God's Election

[Drew]

This has to do with Romans 9:9. You point to the fact that Paul must have in mind the prophetic fulfillment of the prediction about the 2 nations, and therefore he is not making a point about individual election in verse 11. While it is true that the Genesis passage is mainly about the prophetic fulfillment of the 2 nations, Paul is not talking about the Edomites in the passage. His point in 9:9 has to do with the principle in verse 6 "Not all Israel is of Israel." The point is about Esau not being elect but still being a son of Isaac. That is parallel to verse 6 where not all the sons of Jacob are Israel.

Your argument here rests on position that I believe has been successfully countered in this, if not other threads, namely that when Paul writes that "Not all Israel is of Israel", he is arguing that there is an elect "subset" within Israel. But I intend to present re-worked arguments against this shortly.

 

[mondar]

presented this verse to show that Romans is a book about the gospel of salvation.

Let me also add that Romans is a book that relates the doctrine of justification to salvation. Notice verse 17.

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.
Rom 1:17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.

In verse 17, Paul quotes Habakuk 2. The word he uses in "just." The just shall live by faith. This is the "Gospel of salvation" he was talking about in verse 16. It is what Romans is talking about.

No one, least of all me, is denying, that Paul is concerned with the news about salvation and its connection to what "the gospel" really is for Paul, the news that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been constituted as the Lord of the universe in virtue of being raised from the dead.

Verse 17, of course, is perfectly consistent with the view I am advocating, If the gospel is indeed what I am claiming, verse 17 can be rendered thus:

For therein, that is in the news that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been constituted as the Lord of the universe in virtue of being raised from the dead, is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith

God's righteousness is revealed through the fact that He has acted to send Jesus and raise Him from the dead as Lord of the Universe. And His faithfulness in doing means that we can, through faith be justified.

You do not engage my argument about 1:16,17 and you have not engaged my argument about 1 Corinthians 15, and I am not going to repeat arguments My argument shows that a proper analysis of what Paul says in 1:16,17, and in 1 Corinthians 15 shows that Paul cannot be using the word "gospel" to denote news about a system of salvation. It is news about something else.

You can make up all sorts of things by from the word "gospel" and insert them into the context. The Gospel could be the good news that the eruption of Mt Saint Helens is over. But of course neither your definition nor the definition of a volcano relates to the context.

In verse 17, the word dikaios (righteous or just) is the Gospel. Paul is not quoting the verse for its ascetic beauty. The concept of justification and faith from the quote in verse 17 are definitional to the Gospel in the book of Romans. There is nowhere in the entire scriptures that you can show that faith in Jesus as "Davidic Messiah....being raised from the dead" is the Gospel. Those words nowhere appear in the text. On the other hand, I can point to verse 17 and the OT quote of a passage about justification.

 

[mondar]

This is the same mistake you make in Romans 9. Paul is not merely talking about the category of Jews, he is only talking about Jews without faith.
The point I made was that you present this "category of Jews" as though it has nothing to do with the requirement for justification... "faith." I had said that the issue is faith or no faith. Verse 3 explicitily talks about a people without faith.

I have addressed this already, including your point about Romans 3. I see no value in repeating what I have already addressed. Let the arguments be judged on their merits - no point in either of us saying the same thing over and over again in different words.

This is some similarity with Chapter 9. Paul says "Not all Israel is of Israel." In both contexts the issue is primary issue is the faith or no faith of Israel. And Israel has both faith and non-faith.

I disagree with you here, and believe I have already addressed this in this thread. But, I will have more to say about it in subsequent posts.

Drew, at times you are so volumely wordy that I do not read everything you wrote in one sitting. It is easy to overlook something you said. Then you do not respond until "subsequent posts." And I am supposed to give all this attention to put your thoughts together?

Please do address Romans 9:6 and show me where the Gentiles appear in that verse. There is only Israel who believes, and Israel who does not believe.

 

[mondar]

This has to do with Romans 9:9. You point to the fact that Paul must have in mind the prophetic fulfillment of the prediction about the 2 nations, and therefore he is not making a point about individual election in verse 11. While it is true that the Genesis passage is mainly about the prophetic fulfillment of the 2 nations, Paul is not talking about the Edomites in the passage. His point in 9:9 has to do with the principle in verse 6 "Not all Israel is of Israel." The point is about Esau not being elect but still being a son of Isaac. That is parallel to verse 6 where not all the sons of Jacob are Israel.

Your argument here rests on position that I believe has been successfully countered in this, if not other threads, namely that when Paul writes that "Not all Israel is of Israel", he is arguing that there is an elect "subset" within Israel. But I intend to present re-worked arguments against this shortly.

You never countered anything like that. I think your word "subset" only creates fog on the issue, but if you wish, I can use it.

The only "subsets" are Elect genetic Israelites and all genetic Israel in Romans 9:6. There are no gentiles.

 

[Drew]

You can make up all sorts of things by from the word "gospel" and insert them into the context. The Gospel could be the good news that the eruption of Mt Saint Helens is over. But of course neither your definition nor the definition of a volcano relates to the context.

You are mistaken and I suggest that you need to realize that the other readers will know this, so why pursue such a strategy? They will know that I am making nothing up, but am providing clear, understandable arguments – which, frankly, you ignore. You need to actually engage my arguments about Romans 1:16 and 1 Corinthians 15. Even if you think that your arguments are strong, you need to show precisely where my arguments fail.

In verse 17, the word dikaios (righteous or just) is the Gospel.

It is indeed, but it appears that you are the impression that Paul is saying the content of the gospel is connected to a righteousness that we get from God, and not to God’s own righteous behaviour. Let’s be clear, we do get a status of righteousness from God, but I believe that the “righteousness†that Paul says is revealed in the content of the gospel is God’s own righteousness, and specifically His fidelity to the covenant. Here is the verse:

17For in it {***that is, in the gospel} the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

If one assumes that the righteousness that is revealed in the gospel is the righteousness that we get then you would have a point. But my other arguments would still stand (e.g. about verse 16 and 1 Corinthians 15, not to mention what is in Romans 1:1-4 – see below) , and then we would be forced to admit that Paul is less than clear on what he means by the term “gospelâ€Â.

Fortunately, though, we can forge an understanding where Paul is being perfectly consistent. If Paul’s gospel is the message about Jesus Messianic Lordship as realized through the resurrection, and not a message about our “personal salvationâ€Â, then we have Paul saying that in Jesus’ Messianic Lordship and resurrection, we see and understand that God has acted “righteously†in accordance with the covenant – Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant.

This a perfectly acceptable reading. Now, to be fair, so is yours. If, repeat if, it can be shown (and not simply assumed) that the “righteousness†that is revealed in “the gospel†is the righteous status that we get from God, then, as conceded, your point would have some force. But let’s be clear: neither of us can merely “lay claim†to the intended meaning of the term “righteouness†(as in the righteousness of God that is revealed….). We both need to defend our respective perspectives. I have not done so (yet) in this thread. But neither have you.

There is nowhere in the entire scriptures that you can show that faith in Jesus as "Davidic Messiah....being raised from the dead" is the Gospel. Those words nowhere appear in the text

Romans 1:1-4:

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus,called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord

He introduces “the gospel†and then tells us what is about - what it concerns (verse 3). Does it concern us and our salvation? No. It concerns His Son. Paul is very clear – “the gospel†is news about the Davidic Messiah, whose resurrection from the dead constitutes Jesus as Lord of the Universe ¢â‚¬â€œ just as I have been asserting. As you can see, this definition is not “made up†by me. But it is indeed plagiarized or copied from someone. Who? NT Wright? No. It is Paul from whom I get my definition.

 

[Drew]

Please do address Romans 9:6 and show me where the Gentiles appear in that verse. There is only Israel who believes, and Israel who does not believe.

I am working on this. And it goes without saying that I do not believe that the absence of an explicit reference to Gentiles means that Paul cannot be talking about a "Jew + Gentile" family when he invokes the category of a "true Israel.

Note this:

Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 50"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.

What has Jesus done? He has re-defined the concept of mother and brother to extend it beyond its normal boundaries. This is an entirely acceptable linguistic maneuver - to re-define terms for a variety of reasons. And I suggest that this precisely what Paul is doing in his use of the category of "true Israel" in Romans 9:6. Do I need to defend this assertion? Of course. But, in the same spirit, one cannot simply assert, without argument that the term "Israel" must, by some kind of linguistic necessity, exclude Gentiles in all its uses. The "brother-mother" example shows that things are not this rigid.

Now Paul, of course, has not explicitly re-defined Israel in the context of verse 6 as Jesus does in the example I have provided. But that is entirely beside the point – there is no “rule†that says “if you are going to re-define a concept like “brother†or “motherâ€Â, as Jesus clearly does here - that you need to explicitly declare the re-definition within so many words of having introduced the re-defined concept, even though Jesus happens to make the re-definition explicit in the matter of a sentence or two. Language is not that cut and dried.

The point is that it is entirely allowable to “re-define†words in pursuit of a particular point and therefore we must be open to at least the possibility of a “Jew+Gentile†composition to the “true Israel†category in Romans 9:6. And, as I will argue later, Paul indeed does make the re-definition more or less explicit in the verses that follow 9:6 when he uses the categories of “children of promise†and “children of God†as synonyms for “true Israelâ€Â, categories that we know from elsewhere in Romans have a Gentile component.

I plan to present this whole argument later with more rigour.