God's Election

[mondar]

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.

The overall argument of the passage is about individuals that are chosen who are within genetic Israel.

1 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. 2Then, 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.

I inserted the red numbers in this paragraph because the first part is correct. In that part you merely state that not all those geneticly related to Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob are part of "true Israel."

After the number 2, you read verse 8 out of the context. Lets quote verse 8.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.
In my opinion, your error is in this phrase "children of the promise are reckoned for a seed."
Here are some reasons I think you should not be including gentiles in this verse.
1--- The rhetorical structure of the passage has verse 6 as the topic sentence. Verse 8 is a part of the first illustration of the principle found in verse 6. Verse 6 states that there is part of genetic Israel that is not "true Israel." The entire group is not of "faith" and thus not "true Israel." So then, the phrase "children of promise" is speaking of those genetic believing Israelites. If verse 8 is speaking of Gentiles, then there is a serious connection problem between verse 6 and 8.
2--- Even within the illustration in verse 7... The "child of promise" was Isaac. Isaac in fact was a genetic child of Abraham. Isaac was not a gentile. It was be very awkward to draw such a conclusion that Gentiles are the "Children of promise" since Isaac was not a gentile.

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.

You are correct in that I recognize the passage is not about Gentiles. But this goes much past verse 14. The first time Paul will include Gentiles will be in verse 24. The idea of verse 24 is then that the concept of individual election that is taking place within Israel to define "true Israel" also applies to individual gentile election.

Concerning "Corporate" election... Again, my position does not eliminate "Corporate" election totally from the context. It allows for "Corporate" election based upon individual election. The passage is talking about the election of Isaac, and therefore the later corporate election of some or certain individuals out of his progeny to make up "true Israel." God never elected Isaac's whole progeny to anything at all. So neither the seed of Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob as a total group ever make up anything, only individuals that are within the seed of each patriarch.

So then, any corporate election is based upon former individual election and can never function apart from individual election. Below you are going to agree that God never made promises to all of Abraham's genetic descendants. So then, how can you say that any nation as a whole is an elect nation? There must aways be elect individuals chosen to make up the "true 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.

Irrelevant to our discussion. I have all along maintained that Romans 9 does have the national composition of Israel is a part of the issue. You have consistently done this in the past. You keep pointing to the fact that national issues exist in the passage. I have maintained that there are national issues, but not to the exclusion of individual issues. You are the one that denies individual issues and merely point to national issues within the passage and for some reason feel that you have established your point.

And thus far, there is nothing that requires us to understand that God has elected any individuals to an eternal fate.

Then you need to deal with the fact that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh were all individuals and not keep merely pointing to the fact that there were later national issues that came forth out of their individual election.

I want to add something from a different text.
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.
Notice how the national covenant of Abraham also has to do with individual salvation. Paul takes part of the Abrahamic Covenant in which Abraham is to bless all the nations and points to it as the gospel. Abraham blesses the nations because out of his seed came the Christ who dies in behalf of all those individual chosen to come to the gospel in all nations, tongues, and tribes.

I am saying that I suspect that you might even have a flawed concept of the national covenants. The covenants of the OT do have themes within them that relate to individual salvation and the Gospel.

By the way, I would prefer 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, I dont think hardly anyone is interested is seeing you and me go on and on about the issues of Romans and NTWright. I disagree that "many can benefit." I doubt many will follow the detailed and long extended arguments.

However, you have the ace in the hole here. As long as you force the issue to happen here, there is nothing I can do about it.

 

[mondar]

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.

So then how did those in "true Israel" get within what you are calling that "subset?" God chose Isaac to be a part of the "subset" of Abraham. The choice of Isaac illustrates the principle in verse 6 that it is not the entire group that has an elect identity before God. He chose Jacob, an individual. Jacob was chosen before any good or evil was done. What was Jacob chosen for? He was an individual chosen to be part of what you are calling "a subset of them are a member of the "true Israel" category." Again, within each group there are chosen or elect individuals. That is the whole point of verse 6. The genetic group is not all elect, but individuals within the genetic group are elect.

 

[mondar]

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:

Drew, I am going to cut it off here. I cannot help but notice that you at least admit that individual election is in some way a part of the passage.

So at this point tell me. Do you see any relationship between this individual election in Chapter 9 and the issue of faith in Chapter 10 as related in any way. Also, do you see this individual election and a passage like Romans 8:30 as related in any way?

30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Do you think there is any relationship between the word "glory" and the vessels of glory in chapter 9?

 

[Drew]

1 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. 2Then, 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.

I inserted the red numbers in this paragraph because the first part is correct. In that part you merely state that not all those geneticly related to Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob are part of "true Israel."
After the number 2, you read verse 8 out of the context. Lets quote verse 8.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.
In my opinion, your error is in this phrase "children of the promise are reckoned for a seed."
Here are some reasons I think you should not be including gentiles in this verse.
1--- The rhetorical structure of the passage has verse 6 as the topic sentence. Verse 8 is a part of the first illustration of the principle found in verse 6. Verse 6 states that there is part of genetic Israel that is not "true Israel." The entire group is not of "faith" and thus not "true Israel." So then, the phrase "children of promise" is speaking of those genetic believing Israelites. If verse 8 is speaking of Gentiles, then there is a serious connection problem between verse 6 and 8.

I think the force of the clear allusion to “children of promise and children of God†– these have just been used to denote a Jew + Gentile family - overpowers the argument you are advancing here. In fact, you appear to simply assume that verse 8 is an illustration of the statement made in verse 6. Of course, Paul could be building such an argument, but he could also be building an argument that the “true Israel†of verse 6 includes Gentiles. You seem to simply assume that this cannot be so, and therefore dismiss the deployment of terms – “children of promise†and “children of God†specifically as Paul has already used them in the letter to denote a Jew + Gentile family. You have given the reader no reason to exclude the possibility that Paul is doing the following:

1. Starting out by identifying the Jewish component of true Israel in verse 6

2. Adding in a Gentile component in verse 8 (especially since such a reading is endorsed directly after the potter metaphor where Paul declares the “vessels of mercy†to be both Jews and Gentiles.)

Why, and please be specific, is this possibility to be ruled out, especially since Paul would have to have been careless to use the very phrase “the children of promise†- a phrase that he has literally bent over backward in Romans 4 to include Gentiles in its embrace – to denote, instead a subset of ethnic Israel?

In summary, I think the situation is this:

1. Paul has, in Romans 4 and very recently in Romans 8, used the “children of promise†and “children of God†categories as denoting a Jew + Gentile family.

2. It would be highly unlike a careful writer like Paul to use those terms inconsistently.

3. You are certainly correct to explore the possibility that verse 8 is an illustration of the statement in verse 6 where I grant that he is talking about a subset of Israel. However, you have given the reader no reason to consider the other possibility I have raised – that he explains who “true Israel†is by first identifying a subset of ethnic Israel and then including the Gentiles. We know that he sees true Israel as containing Gentiles – he tells us this later in the chapter.

I suspect that you will argue that the “Jewish specificity†of the continuing argument about Jacob and Esau in later verses demands that we the argument all along as being about a subset of ethnic Israel. I have a response to that if you wish to go down that road.

2--- Even within the illustration in verse 7... The "child of promise" was Isaac. Isaac in fact was a genetic child of Abraham. Isaac was not a gentile. It was be very awkward to draw such a concluson that Gentiles are the "Children of promise" since Isaac was not a gentile.

But Paul has used the term “children of promise†in chapter 4 to denote the Jew + Gentile family of faith. Where has he used it to refer to Jacob singularly?

 

[Drew]

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:

Drew, I am going to cut it off here. I cannot help but notice that you at least admit that individual election is in some way a part of the passage.

I have never stated that election unto eternal destinies is ever at issue in Romans 9. I trust that I need not tell a person as scripturally literate as you (I am not being sarcastic here) that the word "election" does not inherently have the specificity of election unto an eternal fate.

So at this point tell me. Do you see any relationship between this individual election in Chapter 9 and the issue of faith in Chapter 10 as related in any way.

Since the "individual election" in Romans 9 is about Esau serving Jacob, and is not about Jacob being elected to heaven and Esau to hell, I do not see any substantial connection here.

Also, do you see this individual election and a passage like Romans 8:30 as related in any way?

30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Do you think there is any relationship between the word "glory" and the vessels of glory in chapter 9?

First of all, I do not think the Romans 8 passage asserts pre-destination in the sense that you do. But I am not prepared to argue that point right now. Second, as per detailed arguments I have already provided in this thread, and to which you have not substantlally responded – perhaps due to time limitations – I think there is a strong break in the argument between chapters 8 and 9 and that what Paul is doing in Romans 9 is picking up unfinished business from the beginning of Romans 3.

I gotta leave this for a while - will check in tomorrow.

 

[bleitzel]

Unfortunately, I've found that most people don't know the bible well at all. Nevertheless they come to forums to get their names in print and speak out of their imaginations, then claim that's what God says. So I want to make clear God's election once and for all. This is not open to debate since it's strictly biblical. The only people who will argue with it are those who don't know all the scriptures.

Wow Heidi. Those are some strong accusations. What if it actually turns out that you were the one who didn’t understand election as it is taught in the Bible? Would that make you one of those who come to these forums to get their names in print and speak out of their imaginations?

I believe you have stated somewhere here in this thread that you understand that throughout the OT Israel is called the “chosen†people of God, and that is good. So then, when Jesus comes, why do we find out that the gentiles are included into the chosen ones of God? This is the essential question Paul is tackling throughout the New Testament. It’s in Acts, it’s in Romans, it’s in Galatians, it’s in Ephesians. This question (and it’s answer) are so central to Paul’s theology that he gives it utmost prominence by calling it the “mystery†in his letters.

When Paul uses the terms elect and chosen he is actually explaining that even though the Jews thought that God choosing them as evidenced throughout the OT scriptures was exclusive, and only to them, Paul is showing that God has NOT excluded the Gentiles. That when God said He chose Israel, He did not say He un/chose the Gentiles. No, Paul is showing that everyone is chosen!

So since no one is righteous enough to choose God, then it is God who determines whom he will choose out of the world to be His people. And He has chosen Israel, like it or not. If God chose Jacob after the twins were born, then salvation would be by works, Jacob's good and Esau's bad, not by God's election, grace and mercy. But then Jacob wouldn't have needed salvation if he was already righteous. So the bible says the opposite.

Unfortunately Heidi God chose everyone, not just Israel. At least not just Israel as Paul’s audience would have understood it. Israel to them was the corporate nation of Israel, a nationality understood partly by territorial borders and partly by familial inheritance. To be part of Israel mainly was to be born into Israel, by birth. But Paul argued that now it can be understood that no, Israel is not Israel by birth, it is by faith. So that no one is included based on their birth and no one is excluded by their birth. Anyone can put their faith in God and so become part of Israel.

But the Jews of Paul’s day would object strongly, arguing then that God’s promises had failed. That God was abandoning them. What use were all of the forefathers, all of the prophets, all of the covenants, if now the Gentiles were being accepted in at the last moment? What special-ness was there in being a Jew at all? They were loved first by God, why would He bring the Gentiles in at this time, hundreds of years after Abraham?

In Romans 9, Paul deftly uses an OT example that the Jews know inside and out, backwards and forwards, to argue his point. But not as you would expect! Paul actually likens the Jews of his day to ESAU not JACOB! In the story, Paul points out that even though Esau was firstborn, had the birthright, was the chosen son, as the Jews thought they were, even so according to God’s plan, Jacob got the birthright, not Esau.

Paul is showing that the Gentiles, who are represented by Jacob in the story, are being let into the plan of salvation by God’s choice as He has the right to do, and if the Jews do not get on board with this quickly they’ll end up like Esau, out in the cold with no inheritance at all! The Jews, who got their national identity from Jacob in the story of Jacob and Esau were now actually the Esau of the story!

So, to sum it up Heidi, the correct understanding of Paul’s teaching in Romans 9 is actually contradictory to anything that says God has chosen some and rejected others. In fact, it is a very clever illustration used against the Jews’ logic, showing that God has every right to include the Gentiles (and all people) into His family, His plan of salvation.

But that's what happens when people don't read the whole bible. They look to their imaginations for the truth instead of God's infallible word. Then they adopt opinions that are based on what itching ears want to hear…So if you don't understand the bible, then instead of trying to change the bible to fit your interpretation, you need to change your interpretation to fit the bible. It's that simple.

I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

 

[bleitzel]

So there is this "corporate" dimension to election. And Paul, coming out of a solidly Jewish mindset, adopts the same corporate concept, arguing that God always planned to have a worldwide family that was not marked out by ethnicity.

Neither Paul, nor any Jew, would have any sense of God electing individuals unto an eternal fate. That is a concept "read in" based on 21st century western individualism.

Incorrect. Ephesians 1:4, "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love, he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will- to the praise of his glorious name which he has freely given us in the One he loves."

"In him we have redemption, through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding."

Those are the "elect" the real Israel, those chosen before the creation of the world to come to Christ and be adopted as his sons. So the elect are elected for redemption, (heaven) and the non-elect are prepared for destruction as Romans 9:22 explains. Esau was not one of the chosen for redemption because God hated him. It's that simple.

Heidi, you didn’t read all the way to verse 11. Otherwise you could not have this notion of there being an “unelect.†The concept of one group chosen for eternal life and one group unchosen is anti-biblical rubbish.

Eph 1:11 “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,…â€Â

Whom does the also refer to? If you read all of the books of the NT you see over and over again this theme of the revelation that the Gentiles were included into God’s family also! It’s everywhere. You can’t miss it. (One would think.) In the OT the Jews thought that they were chosen (like Calvinists do today) and that the Gentiles were not chosen, by the will of God. But here in Ephesians (and in Galatians, and in Romans, and in Acts…) Paul points out that while the Jews thought they were the natural born sons of God, through the patriarchs, that that didn’t mean the Gentiles were just out of the equation. God didn’t just choose Israel for eternal life and the Gentiles for eternal death. As you missed in your quotation of Eph1:4 above, Paul points out that he (God) chose us (Gentiles) in him (Christ)…and…In love he (God) predestined us (Gentiles) to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ…

Did you miss the “adopted†here? Why would Paul use such a strong word as adopted? Because everyone reading this letter and hearing Paul’s message already understands that the Jews were God’s family, now the Gentiles were being “adopted†in. It’s an essential concept. By using the word adopted Paul is giving us a message of inclusion, not exclusion. Likewise, when he says God chose us in Christ, he is implying that the other people, the Jews, were already told that they were chosen through the patriarchs.

The elect are all people, the Jews AND the Gentiles. It’s that simple.

 

[bleitzel]

What was Jacob chosen for? He was an individual chosen to be part of what you are calling "a subset of them are a member of the "true Israel" category." Again, within each group there are chosen or elect individuals. That is the whole point of verse 6. The genetic group is not all elect, but individuals within the genetic group are elect.

Mondar, Jacob was chosen to receive an inheritance (from God) even though he was the younger one in the family. Even though he was not the firstborn, the one directly in line for the inheritance, and it was God's plan all along as any God-fearing Jew would understand. Jacob was not chosen to eternal life and Esau to eternal death. (In fact, Esau was hated by God because he chose to throw away his birthright for a bowl of soup, but that is not really the point here.)

You are wrong when you say that Jacob was chosen to be part of this subset.

And what's fascinating is how Paul is associating the Jews with Esau in this story, not Jacob. The Jews of Paul's day, who are Jacob (Israel), see themselves as such because of their lineage, their birthright. When the story clearly shows that birthright means nothing! It's all about the actions that one takes, whether one trusts in God and has faith or not. It's not about some idea that there these special, elect super-people that get salvation.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

the idea that the jews and gentiles in general are all chosen is not scriptural. paul was not saying in eph that we " gentiles" are not chosen, he is speaking to believers of any flesh saying we believers are chosen.

election is individual, it can be of any race because it is not race that matters, there were those who were elect of physical israel, there are those who are elect of gentiles. Not all who were jews and in physical israel are elect and not all gentiles are elect. but ALL THE ELECT whether their flesh be jew or gentile are those who make up the ELECT NATION OF ISRAEL.

Those who were not elect of the jews did not obtain the promise and were cut off from israel and are no more israel. Those gentiles who were before not part of israel, and who are elect were grafted into israel when they believed on Christ because of their election before the foundation of the world. Those jews of the remnant who are elect will come to faith in Christ and be grafted back into the elect nation.

Paul is clear that not everyone of israel obtained it but the ELECT of israel did obtain the promise.
He is also clear that all israel is made of believers who are the seed of abraham by faith. that not all of israel are israel. Only the elect jew and gentile make up ALL ISRAEL.

 

[bleitzel]

the idea that the jews and gentiles in general are all chosen is not scriptural. paul was not saying in eph that we " gentiles" are not chosen, he is speaking to believers of any flesh saying we believers are chosen.

GodspromisesReyes, go back and read Eph1:11. Paul clearly says we also were chosen. And for that matter go back and read all of Paul’s writings. He surely is writing that Gentiles are now included. And not just some, all.

 

[Drew]

Paul is clear that not everyone of israel obtained it but the ELECT of israel did obtain the promise.

Where does Paul say anything at all like this: " There is a subset of ethnic Israel, made up of specific individuals, that have been pre-destined unto eternal life from the beginning of time".

I am convinced nothing he writes in Romans 9 supports this idea - it is something that gets "read in".

 

[Drew]

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.

But this is primarily about nations

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

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."

These "works" are not good works as you suggest, but the works of Torah that mark out the Jew from the Gentile.

 

[Drew]

In fact there is no entire nation in Romans 9 being refered to, but only individuals within Israel,...

Quite the contrary. As per my previous post, all you need to do is take Paul's OId Testament allusion halfway seriously. Here, again, is the text he quotes from:

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

This is about two nations - two peoples: the Edomites who are descended from Esau and the Israelites descended from Jacob.

How monumentally incompetent a writer would Paul have to be to quote a text about one nation serving another if he did not want the reader to understand that a point is being made about the election of nations?

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

Where does Paul say anything at all like this: " There is a subset of ethnic Israel, made up of specific individuals, that have been pre-destined unto eternal life from the beginning of time".

I am convinced nothing he writes in Romans 9 supports this idea - it is something that gets "read in".

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Rom 11:11 ¶ I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.


Those who were a remnant - who were of the ELECTION obtained the promise, and the REST who were not of the election were blinded.

God has individuals who are ordained to election of both jews and gentiles- individuals- They are ordained to obtain the promise- to be fornformed into the image of CHrist- and their good works are also ordained before the foundation of the world.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

notice ' as many as WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

here is the good works that we do in Jesus that God ordained that we should walk in them.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:


Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,


Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

HE has chosen US in him before the foundation of the world.- He predestined us to adoption-HE has made us accepted in the beloved.

2Th 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Beloved of the Lord-GOD FROM THE BEGINNING HAS CHOSEN US FOR SALVATION.

 

[Drew]

Where does Paul say anything at all like this: " There is a subset of ethnic Israel, made up of specific individuals, that have been pre-destined unto eternal life from the beginning of time".

I am convinced nothing he writes in Romans 9 supports this idea - it is something that gets "read in".

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Rom 11:11 ¶ I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Those who were a remnant - who were of the ELECTION obtained the promise, and the REST who were not of the election were blinded.

I have, of course, never denied that Paul is talking about election here. What I have denied is that Paul is talking about election of specific individuals to an eternal destiny. The word "election" means "choice" in general, it does not mean "choice unto an eternal fate for individuals".

More specifically, the text that you just provided, while consistent with the view that you are espousing (view 1 in the following) is also consistent with the view that I am espousing (view 2 in the following). So the text does not specifically support your position.

View 1: At the beginning of time, God pre-destined that a specific set of individuals within ethnic Israel would end up getting saved. At the same time, God also pre-destined that the other individuals within ethnic Israel would end up getting damned.

View 2: At the beginning of time, God decided that He would use some means to harden Jews – most would be hardened, some would not. But God did not pre-determine which specific Jews would be hardened and which would not be hardened.

 

[Drew]

Hello GPRYes:

By the way, I am not going to address the other texts. I am talking about Romans 9 in particular. Those other texts would each elicit lengthy arguments from me.

If you respond that these texts are necessary to prove your point about Romans 9-11, you are effectively conceding that, by itself (that is without the support of these other texts), the material in Romans 9 -11 does not sustain the view of election that you seemingly take from Romans 9-11. I suspect that this is not the strategy you want to pursue.

 

[mondar]

In fact there is no entire nation in Romans 9 being refered to, but only individuals within Israel,...

Quite the contrary. As per my previous post, all you need to do is take Paul's OId Testament allusion halfway seriously. Here, again, is the text he quotes from:

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

This is about two nations - two peoples: the Edomites who are descended from Esau and the Israelites descended from Jacob.

How monumentally incompetent a writer would Paul have to be to quote a text about one nation serving another if he did not want the reader to understand that a point is being made about the election of nations?

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?

This of course does not mean that the OT did not include material that refers to nations. The election of individuals had national implications in the OT. That is not a part of the argument or the issue of which Paul is writing. If it were, he would have selected the material you did.

 

[Drew]

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?

Here is the material from Paul in Romans 9:
for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

Here is the key point. Paul’s language here makes it clear that the promise he sees God as fulfilling is the promise made to Sarah. Paul is talking about God keeping promises ( “It is not as through the word of God has failedâ€Â. So what is the promise? Is it about Esau and Jacob as individuals or about the nations that they will respectively father? We shall shortly see.

Your reasoning appears to be this:

1. The material that Paul quotes from Genesis 25 is about a promise made to individuals;

2. In Romans 9, Paul is talking about how God’s keeps His promises.

3. We can trust Paul to choose his quotes carefully so as to “preserve the level†at which he is representing God as acting, either the individual level or the nation level;

4. Therefore, Paul must intend to convey a point about individuals in Romans 9.

If (1), (2), and (3) are both true, your conclusion (4) is indeed sustained. I think we agree that (2) and (3) are both true. I challenge your assertion (1) and would make the following parallel argument:

1. The material that Paul quotes from Genesis 25 is about groups;

2. In Romans 9, Paul is talking about how God’s keeps His promises.

3. We can trust Paul to choose his quotes carefully so as to “preserve the level†at which he is representing God as acting, either the individual level or the nation level;

4. Therefore, Paul must intend to convey a point about groups in Romans 9.

As already pointed out, Paul’s statement in Romans 9 about Esau and Jacob is clearly about God keeping a promise made to Sarah. What was this promise? I would agree that if the evidence from Genesis suggests a “individual†level promise, then we need to understand Paul as addressing individuals. And if the evidence from Genesis suggests a “group†level promise, then we have to understand Paul as addressing nations. Here is the promise. Let the reader decide if it is about Esau and Jacob as individuals, or the two nations that would spring from them:

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

 

[Drew]

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.

 

[mondar]

As already pointed out, Paul’s statement in Romans 9 about Esau and Jacob is clearly about God keeping a promise made to Sarah. What was this promise?

Right in the context Paul tells us what the promise was....
" and Sarah shall have a son. "

The son was an individual. That is all Paul was using in that context. As already pointed out, Paul does not quote the parts of Genesis that relate to the national implications of Isaac's individual election. So then it is not a part of what Paul is discussing.

I would agree that if the evidence from Genesis suggests a “individual†level promise, then we need to understand Paul as addressing individuals. And if the evidence from Genesis suggests a “group†level promise, then we have to understand Paul as addressing nations. Here is the promise. Let the reader decide if it is about Esau and Jacob as individuals, or the two nations that would spring from them:

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

Certainly there were national implications in Genesis. That was never in dispute. The question in dispute concerns the context of Romans and why did Paul quote parts of Genesis relating to individual election and exclude the very context you quote. Why did Paul choose the material he quoted?

We seem to be in a cycle. I point to the fact that Paul quoted parts of Genesis relating to individual election. You point to parts of Genesis that Paul did not quote that refer to national issues. Can you explain why Paul did not quote the passages in Genesis you refer to?