God's Election

[Drew]

I trust you realize that you will be in very thin company of you believe that a specific "race" of people have all been condemned to hell. This seems to be what you are saying.

ofthetruth, Welcome to the "thin company."

Hello mondar: Are you saying that every single genetic descendent of Esau is pre-destined to eternal loss?

mondar, can you please answer my question - It appears that you have embraced a position where all members of a specific race of people have been pre-destined to hell.

 

[Heidi]

[quote:1vo0506i]ofthetruth, Welcome to the "thin company."

Hello mondar: Are you saying that every single genetic descendent of Esau is pre-destined to eternal loss?[/quote:1vo0506i]
mondar, can you please answer my question - It appears that you have embraced a position where all members of a specific race of people have been pre-destined to hell.[/quote]
[/quote][/quote]


Wrong. He has not professed that. Again, you need to read the verses around Romans 9:11 and in this case, verses 6-9 to see who the real Israel are. They not the natural descendants of Israel as those verses explain. They are the children of the promise. Then put hem together with Galatians 3:29, "If you are born of Christ then you are Abraham's seed."

That means that the real Israel are God's elect, chosen before the creation of the world whether Jews or Gentile. Mondar has explained time and again that it's individuals within each group of people who are saved, not whole nations. That means gentiles of every nation as Pentecost shows.

If you don't understand these verses, Drew, then you can't understand the rest of the bible and God's plans for humanity.

So again, you cannot take verses out of context with the rest of the bible. The bible is one long sentence and if you don't use all of it, then you are misquoting God.

 

[Drew]

Wrong. He has not professed that.

My question directed at mondar, and I am hoping that he will answer it.

Again, you need to read the verses around Romans 9:11 and in this case, verses 6-9 to see who the real Israel are. They not the natural descendants of Israel as those verses explain. They are the children of the promise. Then put hem together with Galatians 3:29, "If you are born of Christ then you are Abraham's seed."

I totally agree with this and have not posted anything that would suggest otherwise.

If you don't understand these verses, Drew, then you can't understand the rest of the bible and God's plans for humanity. So again, you cannot take verses out of context with the rest of the bible. The bible is one long sentence and if you don't use all of it, then you are misquoting God.

I realize that the likes of you and mondar tend to argue by avoiding detailed cogent arguments, and instead making unjustified accusations against the motivations and general competence of your opponents.

That's a shame, really. It is too bad that you do not take high road.

 

[Heidi]

I realize that the likes of you and mondar tend to argue by avoiding detailed cogent arguments, and instead making unjustified accusations against the motivations and general competence of your opponents.

That's another false statement. Mondar has exercised great patience with you and given you extremely scripturally detailed explanations. Yet you haven't shown that you even understand who the children of the promise are or even what the word "promise" means in the context of these passages or you wouldn't have even insinuated that Mondar was saying that God was racist. So I have no desire to listen to your gross twisting of the bible, false statements and contradictory posts on this topic any more. Attacking people can't change one word in the bible. So God's purpose in elections stands. Good day.

 

[Drew]

ON ROMANS 9
3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
It is interesting how Paul begins the Chapter with both a statement of individual salvation, and that of the national blessing of Israel. The personal consequences of Paul being "anathema from Christ" would not mean his descendants would have to serve Jacob. It would mean Paul would go to hell. Paul begins the whole discussion on a note of personal salvation.

Paul does indeed express a wish to be "damned", but that is hardly a strong basis for assuming that the rest of the chapter provides a statement of a doctrine of pre-destination of individuals. Paul is doing what Moses did here in Exodus as he pleads for his people - the nation of Israel:

Then Moses returned to the LORD, and said, "Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of gold for themselves. 32"But now, if You will, forgive their sin--and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!"

The argument of Romans 9 is an argument about Israel and God's treatment of her. Paul echoes the grief of Moses at the state of Israel. So even though Paul expresses a wish to be personally damned if that could save his people, his overall argument is about the state of his fellow Jew.

It would be very odd indeed for an argument about God and Israel to be interrupted with an abstract theological statement of God's election of individuals, with no specificity to Israel. I am assuming, of course, that you see the potter metaphor as having no particular specificity to the nation of Israel - that is, for example, you see the vessels of destruction as being the pre-destined lost, whether Jew or Gentile.

 

[Adullam]

Romans 8:29 (King James Version)

29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Pre-destination is to be conformed to the image of Christ. So if you have overcome sin through the power of the new divine nature and walk as Jesus walked on this earth in supernatural holiness....know this! You were pre-destined to do that from before the foundation of this earth! :yes

 

[Drew]

ON ROMANS 9
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,

He also speaks of the "riches of his glory" that have been "afore prepared unto glory." So if God is opening up the riches of his glory, the best God can do is give Jacob a few servants? A few servants is the "riches of his glory?" I doubt we have such a small God. The riches of his glory might include salvation, but far exceed personal salvation. It includes learning more of our beloved God through all eternity.

It is interesting that you bring up this text, because I believe that taking it seriously actually strengthens the position for which I am advocating and exposes a serious flaw in the position that I understand you as taking.

Let me be clear: I understand that you see the vessels of destruction as a reference to all Jews and Gentiles who have been pre-destined to ultimate loss. If this is not your position in respect to the vessels of destruction, then please advise accordingly.

For my part, I see the vessels of destruction as a reference to “corporate unbelieving Israel†– no Gentiles are “vessels of destructionâ€Â. And more specifically, I suggest that Paul is arguing that God has hardened most Jews to unbelief precisely in order that salvation can be brought to the Gentiles – a cause and effect relationship. I understand you as believing that the pre-destination of the lost to hell is in no way causally connected to rest of humanity being pre-destined to salvation – the pre-destination of some to hell does not “bring about†the pre-destination of others to heaven.
Here is some more of the relevant text:

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory

Two observations here support my position and work against the position I understand you as taking. The first is that the potter metaphor is used repeatedly in the Old Testament in relation to God’s treatment of Israel. My interpretation is true to this precedent, yours ignores it. I assert that, just as Isaiah and Jeremiah prophecy, the pot that is “re-worked†by God is Israel and that Paul is making an argument about how national Israel is a vessel of destruction that is being “broken and re-workedâ€Â. Now, if I understand your position, you see the vessels of destruction as having no Israel specificity whatsoever – that there are Gentiles who are also vessels of destruction. Yet the potter metaphor is never used in the Old Testament in any kind of individualistic way. Please correct me if I misrepresent your position.

The second observation has to do with the matter of “causal connection†between the vessels of destruction and the vessels of mercy. If the vessels of destruction are simply the pre-destined lost, and the vessels of glory the pre-destined saved, then in precisely what sense does the pre-destining of the lost benefit the pre-destined saved?, as in this:

to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy

My explanation can make sense of the connection – the hardening of Israel is part of God’s unfolding plan in history to redeem the whole world, so when the Jew is hardened, the world “is shown†mercy. But how does your view make sense of this connection? Exactly how does pre-destining some to loss “show mercy†to those who are pre-destined to life?

Not only that, my position is further strengthened, in the same way, through the argument about Pharaoh that immediately precedes the giving of the potter metaphor. In the following text, we see that Pharoah is hardened with a very specific purpose in mind – an historical purpose in the real world – the glorifying of God through the exodus:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "(AI)FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires

Paul sees God as hardening Pharoah (clearly this leads into the potter metaphor). Is God hardening Pharoah to send him to hell? Obviously not, He is hardening him to resist the exodus and thereby allow God’s redemptive power to be made manifest to the world through the events of the exodus.

This template works perfectly with the view I am advancing – the Jews are hardened in order that God can, at the cross, in the context of an unfolding plan just as with Pharoagh, can bring the Gentiles into the family of God. It is hard to see how hardening person A to eternal loss in any sense is causally connected to the election of person B to eternal life. And it is likewise hard to see how this part of a historically unfolding plan if this all determined at the very beginning. Romans 9 is an historical argument, not an abtstract theological one.

 

[Drew]

N T Wright can make Romans to be a book completely contradictory to Ephesians, and then just dismiss Ephesians as non-Pauline.

This is yet another example of either error on your part or intentional misrepresentation.

The reader will get the impression that NT Wright believes that Paul did not write Ephesians. Well NT Wright does not hold such a view. From his own pen:

Paul does much the same in Ephesians 1, turning older Jewish prayer formulae to new use with a focus on Jesus, meditating on and exulting in God’s work in Christ....

 

[Drew]

I could easily use your method and point to a number of vocabulary words that are repeated in 8 and 9. The term election would be first. See 8:33 and 9:11. Other parallel words are used. Gods purpose 8:28 & 9:11. However, I know better. Simple word or phrase associations do not establish context.

Your persistent distortion and misrepresentation of what I have actually posted makes a lot of work for me. Since I do not do this, your workload is lessened accordingly - you have no need to correct my representation of what you have posted.

I can only hope that the readers have read my actual material - I have done nothing remotely like what mondar is saying here. The connection between Romans 3 and Romans 9, very briefly, has to do with an Israel focus in both cases and the same set of questions about God and Israel being posed in both chapters with Romans 9 giving the full-dress treatment of those questions.

 

[follower of Christ]

DOES man have the CHOICE to REJECT God ?
Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article
Simply to show that scripture does support the idea that man does have free will to reject God both before and after having come under this covenant.

Supporting Evidence

See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape, having refused Him who warned them, how much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who warns from heaven; whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also the heaven."
(Heb 12:25-26)

how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by those who heard Him;
(Heb 2:3 MKJV)

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2 Peter 2:21

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
(Heb 10:26-39 KJV)

The statement "we are not of them who draw back unto perdition" is entirely absurd *IF* 'them' had not actually 'draw back' to perdition.
And the writers EXHORTATION TO these believing Hebrews is VOID of ANY and ALL meaning in REFERRING to these who had 'DRAWN BACK' in his warning to these believers *IF* they could not do the very same thing.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame . For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
(Heb 6:4-9 KJV)

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
(Heb 3:1-19 KJV)

 

[follower of Christ]

Mans limited free will
Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that it is impossible that God forcibly 'controls' the actions of all men and women.

Supporting Evidence.
Here we see Jesus telling Peter that he would deny Him three times before the next morning came.

Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
(Mat 26:34 KJV)

G720
á¼€ÃÂνέομαι
arneomai
ar-neh'-om-ahee
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the middle of G4483; to contradict, that is, disavow, reject, abnegate: - deny, refuse.

Now, some false doctrines teach that God 'controls' mans actions and that man has no free will of himself.
One internet source I recent came across said this

Forum poster: "And here is an example of God's will:
34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

So in this persons mind GOD is the source of Peters denying Christ. Rather than simply understanding that God foreknew it would happen, this person and their doctrine basically say that Peter did it for lack of choice in the matter. Meaning that GOD had to be the one causing Peter to deny Christ, ie God 'denied' Himself THROUGH the man Peter.
Im certain few will agree to the obvious conclusion, that their doctrinal view states that, but the conclusion is clear enough.

But we see that scripture says that He CANNOT deny Himself.

If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
(2Ti 2:12-13 KJV)


G533
ἀÀαÃÂνέομαι
aparneomai
ap-ar-neh'-om-ahee
From G575 and G720; to deny utterly, that is, disown, abstain: - deny.

Notice that 'deny' in the second verse is from G720, the word used in the first verse cited, so these words are very much related in intent. They arent two entirely different concepts.

Christ is faithful. GOD is faithful. He CANNOT deny Himself....yet *IF* these false doctrines were true then we have a situation where GOD is directly 'denying' Himself THROUGH Peter *IF* GOD is controlling Peter in any way. This simply cannot be the case given that God CANNOT deny Himself.

God CANNOT go against His own nature and He cannot lie.

in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time itself,
(Tit 1:2 EMTV)

So it is against His nature to deny Himself, therefore He was not causing Peter to deny Him. He simply foreknew that it would occur.

 

[follower of Christ]

"Thy people shall be willing"
Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To further show the free will of man

Supporting Evidence
The 'free will' offering was mentioned a time or two in scripture, so I got to looking to see if this word was presented in any context other than an offering

H5071
נדב×â€
nedâbâh
BDB Definition:
1) voluntariness, free-will offering
1a) voluntariness
1b) freewill, voluntary, offering
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H5068
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1299a

Oddly there are verses that contain it that show it relating to God....and some also to MAN outside of offerings..

Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
(Psalms 110:3 KJV)

"People shall be WILLING".
Same root word "nedâbâh" that is used for free will offerings in many other verses.
Apparently even OUTSIDE of offerings the word IS USED concerning man.
And what is interesting in the passage above is how the word is used and what the verse says.

A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
(Psalms 110:1-3 KJV)

Just as PAUL shows in Romans 6, we willingly SUBMIT ourselves....
His people WILLINGLY subject themselves to His rule. They dont have to be forced as some falsely preach here.

The word is also used here in reference to GOD whom we KNOW has free will....

I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.
(Hosea 14:4 KJV)

In the SAME manner that GOD FREELY loves them MAN can FREELY be willing to subject himself to Gods rule...

 

[Drew]

Paul is really clear in Romans 11 – the hardening of most Jews has had salvific effect for the Gentiles. Now there are those who will acknowledge this and yet also claim that the potter metaphor of Romans 9 expresses a theology of individual election, with no Israel-specificity whatsoever. The argument appears to be of this form:

1. God has indeed hardened most Jews in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles;

2. God has used the specific mechanism to “personal election to hell†as the mechanism to harden these Jews.

This argument might make sense if its proponents claimed that only Jews were elected as individuals to ultimate loss. Even if we do not understand the specific reason why this pre-destination of most Jews to loss is related to the salvation of Gentiles, we could at least reason that God, at the beginning of time chose to do something to Jews (elect most of them to loss) to make it possible to elect some Gentiles to salvation. Please note: I am not disputing the possibility of this – perhaps there is indeed some mysterious reason why God would have to pre-destine certain Jews to loss so that He could then pre-destine some Gentiles to life.

But the reality is that the person who makes such an argument almost certainly believes that God has elected some Gentiles to loss as well, and that person almost certainly believes that God has not been biased in his pre-destination behaviour – He has elected an “equal fraction†of both Jews and Gentiles to loss. The problem is that there is no real explanation here. Unless God has elected a greater proportion of Jews to loss than Gentiles, we cannot make any sense of a claim that the election of Jews to loss has benefited the Gentile in respect to salvation.

This may be difficult to see so please consider this analogy. Suppose that there is a class of 100 graduating high school students – 50 boys and 50 girls. There are only 50 places in university available. Suppose that all the students have the same grades and that some teacher is given the task of “electing†which students get to go to university. Suppose also that the present university population was 80 % girls and only 20 % boys. The teacher might reason as follows: “I should preferentially ‘elect’ boys to try to correct this disparityâ€Â. So the teacher picks 40 boys and only 10 girls.

What can we say? Well, we can indeed say that the teacher’s “election†of so many girls to “loss†has benefited the boys – by allowing 40 of the 50 of them to get places in the university. But, and this is the key point, if the teacher had elected 25 girls and 25 boys, it would be entirely nonsensical to assert that the “election†of the 25 girls has benefited the boys.

This, I suggest, is the logical problem with maintaining that God has elected Jews to loss to benefit Gentiles and yet believing that God has elected all umans to an eternal fate, and has done so in an entirely “racially impartial†manner. Such a view has no explanatory traction whatsoever.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

There are those who are ordained to destruction. they are spoken of broadly and also of a specific group of them which are the sons of perdition. Just as judas was. here is some scripture on them

Jud 1:3 ¶ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.


Jud 1:5 ¶ I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.


Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.


Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


Jud 1:8 Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.


Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.


Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.


Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.


Jud 1:12 ¶ These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds [they are] without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;


Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.


Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,


Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.


Jud 1:16 ¶ These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.


Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;


Jud 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.


Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

 

[Drew]

There are those who are ordained to destruction. they are spoken of broadly and also of a specific group of them which are the sons of perdition. Just as judas was. here is some scripture on them

While I do not agree with you, my recent arguments have been specifically focused on Romans 9, nothing more. It could be the case - I do not believe that it is, but it could be - that God does indeed elect some to heaven and some to hell - and yet that Romans 9 does not address that matter.

My main argument is that, in Romans 9, Paul is not setting forth a doctrine about the election of individuals to heaven and to hell.

 

[mondar]

Lets work with the text.

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
This is the topic sentence of the passage. There are two group here. The word Israel is used in the very same verse of two people.

"For they are not all Israel"
The "they" in this phrase speaks of the elect. The elect here is not all national genetic Israel. So then, there is an obvious immediate problem with the view that speak of elect nations. All of national genetic Israel is not an elect nation in this verse. If the promises of God in verses 4-5 were to a nation, then the word of God "hath come to nought." If the promises were to all the nation, then God failed in his promises.

that are of Israel
Within the nation are individual Israelites. It is they that are the ones chosen by God, and elect. While God has elect from every nation, tongue, and tribe, he also has elect among the nation of Israel. It is to these individual elect Israelites that the promises of God in verses 4-5 were given.

So then, the first thing that points to individual election is the fact that verse 6, the topic sentence, is speaking of elect individuals within a nation, and not a "national election."

Lets look at the illustrations of verse 6.

7 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Verse 7 states that Abrahams seed is not the elect seed. There were many children of Abraham. Ishmael and all the sons of Keturah in Gensis 25 were children of Abraham. They were not elect.
*** God choice of individuals does have national implications. This is not to be reversed to mean that God is electing nations. In Chapter 9 there are no nations as a group that are elected. That is the whole point of Chapter 9. Israel is an elect nation only in the sense that many individual Israelites are elected. The illustration above is that not all of the genetic group of Abraham were elect, but only the individual named Isaac.

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,
Notice in this text God the choice is not about nations, but individuals. The two children are Jacob and Esau. Now one might ask if all the progeny of Jacob as a nation are elect. That question would take us full circle back to 9:6. Not even all of Jacobs descendants as a people are elect. Verse 6 tells us that "they are not all Israel, that are of Israel" Or if you will, "they are not all Israel that are from Jacobs descendants."

Also in verse 11 notice the works. The individuals elected were chosen before they did any works whatsoever. Now if the primary issue of the passage were about national election the text would read "before the nations did anything right or wrong God chose genetic Israel."

----------------------Now, after saying all this, I do not doubt that there are promises to nations in the scriptures. I believe Israel has a great promise in that at some point God will bring about the salvation of each and every individual Israelite. All genetic Israel will be saved. I could go into the biblical defense of this position. For those who are reformed, I recognize that I have a minority position among the reformed. Among the reformed who took a similar position I can quote James Boice. It includes Hodge from Westminster who wrote the NICNT commentary on Romans. This however, is not the point I am making.

----------------------One more issue, I do not doubt that the election of certain individuals carried great implications for their future generations of children to come. The later choice of the attributes of later nations was based upon the behavior of the individual that was the Father. Each Tribe of Jacob was to have traits based upon the actions of the Tribal Father in Genesis 50. Similar things happened with the descendants of Jacob and Esau.

My objections to what Drew is saying does not relate to the fact that he affirms national implications in Romans 9. That is fine. My objection is that he denies that there is any reference to individual election in Romans 9. In fact there is no entire nation in Romans 9 being refered to, but only individuals within Israel, and then later in Romans 9:24 this means that individual Gentiles are being referred to, and not national Israel and Gentile nations as a whole.

This is also why Drew isogetically associates certain chapters in a cycle. It is not based upon what the Chapter actually says, but upon certain catch words and phrases which have a covenant background. I do not doubt that certain vocabulary words have covenant background, but that is not the issue of the chapters of Romans.

Take for instance Romans 5:12ff. Romans 5 is not about the fall of Adam. Certainly the events of Adam are part of the "background" of Romans 5. Romans 5 is about the 2 humanities of "all in Adam, all in Christ." This is also why Romans 4 is not about individual imputation to Drew. He will take words like "Abraham" and associate the entire chapter to be about some issues in the life of Abraham and covenant community. He will see nothing with regard to imputed righteousness to individuals. Just read Romans 4. Abraham is not the issue of the Chapter, but Abraham is merely used as an illustration of imputed righteousness.

Drew, maybe you and I should have a 1 on 1 debate thread instead of turning every thread into a Drew vs Mondar issue.

 

[Drew]

Lets work with the text.

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
This is the topic sentence of the passage. There are two group here. The word Israel is used in the very same verse of two people.

I entirely agree.

"For they are not all Israel"
The "they" in this phrase speaks of the elect.

If by "elect" here you mean that the "they" are a set of individuals who have been pre-destined to salvation, then you need to justify such an assertion, you cannot simply assume it. I will give you the credit of assuming that you are putting forward a working hypothesis that your argument will later support.

"The elect here is not all national genetic Israel. So then, there is an obvious immediate problem with the view that speak of elect nations. All of national genetic Israel is not an elect nation in this verse. If the promises of God in verses 4-5 were to a nation, then the word of God "hath come to nought." If the promises were to all the nation, then God failed in his promises.

Just to be clear, I have never been arguing that Paul is mounting an argument about specific corporate bodies composed of specific individuals that have been elected to an eternal destiny at the foundation of time.

The fact that Paul identifies two Israels – one, at least for the moment in the evolving argument a subset of the other - does not mean that the overall argument is not about groups or “nationsâ€Â. Paul is beginning an argument about the composition of the “true†Israel. The first step in Paul’s argument is that not all genetic descendents of Abraham and then Isaac are members of the “true†Israel. Then, in verse 8, he makes it clear that some Gentiles are also members of this “true†Israel. He does this through the “children of promise†reference (alludes to Romans 4 where the children of promise is a group containing both Jews and Gentiles) and through the “children of God’ reference (alludes to Romans 8:14) where it is clear that both Jew and Gentile are in view.

So it is still very much an argument at the corporate level – there is a “true†Israel whose membership consists of both a subset of “genetic†descendents of Abraham and Gentiles. If I recall from another discussion, you think that all the way through verse 14 or so, Paul is still only talking about “elect†Jews within Israel. As per the above, this position cannot survive the “children of promise†and “children of God†allusions of verse 8. These allusions make it clear that Paul is thinking of a “Jew + Gentile†family here, not just a subset of national Israel.

But I do agree that Paul is saying that God never made promises to all of Abraham’s genetic descendents. On this point we agree, I think.

So to this point, there is no evidence against my hypothesis that Paul is mounting an argument at the level of nations and the choices God makes in respect to them. And thus far, there is nothing that requires us to understand that God has elected any individuals to an eternal fate.

By the way, I would efer to keep this discussion “public†so that many can benefit. My sense is that the “one on one†sections are not visited by people other than the two protagonists.

 

[Drew]

that are of Israel
Within the nation are individual Israelites. It is they that are the ones chosen by God, and elect. While God has elect from every nation, tongue, and tribe, he also has elect among the nation of Israel. It is to these individual elect Israelites that the promises of God in verses 4-5 were given.

So then, the first thing that points to individual election is the fact that verse 6, the topic sentence, is speaking of elect individuals within a nation, and not a "national election."

Nothing that Paul has said here justifies seeing a subset of national as Israel as personally elect to an eternal destiny from the beginning of time. All that we can legitimately draw from Paul’s text in respect to national Israel is that a subset of them are a member of the “true Israel†category, not that this means that these people have been individually and unilaterally elected to such membership from the beginning of time.

 

[Drew]

Lets look at the illustrations of verse 6.

7 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Verse 7 states that Abrahams seed is not the elect seed. There were many children of Abraham. Ishmael and all the sons of Keturah in Gensis 25 were children of Abraham. They were not elect.

Your assertion about verse 7 – Abraham’s genetic seed is not the elect seed – clearly pre-supposes that there is a seed “elect†in the specific sense that I think you intend – a set of specific individuals elect unto salvation from the beginning of time. This an hypothesis, not a legitimate conclusion, that will need to be actually justified at some point. Here is just one of many possible other ways to interpret what is being said about Abraham’s "true" seed: “Abraham’s true seed are precisely those who freely place faith in the one true God. There is nothing in the argument so far that rules this out.

 

[Drew]

In Chapter 9 there are no nations as a group that are elected.

There are several examples of God “electing†groups of people in Romans 9. Remember, you cannot assume that all references to “election†or “choice†in Romans 9 are references to election unto an eternal destiny – that would clearly beg the question. Also, perhaps there is some confusion when I make statements like “God elects at the leve of nationsâ€Â. As per what I have just said, when I say this, I am talking about the general class of choices that God could make about a “nation†– not just choices about heaven and hell. Second, the term “nation†may be misleading. My point is that Romans 9 is about election at the corporate level – the level of groups, not individuals.

The example of Jacob and Esau is clearly one of “election†in respect to corporate entities, and only very secondarily in relation to the specific individuals. How do I know this? I take Paul’s allusion to the Old Testament seriously:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel. How do we know this? Paul tells us. He says that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis:

The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger

And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.

So Romans 9 does deal with the election of groups (corporate entities).