God's Election

[mondar]

A follow-on to my previous post. I suspect that someone could try to argue that the Old Testament allusion to "one serving the other" constitutes a sudden transition from the rather obvious "nation-level" treatment of the preceding lines to the specificity of Esau and Jacob as individuals. I had not really dealt with that possibilty but intend to.

I dont see such an effort as being pertinent to our present discussion. Abraham was chosen, there were national promises included in his individual election. God said to him that he would make of him a great nation. However, since that material is not quoted by Paul either, I dont see how it is pertinent to Pauls discussion. All you have to do to see that Paul is talking about individual election more then its national impications (but not to the exclusion of national impications) is to look at what Paul chose to quote, and what he did not quote.

 

[bleitzel]

The text you quote is not from Romans. It is from a different context. This raises the question, if Paul were speaking about the Covenant and Creation Community as you and NT Wright suggest, why then did Paul not quote the same identical passage you did in Romans 9?

Now it is true that the passage is in the same context in Genesis, but why does Paul not quote that passage instead of quoting the parts of the Genesis context that concerns individuals?

I have long agreed that there is narrative background to some of the quotes in Romans. Where we disagree is when you take the narrative background and make it the subject concerning which Paul was writing about. Paul is using covenant passages to establish a point that election is not based upon works. Paul is not writing about the narrative background, but is using the narrative background to establish points he is making about election.

The text does not quote the material you use, but rather it quotes material about individuals.
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,
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Not only this, but the passages selected to be quoted by Paul do not contain the national implications that followed. Why is that material missing? Can you answer why Paul chose not to include the material in Genesis that affected the nations?

I would like to answer that question. Paul’s epistle to the Romans is certainly talking about people-groups from the very beginning. All throughout Romans, and Galatians, and Ephesians Paul is teaching this new revelation, this major new teaching that all along, God has NOT left one group of people out of the promises of salvation. That God actually had planned all along to include the Gentiles along with the Jews. The Jews saw themselves as directly chosen by God, and now it was seen that through Christ, God has chosen the Gentiles as well. (In truth, all people are actually chosen through Christ but at this point the Jews already knew that they were chosen people of God so Paul didn’t usually have to convince them of that.)

In Romans 9 Paul is addressing some of the objections the Jews naturally have to this new revelation, based on their erroneous understanding of scripture up to this point. When Paul uses the Esau/Jacob analogy in chapter 9 he specifically calls out the passages that make 3 points. A.) God set the plan, not man. B.) the elder will serve the younger, and C.) God loved Jacob but rejected Esau.

I can understand how you might wonder why Paul would select three passages that seem to highlight the parts of the Esau/Jacob story that involve individuality, not nationality, but I do not believe Paul selected them for that reason at all. Rather, he was using those three passages to make three points, which may not be super-obvious to 21st century readers but would be shocking to 1st century ones.

Now remember, Paul has just gotten done rocking their Jewish world by telling them that the dirty, despicable, hate Gentiles are going to share in THEIR beloved inheritance from God. And Paul is answering the objection of “Does that mean that God didn’t really love us (Jews) as special?†So in verse 11 when Paul says that God has His own purposes in how He chooses people, Paul is saying A.) that God can certainly decide to choose to honor any people group that He so wishes, in this case the Gentiles are being elevated to a status like to the Jews, and the Jews can’t say anything about it back to God about it being unfair because this very same God did the exact same thing for their father Jacob as they know full well from the Esau/Jacob story. And when Paul says that it was before the children were yet born he is also reminding the Jews that they are not truly special because of anything inside of them because God picked Jacob BEFORE he had done anything, so the Jews can’t argue back to God ‘Why has He turned to them? What’s so special about them?’ Paul is showing that it is not by performing the works as required by the law that attains righteousness for the Jews, the law that the Gentiles did not have.

When in verse 12 Paul reminds his listeners that the scripture says “the elder will serve the younger†he is actually being very inflammatory. And the reason why this is so is because here Paul is reversing the roles of Jacob and Esau as his Jewish listeners would have expected them to be. Here, Paul is likening the Jews to Esau! Not Jacob! Here Paul is saying that the Jews, who were apparently (to the Jews) chosen by God first, were the elder sons and the Gentiles who seem to have been chosen second are the younger sons. And if the Jews were feeling upset about God now revealing that His plan all along was to include the Gentiles into His family through the reconciliation that came on the cross through Christ, then Paul is saying they should go back and reread the scriptures because the older (Jews in this case) will serve the younger (Gentiles)!

In verse 13 Paul goes to Malachi to remind his audience that God loved Jacob but rejected Esau. (The wording in Malachi can be rendered loved/hated but it can also be rendered loved/rejected and has the connotation of rejection either way.) The reason why God rejected Esau is because Esau, through his actions, despised his birthright just as the Jews seemingly despised their inheritance by forgetting that it was a gift from God and acting as if it were by works. Paul is using this passage in a very strong way. He is basically telling his Jewish audience that because of their actions, their disobedience, their forgetfulness of the power of God, they have put themselves in danger of being just like Esau, cut out from the inheritance of God.

So in these three passages, Paul isn’t using the OT scriptures to point out individual election. Rather, he is only using them to show the Jews of his day how they were being treated, fairly, by God just as Esau was treated in the OT. And he did this to stir up some pretty strong emotions in them, emotions of jealousy, perhaps rage, and understanding that might lead them to repentance. And Paul didn’t have to insert the national implications of the OT texts partly because he had been talking about the national implications all along and was not at all talking about individual election and partly because he was only using these texts to point out an irony between the current situation and the OT story of Esau/Jacob.

 

[mondar]

I would like to answer that question. Paul’s epistle to the Romans is certainly talking about people-groups from the very beginning.

Documentation and evidence please.

All throughout Romans, and Galatians, and Ephesians Paul is teaching this new revelation, this major new teaching that all along,

If the teaching is "new" then why does he so frequently quote the OT.

God has NOT left one group of people out of the promises of salvation. That God actually had planned all along to include the Gentiles along with the Jews. The Jews saw themselves as directly chosen by God, and now it was seen that through Christ, God has chosen the Gentiles as well. (In truth, all people are actually chosen through Christ but at this point the Jews already knew that they were chosen people of God so Paul didn’t usually have to convince them of that.)

God has saved individuals out of all nations, tribes, and tongues. The whole point of Romans 9 is that he does not saving the entire genetic nation of Israel but he is saving a remnant. Gentiles are included in this concept only in the later verse of 9:24.
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

Until this point, he is talking only about Israel. In verse 24 he makes it clear that the same concept of individual election within the nation of Israel applies to Gentiles. The text above is the first time in Romans 9 that Paul mentions gentiles.

.... snip........ So in verse 11 when Paul says that God has His own purposes in how He chooses people, Paul is saying A.) that God can certainly decide to choose to honor any people group that He so wishes,

Here in the first part of the sentence you admit what Paul said... that God elects or chooses individuals. Then you completely ignore what Paul said he suggest this means that "God can certainly decide to choose to honor any people group." The two different thoughts are like apples and oranges.

Now there is national implications in the passage. This can be seen from verses you are not working on. The national issues surface in verses 4 to 6. Verse 6 is the issue of the whole first part of the chapter. Paul is demonstrating why the promises given to Israel in verses 4-5 are not void. In verses 6 he says of the promises "6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought.

Then he explains why the OT covenants and promises of Israel are not void. His explanation is at the end of verse 6. He explains that it is not the entire nation of Israel that is elect, but individual Jews that God elected to receive the promises. Then in verse 24 he says this same principle of individual election applies also to gentiles.

in this case the Gentiles are being elevated to a status like to the Jews, and the Jews can’t say anything about it back to God about it being unfair because this very same God did the exact same thing for their father Jacob as they know full well from the Esau/Jacob story.

This is totally incorrect. There are no gentiles in the early part of the Chapter. There are two illustrations of the topic of individual election from verse 6.
1--- The first so called "people group" is the family of Abraham in verses 7-9. This "people group" included both individually elect people, and non-elect people. It includes the sons of Kuturah, and also the son of Hagar, Ishmael. So then, Paul is not saying that there is an elect "people group" but that Isaac, an individual within the Abrahamic people group is elect.
2--- Verses 10-13 are about the "people group" of Isaac and Rebecca. They had two sons, Esau and Jacob. Within this people group there was one elect, and the other non-elect. This individual election was based upon Gods choice of grace, and not merit.
------ Now remember, these are both illustrations of the principle found at the end of verse 6. Within the "people group" of the nation Israel were both elect and non-elect. Paul is explaining that even though the nation of Israel rejected the messiah, this does not nullify the promises and the word of God to Israel. It is elect individuals within the nation that the promises and covenants belong to.

Your interpretation is not at all based upon the text. You think Jacob or Esau is a gentile. That is not the point of verses 10-13. The point is that they are both genetic sons of Isaac, and only one was chosen or elected. There is no reference to gentiles (until vs 24).

When in verse 12 Paul reminds his listeners that the scripture says “the elder will serve the younger†he is actually being very inflammatory. And the reason why this is so is because here Paul is reversing the roles of Jacob and Esau as his Jewish listeners would have expected them to be. Here, Paul is likening the Jews to Esau! Not Jacob!

This misses the point of the passage totally. Paul is likening both Jacob and Esau to the nation of Israel.

The principle of verse 6 that the entire genetic nation of Israel is not elect. "They are not all Israel" The illustration in verse 12 is an illustration because the entire family of Isaac and Rebecca were not elect either. There was one individual that was elect (Jacob), and one that was not, (Esau).

Since both sons were children of Isaac, the illustration parallels verse 6 in that there is elect and non-elect within the nation of Israel.

Here Paul is saying that the Jews, who were apparently (to the Jews) chosen by God first, were the elder sons and the Gentiles who seem to have been chosen second are the younger sons. And if the Jews were feeling upset about God now revealing that His plan all along was to include the Gentiles into His family through the reconciliation that came on the cross through Christ, then Paul is saying they should go back and reread the scriptures because the older (Jews in this case) will serve the younger (Gentiles)!

This is a complete spiritualization of the text. It has nothing to do with the grammer and syntax. Once we begin spiritualizing things like this Esau could be the north american indians and Jacob would be the lost 10 tribes in the book of Mormon.

In verse 13 Paul goes to Malachi to remind his audience that God loved Jacob but rejected Esau. (The wording in Malachi can be rendered loved/hated but it can also be rendered loved/rejected and has the connotation of rejection either way.) The reason why God rejected Esau is because Esau, through his actions, despised his birthright

Now you are stating this directly opposite what the text says. Read verse 11
"11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad,"
Esau was non-elect before he had ever refused the birthright. He was non-elect from before the womb before he ever did anything god or bad.

I am going to cut it off here. Later.

 

[Drew]

Paul’s epistle to the Romans is certainly talking about people-groups from the very beginning.

Documentation and evidence please.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both (P)Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to (W)those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is (X)the father of us all, 17(as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU")

As you know, many more such texts can be provided. The book of Romans is deeply concerned with God and the outworking of His plans in respect to groups - ethnic Jews, Gentiles, hardened ethnic Jews, remnant Jews, and "true Israel".

Post-reformation western individualism has bent Romans out of shape to the point where it is seen as "how I get saved".

 

[mondar]

Paul’s epistle to the Romans is certainly talking about people-groups from the very beginning.

Documentation and evidence please.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

No people group here. If you want to call all the individuals of faith a people group that is fine.

* A Comment of interest to myself is that this text has the phrase "ÀανÄι ÄÉ ÀιÃĀεÃ…ονÄι" which is neither indefinate or relative. It is speaking of "everyone who believes"

There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both (P)Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

No real people group issues in any of these texts. All texts above merely point out that the people or individuals of faith are both Jew and Gentile.

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to (W)those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is (X)the father of us all, 17(as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU")

As you know, many more such texts can be provided. The book of Romans is deeply concerned with God and the outworking of His plans in respect to groups - ethnic Jews, Gentiles, hardened ethnic Jews, remnant Jews, and "true Israel".

Post-reformation western individualism has bent Romans out of shape to the point where it is seen as "how I get saved".

The so called "Group" is the people of Faith, no matter if Jew or gentile. And that faith is given to the elect individuals by Gods grace.

Drew, from one of the very verses you quoted in Romans it says....
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation... (underlining mine) --- No gospel of salvation in the book of Romans? Why it begins with that very phrase!

Post NT Wright disciples have bent the gospel in the book of Romans out of shape to the point where they do not see that it exists within the book of Romans.

 

[Drew]

No people group here. If you want to call all the individuals of faith a people group that is fine.

Paul is talking at a categorical level - at the level of groups - Jews and Gentiles. What does the term "Jew" denote? It denotes a group. Same with the term Gentile. You appear to be taking a reductionist line of argument that makes it impossible for anyone to make a case about groups. And clearly people should have the in principle ability to do so.

For example, it should be possible for me (or Paul) to say "God is interested in saving Gentiles and Jews" without committing to a statement of the form "God is interested in saving these specific Gentile and Jewish individuals". I suggest that your reasoning denies me this possibility - you assume that the "group is nothing more than the specific individuals that comprise it". I think that such a view, while unquestionably having a superficial ring of truth, is in fact, demonstrably false. More later, hopefully.

 

[mondar]

No people group here. If you want to call all the individuals of faith a people group that is fine.

Paul is talking at a categorical level - at the level of groups - Jews and Gentiles. What does the term "Jew" denote? It denotes a group. Same with the term Gentile. You appear to be taking a reductionist line of argument that makes it impossible for anyone to make a case about groups. And clearly people should have the in principle ability to do so.

For example, it should be possible for me (or Paul) to say "God is interested in saving Gentiles and Jews" without committing to a statement of the form "God is interested in saving these specific Gentile and Jewish individuals". I suggest that your reasoning denies me this possibility - you assume that the "group is nothing more than the specific individuals that comprise it". I think that such a view, while unquestionably having a superficial ring of truth, is in fact, demonstrably false. More later, hopefully.

You misrepresent me. I have used categorical terms, but you and your friend want to go far beyond what the text says about "categories." When it comes to Jews and Gentiles, God did not bless or curse any category of Israel. (with the exception of an issue in Romans 11). God did not decide to bless or curse every Gentile. The only group in Romans that is being blessed are the people of faith. The only group cursed is those without faith. You deny that the book is about the gospel and salvation when that is exactly how Romans begins. After saying this, you ignore evidence presented against what you say.

Because the word Jew, Israel, and Gentile is in the text you make it up that Romans is about these categories and it has a "ring of truth" but your claims are "demonstratively false." The only two categories is the people of faith who are justified by faith, and the people who are not of faith.

 

[Drew]

No people group here. If you want to call all the individuals of faith a people group that is fine.

Paul is talking at a categorical level - at the level of groups - Jews and Gentiles. What does the term "Jew" denote? It denotes a group. Same with the term Gentile. You appear to be taking a reductionist line of argument that makes it impossible for anyone to make a case about groups. And clearly people should have the in principle ability to do so.

For example, it should be possible for me (or Paul) to say "God is interested in saving Gentiles and Jews" without committing to a statement of the form "God is interested in saving these specific Gentile and Jewish individuals". I suggest that your reasoning denies me this possibility - you assume that the "group is nothing more than the specific individuals that comprise it". I think that such a view, while unquestionably having a superficial ring of truth, is in fact, demonstrably false. More later, hopefully.

You misrepresent me.

I highly doubt it. When you write "you want to call all the individuals of faith a people group that is fine" you are indeed committing the behaviour that I am suggesting you are - you are closing off the possiblity that Paul is speaking about Jews and Gentiles as categories, without specific reference to individuals. And this is not "fair" since that Paul (or anyone else for that matter) needs to be able to make a categorical, yet not individual-specific argument, if that is indeed what they want to do.

You deny that the book is about the gospel and salvation when that is exactly how Romans begins.

What I said was:

Post-reformation western individualism has bent Romans out of shape to the point where it is seen as "how I get saved".

I did not intend this as a denial that Romans is about salvation – it clearly deals with salvation - it is a denial that the central theme of the book is about how individuals get saved. Perhaps I should given a more detailed statement.

After saying this, you ignore evidence presented against what you say.

Not at all – just because I have not yet addressed all your points does not mean that I won’t.

Because the word Jew, Israel, and Gentile is in the text you make it up that Romans is about these categories and it has a "ring of truth" but your claims are "demonstratively false." The only two categories is the people of faith who are justified by faith, and the people who are not of faith.

I suggest this is demonstrably false. At various points, such as here in Romans 3, Paul is indeed talking about Jews and Gentiles as groups, with no specificity to “faithfulness†or “unfaithfulnessâ€Â. These are counter-examples to your claim that “The only two categories is the people of faith who are justified by faith, and the people who are not of faithâ€Â.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?

Has Paul distinguished faithful Jews from unfaithful ones? No – he is talking about all ethnic Jews.

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin

Paul clearly is placing all human beings under one accusation. Are his categories “unfaithful†and “faithful� No. The categories are Jews and Gentiles, with no reference to faithfulness.

There are other examples of this in Romans, including Romans 9 where Paul begins by articulating promises made to all Jews, regardless of their faith status. I suspect you will dispute this particular one, we’ll see.

 

[mondar]

I highly doubt it. When you write "you want to call all the individuals of faith a people group that is fine" you are indeed committing the behaviour that I am suggesting you are - you are closing off the possiblity that Paul is speaking about Jews and Gentiles as categories, without specific reference to individuals. And this is not "fair" since that Paul (or anyone else for that matter) needs to be able to make a categorical, yet not individual-specific argument, if that is indeed what they want to do.

And you take the term gentile, or Jew, and without demonstrating from the context that it is speaking of an entire category of people, assume it. Of course that is part of why I call what you do isogesis. You import meaning into the terms Jew and Gentile that are not in the context.

You deny that the book is about the gospel and salvation when that is exactly how Romans begins.

What I said was:

Post-reformation western individualism has bent Romans out of shape to the point where it is seen as "how I get saved".

I did not intend this as a denial that Romans is about salvation – it clearly deals with salvation - it is a denial that the central theme of the book is about how individuals get saved. Perhaps I should given a more detailed statement.

To deny the gospel as a major part of the book is to completely misunderstand Romans. As I said, the entire book of Romans is begun with a statement on the gospel of salvation.

Because the word Jew, Israel, and Gentile is in the text you make it up that Romans is about these categories and it has a "ring of truth" but your claims are "demonstratively false." The only two categories is the people of faith who are justified by faith, and the people who are not of faith.

I suggest this is demonstrably false. At various points, such as here in Romans 3, Paul is indeed talking about Jews and Gentiles as groups, with no specificity to “faithfulness†or “unfaithfulnessâ€Â. These are counter-examples to your claim that “The only two categories is the people of faith who are justified by faith, and the people who are not of faithâ€Â.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?

Has Paul distinguished faithful Jews from unfaithful ones? No – he is talking about all ethnic Jews.

It is just as I say, you are not reading contexts.

In only 2 verses he will say.....
Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?

Also, if you look in verse 1 at the word "then." The translation I am using above could use the word "therefore." It is greek "οÃ…ν." It relates the previous section in which mankind is in rebellion to the statements in 3:1. Then in verse 3 Paul plainly states he is talking about unbelievers. So then, if you will, the category of "unbelievers" ... yes unbelievers that were Jews, were entrusted with the oracles of God.

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin

Paul clearly is placing all human beings under one accusation. Are his categories “unfaithful†and “faithful� No. The categories are Jews and Gentiles, with no reference to faithfulness.

OK, lets jump down to 3:9 where you quote above. Some of what you say is true here in that the categories of faith and unbelief are not present. In fact the lack of categories is the whole point of Romans 3:9. It is about a universal... "all are under sin." Paul does not care if you are a part of the category of Gentiles or Jews. There is universal rebellion and sin and this demonstrates a universal need for faith and the Gospel of the Grace of Jesus Christ. If one does not recognize his need of Gods grace in Christ shed blood, he cannot be moved to faith. Salvation by grace through faith is a part of this passage too in that there is a universal need. It is not like only Jew or Gentile are under sin.

There are other examples of this in Romans, including Romans 9 where Paul begins by articulating promises made to all Jews, regardless of their faith status. I suspect you will dispute this particular one, we’ll see.

Well, it would be better if you tell me what part of Romans 9 you are talking about. Without a statement from you I can only guess what you are referring to. If I were to guess, I would say you would attempt to use verses 4-5 in Romans 9.

Now there is a certain sense in which God gave the Jew certain things no matter if they were believers or unbelievers. As you mentioned from Chapter 3, even unbelieving Jews received the oracles of God (the OT). But did it profit them? They did not believe the words of the prophecies concerning Christ. They did not approach the Hebrew Scriptures in faith. While they had advantages, their advantages were to no avail. The unbelieving and believing Jews both experienced the "giving of the Law." Yet what did they gain from it? Unbelieving Israel only gained the curses of Deuteronomy. Some gain!

Verses 4-5 are summed up in verse 6 in one phrase... "the word of God." Paul asks if all the things in verses 4-5, all the advantages of the Jew as "the word of God," was it to "no avail? Were the promises and covenants of verses 4-5 empty, meaningless, void? Paul says that they were to avail. To whom were they to avail?
"For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel" Until one understands verse 6 he understands nothing in Romans 9. I have long been saying so many times, Romans 9:6 is the topic sentence. Everything in chapter 9 is about verse 6. If you dont relate all parts of the Chapter to verse 6, you are out of context. Verse 6 is all about faith. The promises of verses 4-5 are not inherited by all Jews, only Jews of faith. Not all Israel is believing Israel. Only believing Israel is "of Israel." Only believing Israel receives the promises and blessings. Then in verse 24, Gentiles of faith also receive the blessings. So then the matter of Romans 9 is about faith vs unbelief. Some individuals are elected to that faith, some are not.

 

[justvisiting]

Heidi
Many people believe that God is drawing everyone

Joh 12:32 And I,G2504 ifG1437 I be lifted upG5312 fromG1537 theG3588 earth,G1093 will drawG1670 allG3956 men untoG4314 me.G1683
G3956
ÀᾶÂ
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

2Pe 3:9 TheG3588 LordG2962 is not slackG1019 G3756 concerning his promise,G1860 asG5613 some menG5100 countG2233 slackness;G1022 butG235 is longsufferingG3114 toG1519 us-ward,G2248 notG3361 willingG1014 that anyG5100 should perish,G622 butG235 that allG3956 should comeG5562 toG1519 repentance.G3341
G3956
ÀᾶÂ
pas
Thayer Definition:
1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types
You know Heidi...God did give us a WILL. I'm sure you find that out every time you get upset with your friend that bothers you.
I am aware of all the scripture on predestination. Take a close look at other supporting scripture. You will find that Foreknowledge is involved.
You also forget that Stephen prayed that God would not lay Paul's sin and others to them... and that moved the hand of God. Paul was not a zombie. Miracles happened in front of others also...great miracles. They still had a choice. To make like God doesn't want to save some... is wrong. Even Pharoah was warned many times...all men are given a chance to repent...even those in the time of Noah...who he preached to.
You being Calvinistic (SO IT SEEMS) will not see that I am sure. Myself, I think calvinism is totally out of line.
Yes, I believe scripture just as much as you.
Any doctrine has other scripture to balance it. You should look at the opposite side of the story to see if there are any qualifications to a statement. ie. other scripture. Romans 9 is predestination. Romans 10 is BELIEVE. How shall they believe unless they HEAR.

 

[bleitzel]

Wow, mondar, not trying to be inflammatory here but you really go to great lengths to ignore simple parts of the epistle to the Romans. Jews and Gentiles. That's what Paul says over and over. Not those of the Jews and those of the Gentiles that are in faith. If such a simple concept is lost, how can we even comprehend the Bible?

I'll have to post more later.

 

[mondar]

Wow, mondar, not trying to be inflammatory here but you really go to great lengths to ignore simple parts of the epistle to the Romans. Jews and Gentiles. That's what Paul says over and over. Not those of the Jews and those of the Gentiles that are in faith. If such a simple concept is lost, how can we even comprehend the Bible?

I'll have to post more later.

Are you actually aware of the issues going on here? I gotta say a good bit here.

Do you actually agree with Drew and NT Wright that Romans is not about justification by faith alone. NT Wright teaches that justification is past present and future, and that future justification is based upon works.

If you read Drew, he is not merely saying that there are Jews and Gentiles in the book of Romans, he is saying that the major subject of Romans concerns the earthly (and maybe heavenly blessings--not sure) of certain people groups. Now, I myself, believe there are certain distinctions between Israel and the Gentiles. While Romans minimizes the differences until Chapter 11, in Chapter 11 "all Israel is saved." I am a premillenialist who views God as dealing in a unique way with the nation Israel.

What I will continue to challenge is the concept of any works in justification whatsoever. In fact I probably should ask if you even understand the word justification in Romans.

My concern is that Drew is making an exegetical mess of all of Romans when he follows NT Wright. It is also going down the path of a false Gospel based upon future works. I have often felt that you are being overly simplistic as you approach the whole discussion and have no idea what is really going on. I guess that is OK, people are welcome to be ignorant of what is happening and then jump right in and say anything they want. That is simply the nature of the board.

If you wish to try to correct my view of Romans, maybe you should start at the beginning. I would say that the major issue of Romans is the Gospel. Drew would say something like it is "covenant" or "covenant community." Drew rarely speaks of creation, I am not sure why. NT Wright speaks of "covenant and creation." Nevertheless, Drew sees covenant community as the issue of Romans.

I recognize there is narrative background to many parts of the book of Romans. However, the narrative background is not the issue of Romans. Paul is not rewriting Genesis, he is merely using Genesis narratives as supporting points for his own discussion of the Gospel.

While we must have respect for each other and treat each other with courtesy (yes, I am not perfect) the issues are huge. We dont need to judge each others spiritual states, nevertheless, one or both of us has a false Gospel. As for me, I stand on the Gospel of Grace. Salvation is totally by Grace and has no element of self worth or good works. Salvation is completely the work of God for man, and not the work of man for God. Salvation is a divine undertaking, not a human work in any way.

Now this is not to say that works never come. Works are the fruits of salvation and never the cause. After the regeneration of the soul so that we are not slaves of sin, dead in our sins and trespasses, we trust Christ. I see regeneration as the cause of faith. It is also the cause of good works. So I do not deny works as a part of the Christian life, but Works are the fruits of regeneration and faith.

Bleitzel, Romans is about justification, salvation, and the gospel. That is how the book begins.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
It is not about separate people groups with reference to earthly blessings. Paul uses some of those issues (Jewish Gentile things) as points to support his main argument about salvation.

Bleitzel, you can continue to say I miss "simple things." I can continue to think that you do not really know what is going on. Where will that take us? To ad-hominims? Or did we already get there?

 

[Drew]

Do you actually agree with Drew and NT Wright that Romans is not about justification by faith alone. NT Wright teaches that justification is past present and future, and that future justification is based upon works.

I would like to comment on this. To say that “Drew believes that Romans is not about justification by faith†alone is too simple a statement to make. I will try clarify:

1. I believe that the major theme of Romans – the major thing that Paul wants to tell us – is that through Jesus, God has fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant, dealing with sin, and creating a worldwide family of faith constituted by Jews and Gentiles. To say this, of course, is not, repeat not, to deny that justification of the individual by faith is not also a theme in Romans. I do not see it as the major theme, but no one should suggest that I do not believe that Paul is talking about justification by faith simply because I do not think it is Paul’s major theme.

2. On the matter of the “tense†structure of justification. I believe the following: When a person places true faith in Jesus in the present, their ultimate justification – that is their ultimate membership in God’s saved family is assured. Now fast forward to the Romans 2 judgement we will all face. Paul means what says – those saved are the ones who “do goodâ€Â. Am I being inconsistent? Not all – the person who truly places faith in Christ in the present is given the Spirit and it is the Spirit that generates the works that are needed for salvation at that future judgement. So I embrace “justification by faith†and I embrace “justification by worksâ€Â. The only reason people see these as contradictory is that they cannot, or will not, jump out of a certain overarching worldview that sets these things in contradiction to one another.

Let me illustrate by analogy. Consider one of those highway cones. Viewed in strict profile, such a cone looks like a triangle. Viewed from below, it looks like a circle. Now, the person “A†who is stuck in a mindset where he cannot entertain the possibility of different “angles of view†of the cone will no doubt be mystified by the person “B†who claims that the cones “has a triangular character and a circular characterâ€Â. And the person B is perfectly correct. When we discern with Paul that justification has a â€ense†structure, we realize that one can entirely legitimately embrace “present justification by faith†and “future justification by worksâ€Â.

 

[Drew]

To deny the gospel as a major part of the book is to completely misunderstand Romans. As I said, the entire book of Romans is begun with a statement on the gospel of salvation.

As I know from previous discussion with you, you misunderstand what Paul means by the term "gospel". He does not use the term to denote the good news that "you can be justified / saved by faith alone".

On the matter of precisely what Paul meant by the term “gospelâ€Â, here is Romans 1:2-4

2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace....

Note how Paul says that that the gospel is something about Jesus, not something about how we might benefit from that. Then Paul goes on to indeed elaborate the content of the gospel in terms of who Jesus is, not about how that affects us. He reaches the end of his sentence about the gospel at the end of verse 4 (note the period there). Nowhere does Paul make any statement about us, except that Jesus is Lord over us. And more specifically, nowhere does Paul make any claim about “how we get saved†in this statement about the gospel. So people are free to define the “gospel†as “you can be saved by faith in Jesus†– it’s a free country. But that is not how Paul uses the term.

Now to address verse 5: Assuming that we understand the "receiving of grace" as entailing salvation, we see that Paul is saying that we get salvation through Jesus. And then we properly understand verse 2-4 as asserting that the content of the gospel is about who Jesus is - the Davidic Messiah whose resurrection constitutes Him as Lord of the world - and that grace is something we get through this Jesus. So the "gospel" is not "grace or salvation by faith" - it is what Paul says it is here (statements about Jesus) and "through" this very same Jesus, we attain grace.

 

[bleitzel]

Documentation and evidence please.

Drew handled this one above.

If the teaching is "new" then why does he so frequently quote the OT.

OT quoting aside, you don’t see how Paul was teaching something new? The Christ came to the Earth. The Jews missed it. This was news.

God has saved individuals out of all nations, tribes, and tongues. The whole point of Romans 9 is that he does not saving the entire genetic nation of Israel but he is saving a remnant. Gentiles are included in this concept only in the later verse of 9:24…Until this point, he is talking only about Israel. In verse 24 he makes it clear that the same concept of individual election within the nation of Israel applies to Gentiles.

Romans 9 is part of the whole letter to the Romans, where Paul is explaining that Gentiles are now included into God’s family. And as such, here in chapter 9 he is handling an objection to this message. The objection that God’s promises were for Israel. Paul is saying, yes that is true, but what is Israel? Are you an Israelite because of your ethnicity? Because of your birth? Paul is saying that Israelites have only ever been Israelites by their standing in faith. Likewise, Gentiles who also put their faith in God become de facto Israelites. To say that the verses from 9:1-23 do not include Gentiles is technically true, but to assert that that means Paul preaches a message of individual election is to forget all of the rest of Romans, and Ephesians, and Galatians.

Nowhere does Paul intimate that God saves certain individuals out of all nations. God has offered redemption to us all, we are saved if we take hold of this offer. In the end it is true that there will be some saved from every nation, tribe, and tongue, and there will be many unsaved, but it is not God that sets this limit it is ourselves.

.... snip........ So in verse 11 when Paul says that God has His own purposes in how He chooses people, Paul is saying A.) that God can certainly decide to choose to honor any people group that He so wishes,

Here in the first part of the sentence you admit what Paul said... that God elects or chooses individuals. Then you completely ignore what Paul said he suggest this means that "God can certainly decide to choose to honor any people group." The two different thoughts are like apples and oranges.

You know mondar, the concept of the word “choose†or “elect†is an important concept. And if incorrectly misunderstood, it can lead us down some very dangerous paths of incorrect reading comprehension. You have illustrated that here and I am glad that you did because we certainly need to address it. In my quote above I mentioned that God chooses people and you were quick to say that I had admitted that God selects individuals. But you and I do not understand the word choose the same way. You are assuming that when someone uses the word choose that they mean ‘choose one of A or B, and reject the other.’ But that is not purely the meaning of the word. A choice between A or B does not necessarily infer a rejection of the one left un-chosen. Instead, A could be chosen right now and B could be left for later. If A is a muffin and B is an apple, you could choose to have A for breakfast and B for lunch. The Jews, who were told so often that they were chosen took it to mean that the Gentiles were rejected. But this is the opposite of what God did. As Paul is explaining, God chose the Jews for purposes before and has chosen the Gentiles for this current time of the Christ.

So when I said Paul is saying that God has his own purposes for choosing people it is with the understanding that God’s choosing is not a choice with a repercussion of rejection. You should examine your assumption of rejection because it is the same wrong assumption that led the Jews to such erroneous teaching.

…Paul is demonstrating why the promises given to Israel in verses 4-5 are not void. In verses 6 he says of the promises "6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to naught.

Then he explains why the OT covenants and promises of Israel are not void. His explanation is at the end of verse 6. He explains that it is not the entire nation of Israel that is elect, but individual Jews that God elected to receive the promises. Then in verse 24 he says this same principle of individual election applies also to gentiles.

About the idea that individual Jews are elect you are referring to, Paul goes on to further re-state it:
"8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.â€Â
Paul is certainly not saying that all Israel is not chosen, only certain individuals within Israel have been chosen, as you assert. As can be seen in verse 8, Paul is saying that God’s word for Israel has not failed, it is our understanding of what Israel is that was flawed.

in this case the Gentiles are being elevated to a status like to the Jews, and the Jews can’t say anything about it back to God about it being unfair because this very same God did the exact same thing for their father Jacob as they know full well from the Esau/Jacob story.

This is totally incorrect. There are no gentiles in the early part of the Chapter. There are two illustrations of the topic of individual election from verse 6.
1--- The first so called "people group" is the family of Abraham in verses 7-9. This "people group" included both individually elect people, and non-elect people. It includes the sons of Kuturah, and also the son of Hagar, Ishmael. So then, Paul is not saying that there is an elect "people group" but that Isaac, an individual within the Abrahamic people group is elect.
2--- Verses 10-13 are about the "people group" of Isaac and Rebecca. They had two sons, Esau and Jacob. Within this people group there was one elect, and the other non-elect. This individual election was based upon Gods choice of grace, and not merit.
------ Now remember, these are both illustrations of the principle found at the end of verse 6. Within the "people group" of the nation Israel were both elect and non-elect. Paul is explaining that even though the nation of Israel rejected the messiah, this does not nullify the promises and the word of God to Israel. It is elect individuals within the nation that the promises and covenants belong to.

Your interpretation is not at all based upon the text. You think Jacob or Esau is a gentile. That is not the point of verses 10-13. The point is that they are both genetic sons of Isaac, and only one was chosen or elected. There is no reference to gentiles (until vs 24).

Mondar, you seem like a very thorough person. And if our understanding of election were to come from only chapter 9 of Romans then I could see the truth in the construct you have outlined. However, we know from the OT, from Acts, from Paul’s other letters, and from all of the rest of Romans, before and after chapter 9 that the overwhelming message after the coming of the Christ was reconciliation. Before, man was set apart from God due to sin, now we are reconciled to Him because of the sacrifice and resurrection of the Christ. Before the Jews were (apparently) set apart from the Gentiles because they were the children of God, now there is no difference, Jew and Gentile are alike.

When in verse 12 Paul reminds his listeners that the scripture says “the elder will serve the younger†he is actually being very inflammatory. And the reason why this is so is because here Paul is reversing the roles of Jacob and Esau as his Jewish listeners would have expected them to be. Here, Paul is likening the Jews to Esau! Not Jacob!

This misses the point of the passage totally. Paul is likening both Jacob and Esau to the nation of Israel.

The principle of verse 6 that the entire genetic nation of Israel is not elect. "They are not all Israel" The illustration in verse 12 is an illustration because the entire family of Isaac and Rebecca were not elect either. There was one individual that was elect (Jacob), and one that was not, (Esau).

Since both sons were children of Isaac, the illustration parallels verse 6 in that there is elect and non-elect within the nation of Israel.

No it does not miss the point. The objection Paul is handling is:

“Why is God now including the Gentiles? Are His promises to us failed?â€Â
Rom9:8 “In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promiseâ€Â
‘No, His promises are not failed because His promises were not for the natural sons, the Jews.’

“Why is God now including the Gentiles? Are His promises to us failed?â€Â
Rom9:9†For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
‘Even in the story of Abraham and Sarah, a child was brought into the family much later in life, just like the Gentiles.’

“Why is God now including the Gentiles? Are His promises to us failed?â€Â
Rom9:10-12†10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 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."
‘In the story of Rebekah she was told the older will serve the younger, just as you Jews, the older ones because you were chosen long ago, had to pave the way for the younger ones, the Gentiles, who have now been added to the family. And this is because it is not your works that have attained God’s favor, God is the one who decides to give mercy.’’

“Why is God now including the Gentiles? Are His promises to us failed?â€Â
Rom9:13†Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
‘And do you remember? Esau was rejected by God because even though he was the first born son he rejected his birthright. Are you Jews now going to also reject your birthright just because the Father also loves His other sons? You know how that went for Esau…’

In verse 13 Paul goes to Malachi to remind his audience that God loved Jacob but rejected Esau. (The wording in Malachi can be rendered loved/hated but it can also be rendered loved/rejected and has the connotation of rejection either way.) The reason why God rejected Esau is because Esau, through his actions, despised his birthright

Now you are stating this directly opposite what the text says. Read verse 11
"11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad,"
Esau was non-elect before he had ever refused the birthright. He was non-elect from before the womb before he ever did anything god or bad.

Paul refers to Exodus and to Malachi. In Exodus we are told of God’s electing purpose for the two nations that come from Jacob and Esau. In Malachi we learn that God loved Jacob but rejected Esau.

But again, you are reading into the text that Esau was non-elect. That God had rejected him before he was born. This was never the case. God may have planned to use the children in different ways, but He never rejected them. At least not until they had done their own deeds.

 

[bleitzel]

…one or both of us has a false Gospel. As for me, I stand on the Gospel of Grace. Salvation is totally by Grace and has no element of self worth or good works. Salvation is completely the work of God for man, and not the work of man for God. Salvation is a divine undertaking, not a human work in any way.

Calvinists (and Arminians for that matter) forever couch the Gospel as either by God alone or by man alone. And as such it should only be seen as by God alone. But what has been missed is that salvation is not a one-party affair, either way.

Salvation is partly God’s doing because He is the supreme judge, against whom we have sinned. He justly declares eternal condemnation as punishment for our sins. However, in His mercy He has decided to forego the punishment we deserve if we humble ourselves and throw ourselves upon the mercy of the court.

Salvation is partly man’s responsibility for we must fully recognize our sinful state, humble ourselves, and throw ourselves at His feet.

While this definition of salvation can easily be pictured in Jesus’ various parables and throughout the Bible, the common objection to this is that this is a gospel of works. And the gospel of works is repeatedly refuted by Paul.

But this is not a gospel of works because of one very important concept, wages. Paul was consistently refuting the Jews who thought that they could earn salvation from God by performing the acts required by the law. A worker’s wages are what he is owed for his acts. The Jews felt that God owed them eternal life. But, that is not what I am proposing.

Salvation is offered by God simply out of His grace, for nothing good in man. We must humble ourselves (throwing away any claim to earned wages) so as to receive His gift. And this humility must be shown by repentance and good works.

(And in case anyone thinks this is Pelagianism I disagree. Pelagians argued that man could attain moral perfection without divine intervention, and this is clearly not the case.)

 

[mondar]

Do you actually agree with Drew and NT Wright that Romans is not about justification by faith alone. NT Wright teaches that justification is past present and future, and that future justification is based upon works.

I would like to comment on this. To say that “Drew believes that Romans is not about justification by faith†alone is too simple a statement to make. I will try clarify:

Drew, after reading what you wrote below, it still seemed to me as if you are denying faith "alone." Yet in your first statement you seem to say this is not true. You know what your trying to say, but I am still not seeing how you think Romans is about justification by faith "alone." It seems to me that every single time I support sola fide, you oppose it.

1. I believe that the major theme of Romans – the major thing that Paul wants to tell us – is that through Jesus, God has fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant, dealing with sin, and creating a worldwide family of faith constituted by Jews and Gentiles. To say this, of course, is not, repeat not, to deny that justification of the individual by faith is not also a theme in Romans. I do not see it as the major theme, but no one should suggest that I do not believe that Paul is talking about justification by faith simply because I do not think it is Paul’s major theme.

Paul is using certain narratives in Genesis to express his theme of justification by faith. The narrative background is used as supporting points. Part of this narrative background relates to the Abrahamic Covenant, but the Abrahamic Covenant is not the issue, but merely support for the real issue, justification, or the Gospel.

2. On the matter of the “tense†structure of justification. I believe the following: When a person places true faith in Jesus in the present, their ultimate justification – that is their ultimate membership in God’s saved family is assured. Now fast forward to the Romans 2 judgement we will all face. Paul means what says – those saved are the ones who “do goodâ€Â. Am I being inconsistent? Not all – the person who truly places faith in Christ in the present is given the Spirit and it is the Spirit that generates the works that are needed for salvation at that future judgement. So I embrace “justification by faith†and I embrace “justification by worksâ€Â. The only reason people see these as contradictory is that they cannot, or will not, jump out of a certain overarching worldview that sets these things in contradiction to one another.

Let me illustrate by analogy. Consider one of those highway cones. Viewed in strict profile, such a cone looks like a triangle. Viewed from below, it looks like a circle. Now, the person “A†who is stuck in a mindset where he cannot entertain the possibility of different “angles of view†of the cone will no doubt be mystified by the person “B†who claims that the cones “has a triangular character and a circular characterâ€Â. And the person B is perfectly correct. When we discern with Paul that justification has a “tense†structure, we realize th one can entirely legitimately embrace “present justification by faith†and “future justification by worksâ€Â.

Sorry, Gotta go. I will finish later.

 

[Drew]

Drew, after reading what you wrote below, it still seemed to me as if you are denying faith "alone." Yet in your first statement you seem to say this is not true. You know what your trying to say, but I am still not seeing how you think Romans is about justification by faith "alone." It seems to me that every single time I support sola fide, you oppose it.

There comes a point where one has exhausted all the ways one can think of to explain one's position. I have reached such a point in respect to my attempts to explain my position on this to you. If and when you misrepresent my position to others (and I am not suggesting that this is done intentionally), I will chime in and try my best to explain it to them. For some reason, whatever it is, your expression of what I believe is simply not reflective of what I really believe.

 

[Drew]

Paul is using certain narratives in Genesis to express his theme of justification by faith. The narrative background is used as supporting points. Part of this narrative background relates to the Abrahamic Covenant, but the Abrahamic Covenant is not the issue, but merely support for the real issue, justification, or the Gospel.

As has already been argued in this thread, and in others, the word "gospel", for Paul at least, is not "about justification". It is instead the good news that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah who has been constituted as Lord of the world through resurrection from the dead. Justification is there in Romans, and it is certainly "good news", but careful attention to what Paul actually writes, and not to what certain traditions say that he writes, shows that the "gospel" is not, repeat not, the message of "justification by faith".

More arguments to supplement what I have already written about this. I do not have the time to presently mount an argument for the centrality of the covenantal theme in Romans. I hope to address that later.

What Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 about the nature of the gospel is inconsistent with the view that the gospel is simply the good news about how people can be saved through faith in Jesus.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved,...

Paul says people have received the gospel and that they “stand in itâ€Â. He then says that the gospel is the means - the “by which†that produces salvation. If the gospel is simply a statement about how one gets saved, then it would not make sense for Paul to use this “means†or “by which†terminology.

Imagine someone who believed that the gospel is news that we are saved (from death) by drug X. If we then import that concept into the structure of the Pauline text, we get:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the news that you are saved from death by drug X which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved from death,...

This makes no sense at all. The key point here is that the “by which†terminology clearly imposes a “cause-effect†structure on what Paul is saying. We would never say that our deliverance from death by drug X is the cause of our being saved from death – there is a fundamental tautology here, since the effect “being saved from death†is being attributed a cause that includes the very effect in question. We have already been told how we have been saved from death – by drug X. So it makes no sense to then say this is a cause or a “by which†for our being delivered from death.

What makes sense is to have a cause that is entirely distinct from the stated effect. So note how the following statements do make sense:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the news that qualified doctors have developed a drug X which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved from death,...

Now I make known to you, brethren, the news that doctors have been given authority to give a drug X which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved from death,...

Returning to the issue of the real gospel, Paul cannot be saying that the gospel is the news that you can saved by faith in Jesus since it would not make sense for him to then say “as a result of this, you are saved†or “this is something by which, you are savedâ€Â.

Note the parallels to Romans 1:16-17. The gospel there is described as:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,…

If we substitute this conventional take on what the gospel is, we get:

For I am not ashamed of the news that one can be saved by faith, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,…

The exact same tautology is present here. In this case, the phrase “it is the power of†introduces the same “cause-effect†structure as per 1 Cor 15. It cannot be that “being saved by faith†is the power to be saved. It has to be something else, something that can be properly placed with this kind of linguistic construct, something like:

For I am not ashamed of the news that Jesus has been raised from the dead and is Lord, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,…

So in both the Romans text and the 1 Corinthians text, the notion that the “gospel†is the news that one can be saved by faith is unworkable. I will go with the definition given in Romans 1:2-4, that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and Lord of the Universe in virtue of his being raised from the dead. If we insert such a definition in both Romans 1:16 and 1 Corinthians 15, there is no tautology at all and a perfectly coherent cause-effect relationship between the content of the gospel and one of its results - justification by faith - is generated.

 

[Drew]

I have long agreed that there is narrative background to some of the quotes in Romans. Where we disagree is when you take the narrative background and make it the subject concerning which Paul was writing about. Paul is using covenant passages to establish a point that election is not based upon works. Paul is not writing about the narrative background, but is using the narrative background to establish points he is making about election.

This is a clear and coherent statement of a position. As long as we all understand that, at some point, it needs to be substantially defended, not mererly asserted. And, of course, the same standard applies to my assertion that what you call "the narrative background" is really the main point.