or think but thats not fair, everyone should have an equal chance if God is going to be fair. If God is going to do things in such an arbitrary way, he is unjust or unrighteous. Is there unrighteousness with God? That has nothing at all to do with racism. In fact in the text, Paul is speaking of the elect Jews until 9:23. Then in verse 24 he says the same thing works with Gentiles. No racism at all.

Roman 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

But Paul, strangely, refuses to condemn either man, Jacob or Esau, but gives TWO lines of acquittal.

Roman 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Romans 9:15 is not about acquittal. I agree that it refers to Romans 9:14 and also especially the statement in Romans 9:11. When Paul said in Romans 9:11 that God makes the decision on who is elect and saved and God alone, he then asks in verse 14 "is that fair." The statement in verse 15 is so beautifully connected with the claims made in verse 11. Paul quotes the OT in trumpting the freedom of God in choosing whom he chooses. He will have mercy on whom he has mercy. It is the same identical claim that Paul made concerning the freedom of God to choose whom it pleases him that is found in verse 11.

We may not like the answer in verse 15, but Paul does produce scriptural OT support for his thesis of the freedom and sovereignty of God in his choice.

 

[mondar]

Immediately AFTER that, God mentions Pharaoh. Who is Not a son of Isaac.
It is ONLY after mentioning Pharaoh that Paul talks about hardening someone's heart

Why would Paul need to show scriptural support that each and every person that does not go to heaven is hardened? Your asking for Paul to say something in every text about hardening?

As I suggested above, the concept of hardening implys that God choose not to restrain sin. God does not have to carry some magical wand around and wave it to make men more sinful. To harden a heart, the only thing God does is this........ nothing. See above.

But Paul still refuses to dictate actual damnation, rather he speaks of a HYPOTHETICAL question of wrath.
It is not a statement saying "God did!", but a question of "so what if he did" ?

Earlier you tried to turn a question I asked of you into a statement. That's twisting my words. I hope you won't do that here.

OK, I do not remember this, but if I did something like that, it was unintentional. Yes, I make mistakes and sometimes read anger into words, I read motives into words that may not be there. I am not excusing my errors, I will try to do better.

So, Now: Is there any other prophecy about things to "come" (PRE-destination?) that you can show; all I know of is Hebrews 11:20.

There does seem to be this epistemological difference between us. I do not see prophecy as the only way to demonstrate the point that God choose to pour out his wrath on Esau. In any case, if that is the only criteria you will accept as "acceptable evidence" then I guess there is no reason to pursue any further discussion. (I do not mean these words angrily, but it is a fact)

I am not grasping what you are talking about "Calvinism resting on statistical groups."

The prophecy in Malachi is not about Esau the man, pre-destined. It comes 1000 years too late. So, it's either about history and/or the future from that time onward. It clearly, therefore, includes a nation or at least a group of people for it to be a prophecy at all.
Within Edom there is a population that has people with the potential to be saved. eg: by scriptural witness, are save-able. How many are saved, vs. how many are damned is not something I know or can know.

Well, we are disagreeing about the prophecy in Malachi then too. I do not see the prophecy in Malachi as relating to anyone being savable, or having the potential to be saved. Its about the land, God is going to turn Edom into a desert. He is going to reduce the people of Edom to nothing. God hated the federal head, Esau. On the other hand, he loves the federal head of Israel, Jacob. their land shall be expanded. The people, saved or unsaved is not the issue in Malachi. But that is a whole different issue and we are getting too many.

I have no idea why you make the proposition "Predestining "some" in Israel, says little to nothing about predestining individuals." It seem to me that if we have predestination of some in Israel, it has everything to do with individual redemption

I understand the assumption; but it's false: Consider a statistics problem with a random variable called "FreeWill":
A boat only has room for 6 life boats, and each boat carries a maximum of 10 people. Call the lifeboats Knowya's arks.
Now the ship holds 100 people on each trip.

The very act of building the ship, and placing the boats, determines some are destined to die if the ship sinks.
The builder of the ship, however, does not determine WHO dies. But the random variable freeWill -- can.

I would suggest a name for this idea "general" or "group" predestination as opposed to specific or individual predestination.
Both kinds of predestination are possible, and God may be forced to use specific predestinations in order to fulfill his promises.

There is way to much here that I strongly disagree with. Your illustration can be taken to imply that God cannot save all whom he desires. If there were 100 people and God wants to save 100 people, he would have enough life boats for an infinite number of people. But he gives them all to those whom he chose to save (IE the 60).

You are completely violating the whole argument of much of Romans 9. Specifically, Romans 9:11. As I have said, that much of the context about Esau and the later parts of Romans 9 is about the claim of Paul that God chooses. The illustration above is way off base. The value of Christs blood is infinite. I hope we both know that no one in reformed theology would ever compromise on that point. Reformed theology teaches that God choose to throw the lifeboats to some, but not that there is a limit to the value of Christs shed blood in any way.

I would say that "choice" is not the correct concept or word to use to describe the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology.

Who says I'm arminian or talking arminian?! :D I'm not a Calvinist, though.
I go against any argument I find to be false, even if it undermines my own position.
It's a learning process.

It would be an interesting discussion to find out where you disagree with the original Remonstrants. That would be another discussion. Many claim not to be Arminian, but they are not aware of what the term means historically. In calling you an Arminian, I did not intend anything insulting.

There is nothing "automatic" about this. Neither does it exclude Paul from using Malachi to demonstrate that Esau was personally hated by God in reference to salvation. Malachi was speaking of God's treatment of the Edomites. Paul saw in Malachi's statement how Esau was rejected as in individual.

That's speculation ; and here's why:

I have shown multiple times that hate sometimes means to "love in a lesser way" rather than dump "wrath" on someone.
It's a serious back post issue. I just spoke of it again with Reba, for I think the point very important.

I have an intuition that the word hate is a major debate issue....[/QUOTE]
I probably did not read all the previous posts. Of course I am not in agreement with your definition of hatred as "love in a lesser way." The word "hated" Esau refers to Gods choice to not save Esau. In the context of Romans 9, it should be seen as a soteriological hatred. This means that God could love Esau with common grace, or in other ways. In fact I would agree that God loves Esau with common grace. To just reduce the term "hated" to loves a little less misses the whole point of the Romans 9:11 and how God hated Esau. Certainly when God does not save a person, the result is damnation, judgment, wrath, etc.

I AM certain, by scriptural witness that:
Esau was blessed, but with a different blessing than Jacob. ( Hebrew 11:20 )
There is also evidence of more than one inheritance in the O.T., eg: land vs. a blessing:
So, I'm still sorting out what is and is not being discussed by Paul; we need the O.T. stories to understand him.

Yup, Esau was blessed by God in certain ways. In Hebrews 11:20 Isaac blessed Esau with certain future events. One of them was not salvation. This, however, is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I have already said God blesses all men with his love in some sort of common grace, but this does not mean I am a universalist.

Well, this is too long. I am skipping the rest.

 

[Sparkey]

Why would Paul need to show scriptural support that each and every person that does not go to heaven is hardened? Your asking for Paul to say something in every text about hardening?

Some are turned over to their own lusts. Not every one is hardened. That 'turning over' is seen by me as a withdrawal of the heavenly shield of protection so that the one who has gone against God and has continued in sin, is now faced with the 'natural' consequences of serving a Master other than God. The idea is that he/she will yet consider because God leaves a seed and does not forsake utterly. Eventually, it is hoped, this seed, left by our Merciful Father, sprouts and may be acted on. Given that choice? Maybe one day the sinner who has heard the voice of He who has called, yet is still following sin, reads John chapter 4.

All worship begins with surrender. To God goes the glory!

 

[mondar]

Why would Paul need to show scriptural support that each and every person that does not go to heaven is hardened? Your asking for Paul to say something in every text about hardening?

Some are turned over to their own lusts. Not every one is hardened.

Hello Sparrowhawke, I am not sure you caught the flow of what I was saying. The question asked of me concerned Esau and Romans 9. Do we need to show scriptural support that Esau was hardened, when right in the context, in some parallel argumentation Paul speaks of Pharaoh as being hardened. There are two texts in the scriptures I can think of off the top of my head that speak of hardening. The first is Pharaoh, and the other is in John 8 and speaks of the Jews.

You might be able to counter that there was a special hardening of the Jews and Pharaoh above everyone else. That hardening could be related to the plan of God for the Exodus and then later in the crucifixion of Christ. This however, would not demonstrate that everyone else is not hardened in at least some respect.

Also, concerning "Turned over to their own lusts...." if you followed what I was saying in the previous 3 posts, yes, I quoted Romans 1 as Gods method of hardening hearts. God "gave them over." He restrained sin in Romans 1 and then stopped restraining sin. I was suggesting that is Gods means of hardening hearts, in "giving them over." Also, if you look in Romans 9, there is a special action of God with reference to Pharaoh. In Romans 9 God "raise him up." God could have caused Pharaoh to be born a peasant slave in Bangladesh where he had no chance to defy God to the extent that he did. This would have been to restrain his sin, but God choose. God chose Pharaoh, God hardened Pharaoh's heart by allowing him the access to political power which could be used to defy God. God did not wave some magical wand and make the Pharaoh more sinful. Pharaoh was already sinful enough. God did not need to do that. God merely raise him up to power so as to give his evil nature less road blocks to follow a sinful and rebellious path.

The rhetorical question I was asking is this. Does God need to directly state this in scripture with every individual he hardens for us to claim that he hardens the hearts of the unregenerate? Romans 1 seems to imply that there is a greater extent to God "giving them over" than just Pharaoh, or even Esau.

Maybe you were agreeing with me, I do not know.

That 'turning over' is seen by me as a withdrawal of the heavenly shield of protection so that the one who has gone against God and has continued in sin, is now faced with the 'natural' consequences of serving a Master other than God. The idea is that he/she will yet consider because God leaves a seed and does not forsake utterly. Eventually, it is hoped, this seed, left by our Merciful Father, sprouts and may be acted on. Given that choice? Maybe one day the sinner who has heard the voice of He who has called, yet is still following sin, reads John chapter 4.

All worship begins with surrender. To God goes the glory!

Choice? Is that not exactly .... so exactly Pharaoh's complaint in Romans 9. Where was his choice if God chose to harden his heart. Who can resist God? That is the very argument Paul is rebutting in Romans 9. It is that same exact argument, no different that is again Paul in Romans 9.

Oh, and what about John 4?

 

[Sparkey]

Hello Sparrowhawke, I am not sure you caught the flow of what I was saying.

Maybe about as much as any audience member might be expected to. To me? It is okay to suspend judgment of a matter during the contest. I like overview and for the most part, as a Moderator, just look for those "accidental" nicks of the blade while sword is sharpened, Iron against Iron. If it is a neck wound? Close thread. If it is a minor cut, abrasion or injury? Maybe best to overlook.

Regarding the actual meat of the Teaching and the soundness of the Hermeneutic? Yes, I'm as qualified as any bible student who has taken formal classes some 30 or 40 years ago.... Strange, but I too like debate, it does help to point to possible improvement on both sides of the "battle" so-called. Too often, what happens, when we try to or are seen to try to BREAK DOWN WALLS? A snake jumps out to bite.

Me? I eat Brazilian Viper Venom extract before every breakfast. (It's true).

 

[mondar]

Hello Sparrowhawke, I am not sure you caught the flow of what I was saying.

Maybe about as much as any audience member might be expected to. To me? It is okay to suspend judgment of a matter during the contest. I like overview and for the most part, as a Moderator, just look for those "accidental" nicks of the blade while sword is sharpened, Iron against Iron. If it is a neck wound? Close thread. If it is a minor cut, abrasion or injury? Maybe best to overlook.

Regarding the actual meat of the Teaching and the soundness of the Hermeneutic? Yes, I'm as qualified as any bible student who has taken formal classes some 30 or 40 years ago.... Strange, but I too like debate, it does help to point to possible improvement on both sides of the "battle" so-called. Too often, what happens, when we try to or are seen to try to BREAK DOWN WALLS? A snake jumps out to bite.

Me? I eat Brazilian Viper Venom extract before every breakfast. (It's true).

Huh?

 

[Sparkey]

Huh?

I am neither proponent nor opponent in this discussion. Consider me Swiss, but really? I'm mostly Mutt mixed with Irish.

 

[About the Son of God]

The use in Romans 9:3 seems interestingly parallel in use to other NT passages. It seems parallel especially to the acts passage where Jews bind themselves to be liable to some divine penalty if they fail to murder Paul. It seems parallel because in Romans 9:3 Paul seems to be saying something similar. He is willing to bind himself to a divine penalty of being separated from Christ for the sake of the very Jews who bound themselves to divine penalties if they did not murder him.

Huh.... We can only compare the parallel after we determine what the sentence actually says.
But: In Romans 9:3, anathema is a noun; and to your favor I pointed out in an earlier post that "a curse" is a possible translation.
and, since that time, I have studied the grammar carefully, and I notice that there there are pronoun issues.

So discussing a contextual parallel is way premature, especially when I asked that we don't "jump" to context, if you chose to discuss the grammar with me.

Concerning grammar:
Listing out large numbers of other places where a verb is used does not mean I have to accept the verb form in Romans 9:3.
Listing out places where it is doubled and mixed, doesn't mean I must accept the verb form in Roman 9:3.

Bottom line:
Anathema is a noun, in Greek ,in Romans 9:3, Therefore, a more literal translation exists where anathema is a noun in English.
What I object strongly to, is your claiming that I accepted "cursed" as if it were the verb of Romans 9:3, when I did not do so.
and your continued avoidance of a simple acknowledgement; like "yes, I see it's a noun in Romans 9:3".

In Romans 9:3, the Greek words are:
Roman 9:3 1)ηυχομην 2)γαρ 3)αναθεμα 4)ειναι 5)αυτος 6)εγω 7)απο 8)του 9)χριστου 10)υπερ 11)των 12)αδελφων 13)μου 14)των 15)συγγενων 16)μου 17)κατα 18)σαρκα

So: Going through it word by word, are any of these words used in my translation *definitely* wrong grammatically ?
This isn't a context question, it's strictly whether the grammatical parts are valid or not; and whether the definitions are within the "semantic" range of the word.

1) used-to-pray,myself (or possibly selfishly) [but no longer] ( Imperfect tense, expected to agree with 1st person subject ).
2) for [postpositive]
3) an anathema [Noun, not verb]
4) to-be
5) he [Nominative=subject word]


6) I
7) from
8) the[g]
9) ointment/anointing/Chrism/Christ[g]
10) over
11) of-the/se[g]
12) brothers[...]
13) of-me
14) of-the
15) kinsmen
16) of-me
17) under [according-to]
18) flesh [acc].

I, from my computer, am typing these messages.
I, Andrew, from Christian sentiment as your brother, pray for our mutual peace.
Eg: This particular Andrew, from Oregon, really does bid you blessings.

 

[mondar]

Well, something is not clicking somewhere. Why is there such a difference in meaning between the noun and verbal forms in your mind? I know, I know, I should probably read back over your posts, there is probably some clue.

In greek grammar (and I know I have forgotten a lot of my grammar), the word anathema is a noun, that is true. I know understand that. However, being that it is in the nomanitive case, it serves as a predicate nominative. It is not the subject of the passage, the subject is the nominative pronoun Ego and the reflexive pronoun autos (also nominative case). The verb (eimi) is a verb of being to be followed by the rest of the predicate, specifically the word anathema. Anathema is predicate nominative and so it would need to be translated as a predicate. Since it is in the predicate, it will have some properties of a verb. So then, why the major point about it being a noun? What is that meaning to you?

Also, your approach of listing the words after numbers one at a time is not really helpful. I do not say that to be rude, but it does not demonstrate the interrelationship of the grammar. When Sentences are diagrammed, we used to use lines and put the words on lines to demonstrate the relationship of the grammar. I know your trying to do original research, but if you could refer to some grammatical book that we have in common, that would be helpful. I do have several grammar books, one which is Dana and Mante. If you have that, we can look up some of the grammar together. We can look at the predicate nominative and its implications of you wish. Maybe then I can understand your point. Nevertheless, continuing to repeat that "it is a noun" is not doing much for me. If you want to instruct me in grammar, tell me why the noun is in predicate position to be diagrammed as a part of the verb, and what the relationship is between the rest of the sentence and the meaning of the word anathema. Why can I not translate the two words "αναθεμα ειναι" as to be cursed?

 

[mondar]

So: Going through it word by word, are any of these words used in my translation *definitely* wrong grammatically ?
This isn't a context question, it's strictly whether the grammatical parts are valid or not; and whether the definitions are within the "semantic" range of the word.

1) used-to-pray,myself (or possibly selfishly) [but no longer] ( Imperfect tense, expected to agree with 1st person subject ).
2) for [postpositive]
3) an anathema [Noun, not verb] --------- (mondar addition) PREDICATE NOMINATIVE FORM TO BE USED AS A PREDICATE
4) to-be --------- (Mondar addition) VERB OF BEING THAT OFTEN HAS A PREDICATE NOMITAVE AS A PART OF THE PREDICATE
5) he [Nominative=subject word] ---------- (mondar) REFLEXIVE PRONOUN ONLY A PART OF THE SUBJECT


6) I --------- (Mondar) SUBJECT OF THE VERB EIMI
7) from -------- (MONDAR) IMPORTANT PREPOSITION SEPARATING PAUL FROM CHRIST
8) the[g]
9) ointment/anointing/Chrism/Christ[g]
10) over
11) of-the/se[g]
12) brothers[...]
13) of-me
14) of-the
15) kinsmen
16) of-me
17) under [according-to]
18) flesh [acc].

I, from my computer, am typing these messages.
I, Andrew, from Christian sentiment as your brother, pray for our mutual peace.
Eg: This particular Andrew, from Oregon, really does bid you blessings.

So: Going through it word by word, are any of these words used in my translation *definitely* wrong grammatically ?
This isn't a context question, it's strictly whether the grammatical parts are valid or not; and whether the definitions are within the "semantic" range of the word.

1) used-to-pray,myself (or possibly selfishly) [but no longer] ( Imperfect tense, expected to agree with 1st person subject ).
2) for [postpositive]
3) an anathema [Noun, not verb]
4) to-be
5) he [Nominative=subject word]


6) I
7) from
8) the[g]
9) ointment/anointing/Chrism/Christ[g]
10) over
11) of-the/se[g]
12) brothers[...]
13) of-me
14) of-the
15) kinsmen
16) of-me
17) under [according-to]
18) flesh [acc].

(mondar) Stay calm, I am not angry in the least. I did come here and targeted both you and another person for conversation. It would be better if you feel honored.... : )

 

[About the Son of God]

In greek grammar (and I know I have forgotten a lot of my grammar), the word anathema is a noun, that is true

: I'll just say Thank You, I am content. αναθεμ-α is a noun. regardless of whether it is the subject or predicate of a sentence.

Well, something is not clicking somewhere. Why is there such a difference in meaning between the noun and verbal forms in your mind?

Because nouns are persons places and things, and verbs are actions, or be-comings.
There is a large difference between being "a-judge" (A thing) and being "judged" (an action).
The anathem-a(s/i) (αναθημ-α-σι[ν]) hung up on the outer wall of the temple are war trophies, they are things.

There is also some differences between: bearing a curse, being cursed, cursing, and being a curse.
eg:
"John is a real curse, he mocks sally in the forums every day."
"God is a real Scourge, he knocks people down in their arrogance"
"Paul was cursed with a demon, to keep him humble" ( 2Corinthians 12:7 )

The existence of Anathema as objects hung up is recorded in Luke 21:5 ; right there in the N.T. Anathema is not only a thing of the old testament, it was something in existence right to the day of Jesus.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/21-5.htm

These anathema, are not, as you seemed to think, merely a figment of the LXX (eg: The Greek O.T.) which I dredged up.

I do emphasize the LXX; that's quite true, and I will continue to prefer the LXX when it comes to the O.T. quotes, -- for Hebrew texts were not always in use by Christians in the first 400 years of Christianity, and the mixed Hebrew texts we have now have suspect variations.

In Short, the Jewish people went through upheaval and enmity with Christians in those early years, to the point where modifications were either preferentially selected or were introduced into their scriptures to de-emphasize or deny any individual as being the messiah. But in scriptures being used by Christians (eg: the LXX was always in Christian churches) doesn't have those changes creeping in. eg: Notice that one of Christ's messianic prophecies is supported by the word "body" in Hebrews 10:5 which is an exact quote of Psalm 40:6 in the LXX ; But if you check the KJV version (default link) -- you will see "ear" instead. That's because the KJV uses scriptures from a time when no christian church maintained them; they are suspect scriptural variants. The LXX has no such issues of tampering by non Christians after the time of Jesus.

I do use Hebrew where names are needed to be understood -- but I generally follow Koine Greek, when tracing out Christian doctrine that doesn't depend on Hebrew names.

In any event, when I describe something as a noun -- It's not a good idea to try and make it into a verb, to disprove my point about the existence of objects called anathema and the parallel idea that Paul was a war trophy, who suffered punishment and purification (sanctification and suffering go together) but was not "cursed" in the sense of being a damned man. Such talk stops the conversation even if -- at the end of the day -- there isn't *that* much difference between the verb and noun forms of the word.
1Corinthians 12:7

Really -- if there really is so little difference, as you say, it ought to be trivial for you to make your point without changing it into a verb.

When Sentences are diagrammed, we used to use lines and put the words on lines to demonstrate the relationship of the grammar

Ahh... how wonderful it would be to have a pen to sketch with, that wouldn't eat up the sites database storage with large digital images, that I could diagram a sentence with. Yes indeed, I would love to do that -- but why do you bring it up?

I'm was not even diagramming the sentence yet, in any event. I was merely seeing if you would accept or reject the definitions I gave for each word.
I don't see any complaints where you substantively disagree with any given word; but I'm curious: are you sure you'd like to let them pass with no more comment?

As to the Grammar books, no thanks. If you need to cite something, go ahead; but I prefer what you have been doing, by cross referencing scripture for usage of eg:anathema as a word.

I don't particularly trust grammar books; Doing meaning verification via scripture concordance takes more work, but clear examples can almost always be found within scripture, and we learn more about the bible at the same time. Grammar books, after all, are nothing more than scholarly opinions which are based on doing exactly that same kind of work though on a larger corpus of Greek texts.

Here in the forums, though:
I think most people know what a simple sentence is in English, even if they forget the formal names for the sentence parts;

A simple sentence typically consists of a subject, a verb, and a predicate:
example: Judy ate fruit.
I don't think we need much of a grammar book for this kind of stuff. Most readers are intelligent enough to realize that a predicate can be replaced with another complete sentence, and this terribly uncomplicated substitution is called a "quote" in English:
Judy said "I am full"

Look at that; two simple sentences lumped into one.

It is going to get confusing, really fast, if we try to discuss the quoted sentence as "I" being the predicate-subject, and so forth; rather than just saying, that within the quote - the subject is "I", and verb is "am" and the predicate is "full". QUOTE: "I am full."

With respect to the sentence in Romans 9:3. It appears to be possible to translate it as Paul telling us a quotation of what he once (but no longer) prays.
eg: a quote, is one way to read it.

#6-#18 (compound subject), #3 verb. #2 ( a relational word written out of English sequence, called "post positive")

for I, from the Christ, over these my brothers, my kinsman according-to flesh, myself,used-to-pray, "he! [is] to-be anathema."

The word "he!" is Aut-os in Greek. It's an intensive pronoun; Generally, aut-os is not a word describing the author who wrote the sentence, but a word talking about someone else in an intensified/excited way. The ending of the word (-os) indicates that it belongs in the subject of whichever sentence it belongs in.
SInce the word happens to align both with the verb of the quote, and the subject of the sentence -- It seems to be applicable to either word.

Aut-os generically (inclusively) means: he!,himself, or she!,herself, or it!,itself.

I suppose it could mean, "myself" when used with The Greek word, Ego, but that kind of usage is extremely avant-garde and rare.
I don't recall seeing it in any Gospel, or any other N.T. book except from Paul.

Almost always, like in Romans 9:3, there is a verb that supports the middle voice (eg: a verb that implies "myself" is middle voice), so that the extra "autos" is superfluous. (Triple redundant, not just double for emphasis.)

Also:
I looked at many examples for "apo" to refresh my memory about it's precise usages.
Generally speaking, when the Greek intends us to understand separation or going "away", it generally uses the preposition "ek" (out). "Apo", does not emphasize separation whenever used by itself; although it can be used with a verb that DOES explicitly mean separation.

So, I still hesitate to think that Paul is saying that he would be willing to be cut off from Christ for the sake of his brothers.
Could you explain why you think Paul uses the imperfect tense?
That tense is rare enough that he had to want to emphasize that he NO longer would dare to pray or even wish this.

 

[About the Son of God]

There is way to much here that I strongly disagree with. Your illustration can be taken to imply that God cannot save all whom he desires..

Not only will I imply it, I'll say it:
God can no longer save everyone whom he desires to save for he gave at least some of us free will.
(I'm just stating my position. Not proving it.)


As a person defending the reformed position, and claiming that individuals can freely choose how they are damned, the rest of your argument in that post is surprising to me. ( Your attack on Timothy isn't a surprise, but the reply in general is thought provoking. )

Am I incorrect in understanding that from the position you defend, that individuals can choose how they are damned?
If so, what does it matter to you whether or not God wishes to save all of the people in the boat or not?
( Let's not confuse the issue of God's compliance with his "desire", with the issue of whether or not God CAN statistically predestine. )

The purpose of my illustration was to show that God CAN predestine people without determining WHO (exactly) will be saved.
It's also possible that he determine a specific few shall be saved; but that's not included in my example -- for the side effects of such a proposition are hard to discuss....

hmmmmm.....
So: I'm not sure why you read into my remarks more than I put in them. It's not like I just gave you the salvation plan of the whole universe, but an illustration of a single path of death possible in a person's life among many choices and accidents.

First off: The remark I gave was hypothetical -- eg: "if" the boat sank. I didn't make a definite remark -- the boat will sink.
For example, Noah built an ark -- right? He did not build it large enough to hold all of humanity, according to the dimensions in the bible.
A cubit is roughly the distance from the elbow to the index finger; so about 1.5 feet, or roughly 1/2meter.
I'm guessing the Ark was on the order of size of a football stadium; which couldn't possibly hold all of humanity. (Statistic).
But, the boat didn't sink in that example -- and, that's true even though God didn't take your counsel and attach "Infinite" lifeboats to it.

So, let me call your attention to the reason I constructed the argument that way: eg: contingent (based on an "if");
I made that Choice, to show how conditionals affect arguments.
Romans 9:22 is an analogous problem. "What IF God"...

Paul doesn't give us sufficient leverage to claim that his one "IF" proposal is the whole truth of what God's plan is or was. Paul is speculating, and he lets us know.

I don't think Paul dumb enough to have supposed that God's entire plan can fit in his head , just because he got to go to the "third" heaven and "see" things. Paul's not like an atheist is; thinking that something which is so great as the universe is a toy that one can reason out all essential possibilities in a trifling three or four minutes in their ultra superior brain.

It's ridiculous, when man hasn't even fully conquered physics, that man could really grasp anything as elusive and complex as knowledge of all God's purposes, and more importantly constraints; It ridiculous to go so far as to claim that God can be calculated -- or even so perfect a calculation as to call him a hypocrite if he doesn't solve the problem in the way the person doing the "wise" calculation is sure God must.

I think you and I are both under the same sentence: there are some things that man just doesn't know.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

If there were 100 people and God wants to save 100 people, he would have enough life boats for an infinite number of people. But he gives them all to those whom he chose to save (IE the 60).

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

I'm just going to say, that God desired to save all men is explicitly stated in scripture; whatever "All" means -- and therefore, there is a reason that I don't fully know as to why each and every single man is not saved; but that doesn't give me the right to say God must have been able to do so, and therefore he damns people to hell for no reason.

For I already know from other examples that although God can do everything that Can be done -- But that, as I said earlier in the thread, some things can't be done.

God can not BE all good, and yet DO all evil; God who is the truth can not lie;
Nor Can God make a rock so big, that he himself can not lift it.

I think that kind of talk is atheist talk; oversimplification and ignorance masquerading as knowledge.
None of these things are in a defined list called "powers"; such that omnipotence must include them.
Omnipotence is about all things which CAN be done; and what predestination comes down to, often times, is opinions of what can be done -- when we don't even know what God must do, and what constraints he himself is bound by; (eg: We perhaps know one, that he swore an oath to Abraham, but that's not a reason to get cocky and say we know them all, or that none bind him by his own hand.)

But even in your response to me; I think you've argued implicitly that God is to blame for not saving everyone? Even though I'm the one who invented the case, gave a hint about "knowa's arc" and then purposely withheld any information with which to judge the scenario's individuals?

I'm sorry if I entrapped you by the question; but I think there were people who decided freely to get on the boat or not.

The crux of my illustration is that I said, that the boat could "ONLY" hold 6 lifeboats, and "IF" it sank....
The lifeboat count is a fixed/immutable condition placed by the God on his creation the moment he decided to make THAT particular boat, and not another. We don't know WHY God did so -- and we don't have enough information to guarantee we can compute or guess why.

Bottom line: "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"
The arguement is true whether free-will or predestination theology based.

So again:
Doesn't reformed theology generally accept that the criterion for salvation is internal to God alone? If so, why are you quibbling over whether God's criteria is statistical or deterministic? (Analogous to Quantum mechanical vs. Newtonian) ?